The Town's CFO, Finance Director Ray Jankowski, is pulling out his hair. And don't make any jokes...he still has plenty of it. What it appears that he has very little left of is a sense of humor about the Town's financial well-being. If you'd care to ask him about his budget concerns, call him at 355-6060. If you do call, you'll be a member of a very small group that does not include the overwhelming majority of our elected officials. It seems that not many folks from our Town Council and Board of Finance bother to ask him the important questions like, what does our ECS money look like this year? How are collections going? What impact do the fed reductions have on our budget? Are we doing anything that will impact our Moody's rating? What planning must we do now to help next year's budget? What does our debt service look like? Are there any problems with medical accounts? I'm certainly no expert on municipal finance and GAAP but I do know enough to predict that the taxpayers are not going to be willing to support much of a tax increase, if any.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
Increases in the budget should be achieved through GROWTH. Where is the GROWTH in New Milford? in CT?
Are there any S&P 500 companies moving into town? into the state? Where are the new jobs?
New Milford needs a corporate center that provides corporate jobs. Only when New Milford has GROWTH, should there be any talk of a TAX RATE increase!
One problem is that we have approved large abatements for the elderly, volunteers, medinstill, court cases that all reduces the taxes that are collected off an already stagnate Grand List. I feel sorry for the finance office that has to write the checks off this years Grand List!!
All abatements are great to have but what would happen if we all paid our fair share? Business's would pay on all the assets they have rather than suppling information only on assets they want to pay on. I should know I'm one of them!!!
It sounds like you think the government can spend your money better than you can. Nobody's stopping you from paying more taxes. In fact, you could give everything you have to the government in order to have no more worries and be well taken care of for the rest of your life.
Every year Normon Koch announces that he'd get another mortgage on his house if that's what it took to pass a budget.
He should make that contribution anyway, considering how much he cost the Town for education.
I can't wait for the real grand opening of the budget season. Think the Mayor, Council or Board of Finance will make any substantial cuts before sending the budget out to the voters or will they do the "David Lawson" thing and "let the voters decide."
What a crock.
These “fair share” people really crack me up. Did you ever notice it’s always someone else who’s not paying their “fair share”?
Tax planning is the legal right of every American. Federal and State courts recognize that no taxpayer is obliged to arrange his/her affairs in order to maximize the tax the government receives. Individuals and businesses are entitled to take all lawful steps to minimize their taxes.
I just hope that the Council doesn't revisit layoffs of town employees - there are other, greater avenues for cutting...or planning ahead as Jay mentioned.
Not building very very large multi-million dollar structures is to firing secretaries
AS
Trimming the fat is to trimming the toenails.
I am pleased though, as about 10 years ago no residents wanted to vote against the BOE side, only the Town side. That has changed in the last few years and I'm glad they are being held [slightly] more accountable for their much larger budget. The Town has to take care of a lot of business for its portion of the buck! I don't know if most people realize that all the borrowing is included in the Town's portion; that's about $8 or 9 million I believe.
And BOE always pulls the heartstring move - pay to play, etc. How could the town do that? Close the libary on Mondays? Fire a police officer? Shut off the electricity in town hall? No one would even notice any of these things!
Norman Koch… Isn’t he the New Milford Affordable Housing Corporation guy? Apparently, it hasn’t yet occurred to him that high taxes make New Milford less affordable for lower income people. Wealthy people like the good Rabbi may be able to afford mortgaging their homes to pay ever-soaring taxes, but what about those of us who can’t? He’s completely out of touch with middle-class taxpayers. He definitely doesn’t speak for us.
I pay a little over $1,000 per month in New Milford property taxes. In order to take home the $12,000 annually I need to pay my New Milford tax bill, I have to earn over $17,000. Then, after Uncle Sam takes his cut for federal taxes, Social Security and Medicare, and Connecticut skims off state taxes, I’m left with $12,000 to fork over to the town.
If I gave my house to a homeless person for free, they’d be back on the street in a year because they couldn’t afford the taxes (not to mention utilities, upkeep, etc.).
Maybe local “social justice crusaders” like Rabbi Koch, Rev Mulligan, et. al. should consider the expense vs. effectiveness of the ruinous, expensive, big-government social policies they peddle. The high taxes required to pay for these ineffective government programs are actually holding down the low income people they profess they’re trying to help.
Believe it or not, your religious congregations would be infinitely more compassionate and effective helping people than the government ever could be.
That must be one heck of a house! It's must be tough being rich...
No, it's a relatively average house that's overtaxed...
I don't think most people around here even realize what they're paying in property taxes (home, vehicles, other personal property, etc.). That's because it's hidden as part of their mortgage payment.
If I were king for a day I'd eliminate all withheld taxes (property, payroll, Social Security, etc.) and require all taxpayers to write one large check at the end of the year to pay for all the wonderful services the government provides them. Then maybe people wouldn't want so much from government anymore.
As for the fiscal health of the Town's budget, let us NOT forget that the real money lies in the BOE budget--every day I hear the woes of "I pay Taxes why can't I get the government to do .....?" Well, the truth is the for every $1.00 collected the BOE gets to spend .70 cents and the whole Town government side has to SHARE the rest--30 cents. The BOE is ONE department. The Town has many. So out of the .30 cents, please figure that Health, Zoning, Public Works,Town Clerk,Planning, Wetlands, Police and all the rest survive on about 2-3 CENTS to the dollar--and THAT'S why you can't always have....(what you want). That's why there needs to be MORE accountability for the spending of the BOE money. Notice I said accountability--show me the reasons you need to spend and I might agree. Then again I might not and come up with an alternative. Does the BOE or the Administration have a "grants administrator" or other person dedicated to finding the hundreds of millions of dollars out there for schools and teachers and non-profits? Now THAT's a position I would whole heartedly support!
Anonmous said:
"Maybe local “social justice crusaders” like Rabbi Koch, Rev Mulligan, et. al. should consider the expense vs. effectiveness of the ruinous, expensive, big-government social policies they peddle"
And the churches and synagogues should pay property taxes like the rest of us. That's called pay to pray.
That's called pay to pray.
That's great!
To White Rabbit: Yes, the BOE has a person who apparently does the work of a grant administrator. The reason I wrote "apparently" is because it is not clear to me who does that work. The BOE hired two new people when Tom Corbett retired but he's been rehired on a per diem.
Yes, for those of you who remember this debate from not too long ago, the Superintendent got her way and did a classic end-run on the BOE Members.
You make a very good point. Instead of offering to "mortgage his home" again this year, Rabbi Koch could simply pay the exempted taxes on his synagogue. That would truly demonstrate the genuineness of his commitment to public education in New Milford.
To Little Miss M:
Indeed, it is true that the BOE's debt service is paid by the "Town side." The BOE's share of the total debt service is $4,700,000.
A few more facts:
1) The school budget that was passed by the BOE would alone result in a 5.7% tax increase. That is to say, before a cop starts his car, before a plow goes out, before a light is turned on in Town Hall, before John opens the gate at the Recycling Center the taxpayers would be paying a tax increase of 5.7%; and
2) Every year, the "Town side" gives up items because the BOE gets more money.
Jay, do you or Michel Gutman know this one?
Every year, the BoE budgets for 400 to 500 kids to attend summer school. And for the past couple of years, they get maybe 100.
So what's up with this? It's just another part of the game.
You know that the BoE passes whatever is put in front of their noses by Paddyfote. She pads every single line item. She overstates the expenses. You might ask, what good does this do? Easy.
Unlike the town, the BoE has the legal right to move money around from one line to the other. So when it magically finds money in one account it uses it for another purpose. That's the incentive to do exactly what she does. And you're right...she's an expert!
If you can afford a million dollar home you can afford a grand a month in taxes. Sell your home and "downsize" to a four bedroom on a few acres for $400,000 and you'll have plenty of cash for your $7000 +- annual property taxes. The advice is free... the knuckleheads are priceless... :>)
Growth Growth Growth is the only way for this town to afford all of the things that it wants or needs now and into the future.
Next year there will be almost 100 million dollars worth of newly developed real estate and equipment in this town to be added to the grand list. That would have been greater if the Still Meadow Project was approved. We can't keep town owned property in reserve and expect to grow our grand list.
As a town we must keep our eye on the future, make the changes for growth and get thru this budget without beating our citizens and our public officials over the head.
"Keep moving Forward"
It's not a "million dollar home", it's just taxed like one...
In other towns the church
involvment in the community made up for the fact that they pay no
taxes.
Our community provides the location for loaves and fishes and for the food pantry. Most other towns (in fact I do not know of one that does not) the churches or other not for profits provide this service. They also provide homeless shelters. Mulligan and Koch want the town to pay for this. Thats fine, then I agree they should pay taxes. If they don't want to provide the social services that traditionally are paid for by not for profits such as churches, and they think social services should be expanded and the town provide a homeless shelter paid for by the taxpayers then they should pay taxes for their church or synagogue.
Great advice "knucklehead".
The way taxes and spending keep increasing around here, the annual property taxes on that $400,000 house you smugly mentioned will be over $12,000 in a few years, what do you suggest then, "downsizing" into a trailer?
Where do you come up with that "$100,000,000" added to the grand list next year?
Even if that was true, the assessed value would be 70% or $70,000,000 at a mill rate of 21 or so. That would add $1,470,000. Then what????
It's not a "million dollar home", it's just taxed like one...
What does that mean? If the assessed value is high, and it must be if you pay over $10k in taxes, there are basically two possibilities. One, your home is indeed worth quite a bit. Two, your home has been incorrectly assessed. If it is the latter, take action with the assessors office.
Either way, your argument that the finances of the entire town are out of whack because you don't like your taxes is weak. The finances may be in trouble, but your griping gets us nowhere.
The guy probably lives on the lake - I know a lot of "modest" homes on the lake that are taxed that high. They could sell a "shack" on the lake for at least $750,000, so this guy is sitting on a gold mine!
Don't weep for him - the tax assessor is probably not wrong.
Jay wrote:
"What planning must we do now to help next year's budget?"
Hire a comprehensive anticipatory design scientist who can engages in a wide-ranging study which focuses on the process required to solve NM's problems. This science was pioneered in the early Twentieth Century by R. Buckminster Fuller. Loan him/her to the BOE, they need the help. Nobody in your town government believes in Fuller's creed: "do more with less". It's your only salvation folks. Otherwise, get ready for even more taxes amid diminishing returns.
Cheers from an expat where my $400,000 home is taxed at $1200 per year and my electricity is 30% of the cost in CT.
The growth is coming, and the grand list "drop" is far overstated.
If you don't like the tax relief given to companies, thank your Republican Mayor and Republican Town Council.
And all you people that take advantage of the tax abatements shouldn't be whining about the schools - you aren't paying for their increases! Or the roads, police, etc.
And speaking of tax abatements, how about Mary Jane and Guy Peterson who own an APPROVED SUBDIVISION but pay almost 0 taxes on it because it's in Public Act 490?
We're getting way off topic now, but here's how the assessment appeals process works for those taxpayers who don't have a pal in the assessor's office: Once your appeal is arbitrarily denied by the Board of Assessment Appeals (despite any and all supporting evidence, bills of sale, expert appraisals, etc.), you're pretty much dead in the water. The next step is an expensive appeal to the Superior Court where, although you technically have a 50/50 chance of winning, the odds are actually something less than that. In reality, the judge will weigh the testimony of your professional appraisers against the government tax assessor's appraisal - and who's opinion do you think a government court is most likely to favor? Although there's an appearance of fairness, this is how the system is rigged against taxpayers in Connecticut. I've been through the process.
It's bound to get worse for everyone if the mayor and town council refuse to control spending!
Martha invites all concerned...
The one thing you have to remember is that the assessment your appealing is the revaluation figure. Most think that they are appealing the current value.
It's funny during the real estate boom we heard from no one saying that we figured their assessment wrong - it only happens then the bubble bursts.
The total amount of home sale has decreased but the current values seem to be holding study.
If anyone cares to stop into the Assessor's Office, we have last years estimated sales ratios graphed (10/06 - 9/07).
We will be more than happy to explain the process if you have a problem.
For the person with the $400,000 home
$400,000 X 70%= $280,000 x .02134 =
$5,975.20 Taxes not $12,000.00
I want to make Martha's calculation very clear.
A home (and land) with a market value of $400,000 is taxed as follows:
1) The real estate tax is not based on the retail (market) value but on the assessed value which is 70% of the retail (market) value;
2) The assessed value is 70% of $400,000 or $280,000;
3) The mill rate is 21.34. That means that we pay $21.34 for each $1,000 of assessed value;
4) $21.34 multiplied by 280 is $5,975.20. That's the annual tax.
It must be pointed out that those calculations all assume that the house in question is actually worth $400,000 (and is accurately assessed at $280,000). If the home is demonstrably overassessed, then the homeowner/taxpayer has no realistic option after their appeal is denied by the Board of Assessment Appeals. There's absolutely no penalty for bureaucratic nonfeasance in continuing to overassess someone's property. Ronald Reagan once quipped that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' That statement categorically applies to the bureaucrats at 10 Main Street.
Just to play TaxAndSpend Advocate here, I wonder if any of you saw the special on ABC about the happiest nations on Earth. Turns out it's the Danish [according to a study], and it's insinuated the reason for this is due to their higher tax rates - which enables their government to take better care of their people.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4086092&page=1
Read: I am not comparing NM to Denmark by any means! I just thought it was interesting.
To clarify Jay:
The retail value is from the last revaluation - not current value
Martha
The tax increase is 4% of the mill rate whether the house is $400K or $800K.
There is no progressive taxing of a mill rate of 21 if your house is less than $400K and 23 if it's $400-600 and 25 if it's $600+
Like Huckabee, it'd be horrible for the IRS to have 20% tax on any income.PERIOD. But that is our property tax system.
The people complaining seem to think they are middle class and should pay less than the rich.
It's a seperate argument.
Peole complain when the service doesn't meet what people pay for.
When the fact is service is not based on the budget amount or the increase but on meeting or exceeding expectations.
However realistic or unrealistic they may be. I want to be thin but unless I exercise there is nothing the government can do to make me thin.
Maybe taxing Twinkies, but it's like giving up booze for lent. If you don't drink before lent, it's not that hard during lent.
The other thing to note:
Abatements win votes. Repelling them loses votes. Which way do you think the politicians will sway.
If we want good schools, then you need to fund them. If you want good roads, you need to pay and have them paved.
"... pay almost 0 taxes on it because it's in Public Act 490."
It's really none of your business how other people handle their tax planning, but if the Petersons are complying with Public Act 490, then they have every right to take the tax abatement. In fact, they'd be fools not to.
As someone noted earlier in this thread, "no taxpayer is obliged to arrange his/her affairs in order to maximize the tax the government receives. Individuals and businesses are entitled to take all lawful steps to minimize their taxes."
"If we want good schools, then you need to fund them. If you want good roads, you need to pay and have them paved."
That's very true, but what does that have to do with New Milford's bloated budget? There's plenty of money in the current budget to have good schools and good roads, but we don't have either. And as long as dim-witted politicians keep allowing tax dollars to be squandered with little or no accountability, we'll never have good roads or good schools, just very expensive ones...
"It's really none of your business how other people handle their tax planning."
It is if the taxpayer's input is an order of magnitude below than what they get in services. 3 kids in the school x $12k per year (at today's cost) = $36k per year; $36k per year x 12 years of school = 1.296MM.
Who pays that much in local taxes over 12 years? That's $108k per year folks.
"There's plenty of money in the current budget to have good schools and good roads, but we don't have either."
Yes, there is.
But it can only be explained by an over-fed school system that has no accountability as to its performance.
"3 kids in the school x $12k per year (at today's cost) = $36k per year..."
That may be what it costs the inefficient town government to educate 3 children, but that's certainly not what the education they're getting is worth. I figure the education that my children are getting in New Milford public schools is worth $5 thousand a year tops.
Don't blame parents because the town can't educate children more efficiently; it's not our fault...
13 x 36 = $468K and $12K per student is high, it's currently ~$11K
That being said most families do not have 3 kids. 10,000 units in NM and 5000 kids = 1/2 a kids per house.
And yes those without kids are subsidizing those with multiple kids.
1/2 a kid x $11K = $5500 x 13 years = $71500
Let's say you live in a modest home and pay $4000/yr between car and property taxes = 18 years.
So you need to live in town 3 years and for all 13 years and 2 additional years to pay for your kid.
Such is the system.
Ditto for the young paying for the old - social security.
And the future paying for the past.
Maybe we should go to a chinese system with 1 kid per household.
13 x 36 = $468K and $12K per student is high, it's currently ~$11K
That being said most families do not have 3 kids. 10,000 units in NM and 5000 kids = 1/2 a kids per house.
And yes those without kids are subsidizing those with multiple kids.
1/2 a kid x $11K = $5500 x 13 years = $71500
Let's say you live in a modest home and pay $4000/yr between car and property taxes = 18 years.
So you need to live in town 3 years and for all 13 years and 2 additional years to pay for your kid.
Such is the system.
Ditto for the young paying for the old - social security.
And the future paying for the past.
Maybe we should go to a chinese system with 1 kid per household.
Post a Comment