Dave Weighs in on the Tuesday August 26th Special Town Meeting
Tuesday’s Special Town Meeting presented a couple of interesting situations:
First, I am still not sure how many people actually knew that there was a special town meeting that night or that it might have impacted them directly through their taxes.
As Jim Kaeding pointed out during the discussion, the only people who appear to have received official notification and explanation of the exemption proposal were the farmers who might have benefited from it; hardly a case of good communications and open government – perhaps even illegal, but I’ll leave that for someone else to chase down. I’m guessing the Secretary of State’s office could be of assistance. While there were about a hundred people who showed up, I wonder how many more would have if they only knew about it and what it was about.
In any case, the proposal passed allowing for an exemption for certain property valued up to $100,000 if used exclusively for farming for qualifying ‘farmers’ (another issue I won’t go into here). During the meeting, and since, the impact of this on the other taxpayers in Woodstock was discussed and a number in the neighborhood of $50,000 was tossed out and it was suggested that that would mean something like $10 for each taxpayer. This is where things get interesting.
The good news is it won’t cost the taxpayers anything in increased taxes. Why? Prop 46.
You see, Prop 46 limits any increase in spending to the increase in the Grand List plus the increase in state and federal funding, other income and four defined situations that were deemed not in the control of the town, specifically; emergency expenses, legal judgments, state mandated programs and debt service.
During the meeting I asked the town assessor if the exemption would reduce the grand list, his initial response was “yes”. I then went on to explain that it would then mean that the tax-limit under Prop 46 would be reduced reflecting the decrease in the grand list.
Dave Hosmer asked if it wasn’t true that the property would still remain on the grand list and that too got a positive response causing the assessor to come back to me and say that my statements regarding Prop 46 were wrong. As it turns out, the answers to both questions were technically correct. The properties would remain on the grand list as Dave Hosmer suggested, but, the grand list is actually an aggregate valuation of property within the town. In other words, it is made of a number of parts. Assessed values of residential property, commercial, industrial, land, personal property, etc. are added up and then exemptions are netted out to yield a “Net Grand List” value that is the tax base for the town.
So, in fact, that grand list is reduced by the amount of the added exemptions. Bottom line, whatever properties are exempted under the new ordinance, that value will be added to the exemptions that already exist and that amount deducted from the increase in the grand list for the October 1st 2008 valuation.
The bad news, for the spenders in town, is something in the neighborhood of $50,000 in funding just evaporated.
More disconcerting is that I doubt that the selectmen or the Board of Finance had any idea that this was going to be the effect.
Dave Richardson
So, am I to understand here that the $10 increase they talked about is not possible and this is simply a give away?
You know what, if you take the cumulative total of the IQ of our selectmen including that of rocket scientist Eaffy you'd never get higher than room temperature.
"IQ of our selectmen including that of rocket scientist Eaffy you'd never get higher than room temperature".
Eaffy doesn't have to be smart! He is bedding a Young girl. He is on the CME payroll and part of the clique. (GET IT?)...
First of all, I am not sure who got the official letter because I got one and I am not a farmer and will not benefit from this ordinance, even though I supported it from its inception about a year and a half ago.
My question is: Does Prop 46 call for the Grand List or the Net Grand List to be used for calculating the tax ceiling? My recollection is that it says Grand List.
Prop 46 actually says, "revenue generated by growth in the Grand List" and is therefore based on the Net Grand List which is the basis for generating revenue. Also, the Grand List as defined by the State of Connecticut is "the aggregate valuation of TAXABLE property within a given town" which is the Net Grand List value as mentioned in my commentary, therefore, they are one in the same. Hope this helps.
Dave,
Once again thank you for your insight. Is it fair to say that while this may not impact our taxes that it may diminish revenue available for other town services? While I'm glad people like you have the finance part of things down (you should run for the BOF) I am also concerned about the process that took place and wonder if you think we should have had a town hearing first and then a vote? While certainly I support the preservation of farmland, I am fearful of abuses such as is suspect with PA-490. The common school of thought is that it preserves open space/farmland and on that premise it is beneficial. But I have also heard the argument that this does not really slow development as there is still plenty of other land out there. While perhaps we can never legally really slow or stop development, should we be fooled into thinking that PA-490 really helps to serve its intended purpose? What are your thoughts?
There are three separate issues here: First on diminished revenue, there will be something like $50,000 less revenue available for town and education funding as a result of this exemption. Second on the communications issue, I think this is the most important issue. This meeting and vote was held with only a small defined sub-group of taxpayers having been more fully informed - they at least got letters. This is highly questionable in my opinion. Whether the best approach would have been to have a town hearing or the use of some other means of communication would have been better could be argued, but that a better job of communicating was needed isn't. Last on PA490, I think it probably does help preserve open space and while some may "suspect" abuse, I haven't heard anything specific that would suggest that abuse is a major issue with this program. So until I know something different I would support it.
"OH! What a tangled web we weave,when first we practice to deceive".
This is why there is no trust in Woodstock.
When State reps sit in support of dishonest town practices, when builders, dictate to a Town how wetland should be disrespected and disrespect educated wetland experts and that certain clique of dishonest supporters agree and pass this just because they stack the deck. This would be a time to contact Secretary of State’s office maybe it could be of assistance. At least let them know how people like Mike Alberts represents some of the people not all. Please remember this on election day and vote.
Yes Maggie it is a real can of worms around here and I agree that Mike Alberts is no bargain at times, but Sherri Vogt is no bargain either- she was up to her eyes in the Breen proposal and this will be the subject of an upcoming article. Looks like we'll have to "pick a poison".
Sherri Vogt , you can't be serious. The economics of today will take care of the Alberts/Builder gig, but Sherri Vogt is extremely dangerous in that before she ran against Mike last time, she conspired with the Chairman of the old DTC to sell out our Academy to the BOE. This woman is not to be trusted and the only donation I would make to her is bus fare out of town.
Not a Farmer,
Why do I keep hearing that this ordinace has been in the works for a couple of years? You wrote above that it was a year and a half ago.
The selectmen's minutes indicate that this committee was put together in October of 2007. Huh?
Mr. Richardson,
I have not been to this site, yet. But, I was sent a link to your article this morning.
Thank you for the information! I have been questioning this myself.
As you seem to know so much about all of this, I would like to ask your opinion on something:
If the gross grand list did not realize a significant increase which could offset "exemptions", would the "increase in grand list" revenues on the Prop 46 calculation sheet indicate this reduction?
And, if there was a reduction in the "estimated revenues" on the Prop 46 calculation sheet (due to the loss of revenue from the exemptions), as well, could there be a more significant effect on the budget than the estimated $44,000 loss in tax revenue (from the presentation at the town meeting)???
There are a couple of twists to this question so I'll give it my best shot.
To put the size of the exemptions in perspective, if the numbers that were used on Tuesday are roughly correct - that is about $3 million dollars in property value that could be exempted -- then it would take less than 4 tenths of one percent growth in gross assessments to completely offset the exemptions. Even in a bad year I'm guessing that's likely.
Having said that, if the growth in the gross assessments were less than the exemptions then, in my opinion, the Prop 46 Worksheet would show a zero for increased revenue from the increase in the grand list. I don't believe it can show a negative number for this item the way Prop 46 is written, and that would mean that the tax rate would be increased to offset the loss in revenue. That loss in revenue could only be equal to the exemption if total gross assessments actually shrank. But, again to keep things in perspective, it would only take a 0.4% increase in other areas to offset, so that's not likely.
Thanks for the response. Though I must confess that I'm not sure I follow.
For instance, when looking at the 08-09 Prop 46 calculation sheet, it indicates the "increase from grand list" figure as $143,707.
Am I missing something when looking at this?
Just to clarify. I did not mean to suggest that I believe that a negative number could be used in the "increase from grand list" portion of the calculation sheet.
I was simply wondering if exemptions could be significant enough to whittle down the "increase from grand list". It does not seem like it would be that difficult to do with a $143K increase - considering the amount of exemptions.
Hope this is making some sense.
Keep in mind that the number on the worksheet is only the tax effect, the revenue. Three million dollars in exemptions only amounts to just over $50,000, and last year was a slow year for growth.
I guess what I'm asking is:
1) Would that $50,000 reduction be reflected in both areas? The "increase from grand list" AND the "estimated revenues" sections of the Prop 46 calculation sheet?
2) If the $50,000 reduction was reflected in the "increase from grand list" section of the Prop 46 calculation sheet, then the "maximum allowable under Prop 46" section is then $50,000 less than it might otherwise be, right?
3) Even if there is a $ figure reflected in the "increase from grand list" section of the Prop 46 calculation sheet, does it stand to reason that $ figure is $50,000 less than it would have been (since the $50,000 in exemptions would have been reflected in the net grand list)?
Sorry to keep hounding you about it, I am just trying to make sense of it and it's rather complicated (at least to me).
You need to take a couple of steps back, you're getting a bit tied up in the details.
When you're talking about exemptions you're talking about exempting the value of property, up to $100,000 per building. When you're talking about the Prop 46 Worksheet you're talking about the revenue, or tax impact resulting from the exemptions -- basically the mil rate times the exempted value.
The number that was tossed out on Tuesday night was a likely maximum of $3,000,000 in property that could be exempted based on the listing that the committee was working with. This $3,000,000 in exemptions could reduce the grand list by that amount and the result of that reduction in the grand list could reduce tax revenue by roughly $52,000. That loss of revenue would be reflected. It would reduce the amount that would be shown on the Prop 46 Worksheet in the area of increased revenue from the Grand List.
Hope this helps, if not give me a call and I'll try to explain.
Yes. I do understand that the value of the assessments are removed from the grand list as exemptions and that the $ value (tax revenue of the exemptions) are then used on the Prop 46 calculation sheet.
I guess my point was that the approximate $50K WOULD be reflected on the Prop 46 calculation sheet in the "increase from grand list" area. And that depending upon how significant that increase from grand list is, a $52K deduction WOULD be noticeable. Right?
What I was just trying to clarify is whether or not the $52K would be reflected as a reduction in the "estimated revenues" section, as well.
I'm sure that I'm not doing a great job of asking these questions. I appreciate you taking the time to answer them for me. Thanks!
If you're looking at the Prop 46 Worksheet, the ~$50,000 would be reflected in the section labeled "REVENUES" on the line "INCREASE FROM GRAND LIST". This is the only place that it would impact. Whether it would be noticeable would depend on the amount of underlying growth over the last year. If the growth was small, it could drive the increase on the worksheet to zero, if the growth is larger it might get harder to see the impact.
Admin.,
I am surprised by your reply to Maggie. Why are you willing to forego voting for Sherri Vogt simply because of the Breen proposal? Don't you think the Breen Proposal minor in comparison to the other issues at stake?
What is it that you hold so dearly about the Academy that would make it a primary thrust in your support against Sherri Vogt….at the cost of electing Mike Alberts who has NONE of your interests at heart…unless you are a builder or a farmer. It seems like a high price to pay for the Academy. Making a single minor issue such as the Breen proposal the stalwarth decision making point while willing to sacrifice the other more important issues simply does not make sense.
Further, and you might not like this, I want to make a case in support of Joe Breen. At the expense of differences in opinion on educational funding (minor issue), Joe Breen, who truly has the brains, the will, the experience, and the chutzpah to make a difference in overcoming the Old Gaurd special interests (a major issue) that Maggie and others are now all crying about, lost his position as DTC chair and the P&Z board because of the same special interest tactics that the Old Gaurd is adept at playing. I find this so ironically amusing.
It was a huge mistake to make education the focal point of the DTC and let it divide the party. Losing Joe Breen on P&Z was a greater loss for the town than preventing his Academy proposal from moving forward. So both sides are guilty and once again the prevalence of special interests, who's fear mongering serves to meet their own minor needs, deny the rest of us a government that protects all else we hold dear.
So please don't fall into the trap of not voting for someone because of a minor issue when what you risk is losing all the major ones. See the new article on the main page...
I know Ms. Wholean was working on setting up this committee before the election last year. It is often several months between conceiving of a special committee and having that committee get to work.
FWIW, Mr Chmura is not a farmer as far as I know, and he was on the committee.
Mr. Richardson,
Thank you for taking the time to try and explain this all to me.
Can you tell me what particular "revenues" comprise the "estimated revenues" portion of the Prop 46 calculation sheet?
If you're talking about the Prop 46 Worksheet there is no estimated revenues section, there is a "Revenues" section and there are generally three line items: Increase in Grand List (meaning increased tax revenues from the increase in the Grand List), Increase in State Grants, and Increase in Other Income.