Remember when we talked about Rep. O’Neill’s idea of capping municipal taxation? Someone was apparently following along:
Seven weeks after she unveiled her budget and a day after she was criticized for not tying her increase in education spending to property tax reform, Gov. M. Jodi Rell unveiled her proposal to cap the amount of taxes municipalities can levy. (Stuart)
Instead of 2.5%, Rell is proposing a 3% cap, with exceptions for grand list growth, debt service and emergencies. Under Rell’s plan, a town would be able to override the cap if 2/3 of that town’s legislative body signed off and a majority of voters agreed at referendum.
Democrats are questioning the move (see reactions at CT News Junkie), and are wondering why this proposal is coming out now instead of with the governor’s budget.
As they should. What was the wait? Was this thrown together at the last minute to counter criticism about not including some sort of property tax reform in the education spending plan?
Of course, the same problems that we discussed the other day arise: towns don’t like it, the tax burden is just shifting to the income tax if there aren’t also cuts in spending and there’s no guarantee that towns won’t find creative ways to bust the cap, just like the legislature and governor do with the state spending cap each and every year.
Source
Stuart, Christine. “Rell Wants to Cap Towns Ability to Tax.” CT News Junkie 28 March, 2007.
52 responses so far ↓
OK – You have your doubts, GC, and I respect that.
But what’s a better alternative?
Do the Dems have a better offer? Not so’s you’d notice …
This is THE issue of the last 10 years. Universal health care is a Johnny come lately by a long shot.
So who’s trying to make it happen?
You have to admit, it is very odd that Rell keeps modifying her budget proposal.
Our legislature normally doesnt work like this.
At the beginning of the session, the governor makes their budget proposal. The legislature then will use that as a guide. The appropriate legislative committees hear from the public on the governor’s proposed budget. Then the committees go and take the suggestions from the governor, along with the suggestions from the public, and create what they think is the best proposal.
Then the governor and legislature put both of their proposals on the table and negotiate over what both sides will agree to.
However, the way she keeps changing her budget proposal (without even talking to legislative leaders before doing so) is a break from this process. The committees are crafting their budgets right now. So how is Rell now going to go and shift gears halfway through the session? It’s abnormal.
Nevermind the fact that this governor does EVERYTHING via press release. Out of all of the governors in modern time, Rell is probably the one who consulted the legislators, including the ones of her own party, the least.
What’s a better alternative? Maybe there isn’t a single one. I think we could be doing a lot of things–there’s a bill out there that would create incentives for towns to regionalize services, and I think that’s a great start. Maybe towns do have to start charging individuals for individual use of services like garbage pickup. Maybe the state has to find ways to actually operate more efficiently, so that the amount of money spent at the state and local level actually either barely grows or actually goes down.
The cap seems a little arbitrary. Maybe it’s not a bad idea–but I don’t think it should be everything by a long shot.
Rell was probably listening to the folks who came to the capitol for “Tax Day” on the 22nd..you know the forum that the press never covered..except the New York Times… Personally I don’t care what revelations Rell has had about this – it’s at least something different and is a decent idea which will help municipalities put a lid on spending. I’d like to see what the Dems counter with .. should be an interesting week.
The absolute last thing we need if for the state government telling the municipal level of government what level of taxation is needed. This is flat out the worst and most antidemocratic idea ever.
Just when you thought Grandma couldn’t get stupider she goes and develops alzheimers.
I would have liked to have seen broader reforms, moving the municipal budget away from the dependence on the property tax and state aid, but it’s something. Any reform needs some sort of cap on municipal spending, there are too many municipalities that will spend without a care if you don’t. It’s a shame, because most municipalities are rather responsible with their money.
I would like to think that this plan took more than five days to conceive, draft, review, and finalize. I would also hope that they’d been thinking about this since before the 22nd since, as RedFive said, “This is THE issue of the last 10 years.” The Legislature has also been demanding since her initial budget address a plan like this. However, the way this administration has been functioning lately, perhaps Rep. O’Neill’s forum had some affect.
What? No mention of inflation. (And no means of tying her proposal into such?)
If inflation were to rear its ugly head, Rell’s proposal would create severe fall-out, and in a hurry. But what do you expect from someone who never finished her college education.
This is just another silly press release, and not worth our time….
I’ve got a post on my blog about this. Needless to say, I love the idea of it taking 33 years for property taxes to double.
ctkeith,
While I routinely follow the posts on this site, I don’t often comment on them. However, your repeatedly insulting banter about the Governor, combined with a remark in another post ridiculing a conservative thinker for holding an opposing point of view, has inspired me to pipe up.
PLEASE attempt to be a trifle less PERSONAL in your attacks in the future. I grasp that you don’t agree with or like Republicans, but we aren’t the spawn of the devil. M’kay?
I seem to recall the President getting bashed for having a ‘if you ain’t with me you gotta be against me’ attitude…something to consider.
Thanks – and have a charming evening.
Chris
I’ve got a post on my blog about this. Needless to say, I love the idea of it taking 33 years for property taxes to double.
Well, it would take only 23.44 years for taxes to double, not the full 33 years, but in any event, the idea probably wasn’t that well thought out.
I’m a little confused about how the grand list growth exemption would work. According to the article, “Any growth in a municipality’s Grand List over 1.5 percent – other than motor vehicles – may be added to the property tax increase for that year.”
So if there’s a revaluation and your house is revalued from $100,000 to $120,000, then is the $18,500 able to be added to the property tax increase (since presumably the other $1,500 would be exempt).
Would motor vehicles therefore have a different tax rate than other property if other property grew slower than motor vehicles, since motor vehicles added to the grand list couldn’t be taxed?
I hope we don’t do what Prop 13 did in California, and start taxing identical properties at radically different rates based on when the properties were last sold.
Education costs due to binding arbitration, increased state mandates, higher operating costs due to things like energy & technology, demands of No Child Left Behind, and employee health insurance are what drive local tax increases in most towns. Unless the Governor’s proposal addresses those issues it is unrealistic to expect towns to limit increases to 3%. This proposal does not work unless teacher wage and benefit costs are limited to 3% or less per year. This is far below what has been the experience of most towns and far below the average increase in state employee costs which is between 4.5% and 5.5% in wage increases and up to 10% a year in benefits. We are being served another meal from this administration that is coming out of the oven only partially cooked.
Rell’s stupid, idiotic budget is a stab in the back to Ct taxpayers. She has destroyed what little incentive there is for productive citizens to live in this state. Our tax burden is outrageuos and she proposes increasing it.
This latest proposal is window dressing on an outrageous scheme to defraud the citizens.
Joey,
No argument.
I also believe that the Democratic knee jerk response stems, in part, from the fact that such a cap could limit future arbitration awards.
Unless we somehow get a grip on the constant and relentless escalation of the costs of public and municipal employees, tax relief will never happen.
Joey’s post raises some key points. It has always seemed insane to me that towns which pay close to 100% of their education costs cannot use that fact to combat the call for increased wages by the teachers. State guidelines drive the pay mandated for teachers, irrespective of the local economic conditions. Insane.
So much for civil discourse ..
CTKeith.. yup this is a blog .. but you could be more civil.
You don’t agree with Chris.. fine.. but please save us all the sophomoric rant.
Hey Chris,
Love your 06 election issue page
http://www.oliveira2006.com/crime.html
I noticed when I clicked on most of the issues it says “coming soon”.
How soon can we expect your position papers for the 06 election?
LMAO,
ACR says your IQ is higher by 20 points than the rest of the members of the Republican State Central Committee.
Maybe he’s right and maybe thats why Rells coattails were so,whats the word,MISSING.
At least Chris has the balls to run for office, it’s alot easier to be a foul mouth and inconsiderate anonymous blogger.
Everyone, please remember the Rules for Commenting.
Also, Keith is anything but anonymous. There isn’t a politician in this state who doesn’t know his name, face, and mission.
Rell wants to cap the budgets of the 169 CT municipal CEO’s when she’s not willing to cap her own. Granny just doesn’t get it.
I agree with CT Keith…the state & feds should get out of local politics. NO more state mandates, no more binding arbitration, no more No Child Left Behind and no more caps on property tax. Let each municipality decide for themselves!!! Great post (#5)!!!
I call BS on CGG. You are a contributor to this site, and you are defending CtKeith’s continued abusive remarks toward others.
Secondly, no I don’t have a clue who Ctkeith is in real life and am surprised someone of his arrogance and vileness would even have a public life. Ctkeith and CGG’s defense of Ctkeith stand in stark contrast to the principles of this site.
Rightyright,
Try Google.If you can’t figure out my full name in 3 minutes or less give up your computer to someone worthy of its capabilities.
Start by googling ctkeith.
If you have a little time and a little grey matter you might even learn that I WAS a candidate for State Senate and my Candidacy,though short lived,had a much bigger effect on state politics than Mr Oliveiras ever will.
Dude-I could care less who you are, but do the rest of us a favor and keep the bitterness to Kos. thanks.
Mr. Reality,
Binding Arbitration killed the middle class.It took hard decisions out of politicians hands and made unions leadership a bunch of unichs wose only job was to become moneychangers.
The middle class decline can be directly linked to the passing of the first TAYLOR LAW.
RR,
Turn off your computer and go watch Fox,you’ll feel much better.
I’m not defending Keith’s remarks. What I am doing is attempting to pull this thread back from being a flame war, and yes Keith’s comments are part of the problem. Please everyone stop. I hate deleting comments, especially on someone else’s post.
But you also said that Keith is anonymous, which is untrue.
Fair and Balanced!!!
Interesting – no one named Keith Crane has run for State Senate since 1998, according to the SOTS election results PDFs/pages.
CGG,
I read the rules and followed them very carefully.
I understand “BITE ME” might have gotten some of these silly Republicans upset but it expressed my feelings so much better than saying “I’m sorry we disagree, Buffy” that I just had to write it.
Sorry, Keith, encouraging another poster to bite you is definitely over the line.
CGG, who are you trying to kid, if it was a conservative who said “bite me” you would have deleted the comment. But since it is keith you left it because he is on your side.
keith, when you are talking with your brother and niece who are both conservative, are you a jerk to them?
Sorry GC,
I’ll try to keep my language to that you’d only hear in the 50,000 a yr. Connecticut College Classroom you’re so proud to have attended.
Whatever, a lively discussion is always fun. I can agree with Keith that Rell bites.
I guess tellig someone to STFU is OK folks as long as you use 500 words and lawyerly ways of doing it.
How civil.Enjoy your crumpets.
” might have gotten some of these silly Republicans upset but it expressed my feelings so much better than saying “I’m sorry we disagree, Buffy” that I just had to write it.”
Now I have to comment…….. While the above comment was not directed at me, I do find it bothersome. I am not some silly Republican. But I tend to vote that way more than democratic. I mostly try to let the merits of a position influence me more than who’s party it came from. Are those of us who do that rather than vote Demcratic really so silly?
Are other comments like the following really necessary here?
“Just when you thought Grandma couldn’t get stupider she goes and develops alzheimers.” I am sure I am not the only one who posts here who has someone close to them suffering from this illness.
I get upset when I read comments like:
“ACR says your IQ is higher by 20 points than the rest of the members of the Republican State Central Committee” ……
Is there some reason to suggest one party in this state is so dumb it is responsible for the fiscal mess we have here, given that the other party has controlled the General Assembly for years now?
I’ll pass on “BITE ME”……and let the level of that dialogue speak for itself.
And lastly!!!
“Turn off your computer and go watch Fox,you’ll feel much better.”…….That is exactly what I intend to do right now…..I am hoping when I turn it back on the level of discussion will have made it worth while.
Rell is just shooting from the hip again and she doesn’t even have her party on board with her; from a meeting yesterday:: McKinney said the GOP has a problem with Rell’s proposal to pay for the school aid by raising the state income tax a half-percentage point over two years. He also said he does not believe her argument that the additional education funding will provide property tax relief.
McKinney said in the first year of the plan his constituents in Fairfield will send $20 million in income tax revenue to the state and receive only $2 million in new education aid.
“That makes no sense,” he said.
http://www.norwalkadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-nor.breakfast3mar29,0,3094274.story?coll=nor-news-local-headlines
LC,
Yes,
And they give as good as they get.
Fortunately for me I’ve been winning most of the bets and intend on continueing that trend.
It is hard enough for municipalities to get there budgets passed now. A 3% cap will force towns and cities to make some unpleasant choices to fund the already existing mandates without providing the desired tax relief to the average taxpayer. There must be meaningful tax reform (all taxes, not just property tax), encouragement of regional solutions to local service problems, and some mandate changes (such as binding arbitration, retirement fund controls, etc) to provide real relief without cutting needed services. The problem is getting members of the legislature, the legislative leadership, the governor, and local officials to agree on the solutions. Herding cats is easier.
Maybe (as suggested by someone here long ago) this budget is just a ruse. Rell will ultimately veto anything that comes out of the legislature.
I sure hope so.
Hey folks. Someone might want to take a breath and notice that all Rell did was put out a press release along with a not-very-detailed power point posted on her website. In fact, the power point was little more than a press release itself. It came complete with slides devoted to “quotes” from the Governor. Great way to get press. Not a great way to actually produce substantive policy change.
And by the way Governor, the fact that Connecticut has one of the highest per-capita property tax bills in the nation might have something to do with the fact that our property values, and income levels, are a wee bit higher than say, Mississippi’s.
I wonder why the Governor doesn’t talk in her press release about the percentage of a family’s income that goes to property taxes. Could it be that the story she wants to tell isn’t helped by pointing out that the Connecticut taxpayers paying the lowest amount of their income in property taxes happen to be the wealthiest families in the wealthiest communities?
Keith (and everyone else),
Wow – while I fully expected you might react somewhat negatively to my remarks about your level of civility and the personal tone of your attacks, I had no idea that it would ignite a mini flame war! LOL
Keith, I’m glad you ran for office (in truth I didn’t know that) and I imagine you must thus have some idea of how complex an undertaking that can be. I’m not going to spend a lot of time defending my 2006 run (that wasn’t the subject of my post), but I’ll note for the record that: while it was my first ever run for public office, I managed to come in 3rd statewide (among Republican Senate challengers) and mine was the only district in the state where the margin of victory of the Democrat DECREASED from 2004 to 2006. Oh, and my website was FAR more complete then that of my opponent. I was proud of the run – and I’d be honored to do so again some day.
Anyway, all I was trying to tell you was that you MIGHT want to think about adopting a more civil tone both here and in your general political life. You tend to make wild assumptions about what background we Republicans come from (the only Buffy I know is BTVS) and launch personal attacks (bashing my 2006 outcome, the Governor’s education, etc) rather then addressing issues.
I know I’m probably not going to achieve anything more than becoming the subject of another one of your rants, but I’ll tell you what – if we do a CTLP meetup I’ll offer to buy you a drink and talk politics with you. You might just discover there are some things we even have in common.
Chris
P.S. Thank you to those who were kind enough to say a kind word about me or the campaign (or even just joined in expressing your similar opinion).
I wonder why the Governor doesn’t talk in her press release about the percentage of a family’s income that goes to property taxes. Could it be that the story she wants to tell isn’t helped by pointing out that the Connecticut taxpayers paying the lowest amount of their income in property taxes happen to be the wealthiest families in the wealthiest communities?
Connecticut has a major geographical issue that keeps property taxes high. As I’ve written here in the past, many of the highest income earners in Connecticut work in New York state. Thus, they pay income taxes to NY state and typically don’t pay anything to Connecticut. Even our own Genghis Conn pays no income tax to Connecticut, as he works in Massachusetts (Genghis has said he is not one of the highest earners in the state though). Since a large portion of our highest income earners don’t pay income tax to Connecticut, raising income taxes isn’t going to get any tax revenues from these people. Taxes from these people will start flowing to Hartford only after Connecticut’s income tax surpasses New York’s tax rate.
Connecticut probably has the highest percentage of its worker income earned by people that commute across state lines every day. We’re a small state next to a major urban area in the next state. There are other places with this characteristic: NJ (Philly and NYC, and NJ also has high property taxes); NH (Boston, but NH has no income tax so this is irrelevant for them); Maryland (DC, but MD commuters pay their income tax to MD not DC, same as VA Commuters). But CT is probably the most pronounced of these.
True, people commute into CT from neighboring states. But the car commuters probably cancel each other out, but many more people take Metro North from all the CT stops than young single Manhattanites reverse commuting to Stamford or Greenwich to work at UBS or various hedge funds. There may be a fair number of people commuting from RI to the casinos, but those are lower wage jobs that don’t generate significat income tax revenue.
I think that any attempt to significantly shift the tax burden from property to income is going to run into this problem. There are a lot of commuters. I now work in NY state, and thus am more indifferent to Rell’s latest proposal, since it won’t really affect me any (I seriously doubt municipalities will lower their property tax rates any, but maybe a miracle will happen, and I’ll wind up with lower property taxes and the same income tax rate, which all goes to NY state anyway).
Keith,
As CGG suggested I did a little reading on you (I knew a bit about who you were before – but now I have the full picture). I just wanted to say that, while I don’t always agree with your methods or ideas, I do respect both your passion and your participation in the political process.
I understand that you are angry at the political establishment in America. There are a great number to reasons why you should be, but if there is one piece of advice I’d offer you, it is not to dismiss all Republicans (or conservative Democrats) as eternally opposed to your POV. There are men and women from all sides of the political spectrum who are frustrated and want change.
Please just keep that in mind before you turn your guns in their direction. And I’d still be happy to buy you that drink.
Thanks,
Chris
CFOliveria,
I don’t like being told to STFU.
If we were at the roundtable of the Senate I’d be required to speak in a tone and by the rules of the Senate.Here I’m Not.
I’ll continue to call the Governor an idiot until she stops acting like one.
If the very tame remarks that instigated your first comment in this thread upset you so that you were forced into commenting here I suggest you may not be ready for the wild wild west of the internets.
PS- I never mounted a campaign. I accepted the nomination as a “Placeholder” because I knew Aniskovich would be pretty easily beaten and then went out and helped Ed Meyer do just that.
I’m confused… who told Crane to STFU?
>>I’m confused… who told Crane to STFU?
No one, but don’t spoil the moment – it’s such a happy thought.
Not to get back to issues, but CCM is ready to talk property taxes. Rell is ready to talk property taxes. Even Looney seems ready to talk property taxes.
What’s wrong with Jimmy & Donny? Isn’t the property tax burden the burning issue of the last 20 years? That and education?
Where’s the LEADERSHIP of the General Assembly? Peevish about that lunch Grandma ate? You know, the one CTK says is “irRellevant”?
LOL indeed.
Redfive,
I’m no fan of Jimmy but the reason IrRellevant piped up yesterday and interjected her insanely assinine proposal via news conference is because she’s being ignored where the deals are already being made.
When noone needs you it’s no longer a bully pulpit its just a pulpit. Thats a lesson W and Rell are learning together.
Maybe Jodi and George should have lunch and a god cry together.
You’d like to believe that, I know, CTK … But your friends in the Education Committee don’t seem to agree – they have already offered a pale version of the governor’s plan.
What are you willing to bet on a pale property tax relief plan sneaking out of FRB or Approps some time in, oh, the next few weeks?
Or maybe Donny & Jimmy have a news conference set for Monday? They can intro their energy plan and their health plan and their education plan and their property tax plan and their full-time legislature plan and their transportation plan and their …
Oh, wait - it’s too late in the session for complicated plans, isn’t it?
Guess we’ll settle for a full-time legislature and a Mini-Me bond commission for Democrats.
As a member of the Glastonbury Town Council, we just finished our budget. The Governor’s ideas are laudable, but the delivery will be a disaster. Our spending rate will go up about 4.6% this year besides having a grand list growth of 1.9%(and the associated taxes). The problem is that teacher salaries are going up by 3%(followed by all other municipal employees) plus step increases which pushes up salaries by 5%. Health care is pushing up our costs 1.25%. With a cost structure increasing at 6% a 3% cap will kill us over time.
The income tax proposal will drain $10+ million from our town’s economy and we will get $1.5 or so. Our school budget is $77 million, so it will hardly make a dent in our inflation of $5 million for just schools, but will make us poorer to take care of ourselves.
We need the legislature to allow us to have cost controls in our municipalities to solve the rising local burden. The only cost controls that help regard labor because that is 80+% of the town and school combined budget.
Our schools are some of the best performing, at some of the lowest per pupil costs in the state, so we are not wasting money compared to the rest of the state. We all understand that the urban schools are largely failing and they need a new approach. Why not be honest and say that the 10 +/- urban districts need 3 year old preschool, all day and Saturday regular school enrichment, and summer programs for all students? We know we will pay, but at least we know what we are getting and can track how well it works.
Property tax reform and education reform are key if we are to keep everyone from abandoning CT. They are linked, but lets design a plan that actually addresses our needs rather than worry about a soundbite-that has already been done.
Chip Beckett,
Agree that it would better if the matter of escalating costs and PTaxes were addressed head on, but this is Connecticut where that never happens because there too many fingers in each pie that have to be placated.
Without endorsing Rell’s or any other plan in particular, I do see a PT Cap as giving the towns some leverage over the various unions. If the money not there to fund raises, etc, the alternative is to cut the headcount. Having the matter go to the voters also provides cover for the elected officials in such an event.
What do you think?
JM,
Sorry I did not get back sooner. In an ideal world the unions would agree to wage limitations, but I don’t think they will.
I think that we should recognize that the state does not treat towns equally. I would scrap the ECS formula and pay a capitation to each town for each student of say $2000. Then, I would provide specific aid to failing school systems for specific improvements and enhancements such as free preschool from 3 years old, afternoon study/interest programs, Saturday school and summer programs. It would be a much more transparent and fair system that would not be gamed by certain incumbent politicians(both parties). Citizens would understand what is going on.
The towns would then pay for teachers out of their property tax revenue. They would have to balance teacher numbers and pay as they currently do.
My other hope would be that development is driving a lot of suburbanizing costs for school expansion. To pay for that urbanization, we should charge sales tax on all real estate transactions and let the towns affected keep the money for land preservation/protection and infrastucture improvement. Impact fee legalization would be another approach used in a lot of high growth states, so as to avoid taxing existing residents that gain no value from the development.I do not think it will hurt the builders at all, they will just tend to rebuild in areas with infrastucture rather than in green field areas. I think that is an industry that has been given a pass on taxation, while the rest of the state’s businesses are heavily taxed.
You must log in to post a comment.