East Hartford Mayor Sets Stage for Tax Increases Statewide
East Hartford has one of the earliest municipal budget calendars in the state and as a result can offer a predictive window into the state’s municipal budget climate. If this year’s East Hartford proposed budget is any indication than Connecticut taxpayers are in for a world of hurt.
Municipal elections are now past and Councils, Mayors, Boards of Finance, Selectmen and all of the other various forms of leaders we employ in our Connecticut towns are feeling a bit less politically squeezed and, as predicted by myself and candidates in other towns, tax increase proposals from these leaders will be coming fast and furious as they deal with falling revenues in the only manner they have the political fortitude to employ, tax increases.
East Hartford Mayor Melody Currey on Tuesday night presented her budget in what to this observer seemed a nervously defensive tone. No doubt she was well aware that a tax increase of over 9% would not be met with smiles and commendations.
To the credit of the Mayor each year the public availability of budget information has increased and this year is no exception. In fact, this year the Mayor has presented the most complete set of information yet. So Mayor, while I won’t thank you for raising my taxes, thank you for providing me with the details I need to know the how and why behind the increase.
I encourage you to review the budget information on the town website.
BUDGET INFO
Budget sessions continue with the Board of Education on Thursday night at 6:30, an all day session Saturday starting at 8:30 and a Monday night finale starting at 6:30. These can be viewed in person at Town Hall, or on EHCTV Channel 5 on Comcast.
Citizens should keep in mind the public hearing on Wednesday, March 3rd at 7PM where we can express our concerns about this proposal as well as plans to REDUCE spending proportionally to the losses in revenue rather than continuing spending unabated.
I am happy to say that I have heard from a Town Council member who is at least as outraged about this proposal as I am. Maybe there is hope.
Not Letting it go… More on Daley Court
I have sent Mayor Currey a request for an update on her investigation which has supposedly been going on for over a month with no results. I also asked her to recommend to the Town Council that the property transfer and contract authorizations be rescinded and the town’s actual property disposition methods be referred to the I&A committee to ensure they are in compliance with the ordinances.
Melody,
It has been just over 2 weeks since I delivered 37 pages of supporting documents for my public hearing testimony to your office. Have you made any progress into your investigation regarding my testimony? I am particularly interested in the legal process followed in disposition of the property.
I recently received documents from the Town Council Office in response to an FOI Request which clearly demonstrate that the method used to dispose of the policy is not in accordance with Section 10-19 of the town ordinances. In light of this I would appreciate it if you would issue a recommendation to the Town Council that they rescind the motions approving the property transfer and giving pre-approval to a sales contract which were approved on June 16th, 2009 and recommend that the Investgation & Audit committee investigate the process employed by the Town of East Hartford in disposing of town owned (taxpayer owned) property.
The entirety of the FOI documents can be found here:
http://brainflation.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/foi-docs.pdf
Jon Searles
(860) 930-4149
Also I sought an update on the development status from Jeanne Webb. This is the update:
Jon - Our developer is waiting for the HUD NOFA to be announced. As soon as it is announced, they will be putting an application together. We do not move to final disposition on Daley Court until all criteria for the development have been met. In the mean time, we have extended their developer status until February 1, 2010 or until the HUD application is approved, which ever is the earlier of the 2 dates. We do not have any scheduled meetings in the summer and will hold our next meeting on September 16, 2009.
Daley Court Dialog Continues
I received a response to my July 1st communication with the Mayor.
07/06/09 10:22AM
I have been informed by Paul Roczynski that hard copies will be furnished to my office in the near future. Thank you. Mayor Melody A. Currey (860) 291-7200 Town Hall 740 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06108 mcurrey@ci.east-hartford.ct.us www.ci.east-hartford.ct.us All e-mails received or written at this address are subjected to the Freedom of Information rules and regulations.
Today I filed 37 pages of the documentation I posted on the 22nd of June with the Mayor’s office along with the following letter.
Jonathan Searles
51 Spaulding Circle
East Hartford, CT 06118
July 6, 2009Mayor Melody Currey
Town of East Hartford
740 Main Street
East Hartford, CT 06108Dear Melody:
Attached are thirty seven pages of supporting documentation for my public testimony of June 16th 2009 regarding the Daley Court property disposition.
No position on the Daley Court property transfer has been taken by the East Hartford Republican Town Committee and as such this is not an EHRTC issue. In the future any requests or questions you or the Town Council may have regarding my testimony or documentation should be communicated to me directly. Neither EHRTC Chairman Paul Roczynski nor the EHRTC have been involved at any point with my research, testimony or follow up on the property transfer and as such Mr. Roczynski is not a proper avenue for questions or communication on this issue.
Please distribute this letter and attached documentation to the Town Council and any other interested parties.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Searles
jsearles@underdeposit.com
(860) 930-4149
Continuing Daley Court Dialog
A phone call from Republican Chairman Paul Roczynski spawned the following email to the mayor.
Melody,
I received a phone call from Republican Chairman Paul Roczynski this morning regarding my testimony at the Daley Court public Hearing on the 16th of June. He informs me that during a conversation between Paul and yourself you had expressed a concern that I had not yet provided you with documentation to support my public testimony.
The documentation as well as video of the hearing is and has been publicly available for viewing at the following address:
http://brainflation.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/daley-court-video-and-documents/Please do not hesitate to ask for any documentation referenced that isn’t posted.
Jon Searles
(860) 930-4149
The response if any will be provided when received.
Investigation Wanted, Concerns Remain on Daley Court
With almost 2 weeks having passed since the public hearing and subsequent action on the Daley Court property I am becoming concerned that the investigation which was promised at the meeting may have concluded before it was announced.
I have sent a request for a meeting, on the record, to the Mayor in hopes that the lingering questions can be resolved.
Melody,
I still have some concerns regarding the process by which the East Hartford Town Council came to their decision to transfer the title for 582(590) Burnside Avenue to the East Hartford Redevelopment Agency on Tuesday the 16th of June 2009. I can’t seem to find a singular or combined set of ordinances or state statutes that describe the process taken and the ones I’ve found seems to contradict the process employed by the Town Council.
I was encouraged by your statement on the 16th that you were going to look into the claims I made at the hearing starting on the morning of Wednesday the 17th. Unfortunately I have not heard anything more on this investigation and the as yet unresolved questions could have a serious impact upon the ability of the citizens to trust their government. Such a mistrust would be entirely undesirable.
I would like to meet with you, and any others who you feel may be helpful, on the record to discuss the specific legal process followed in the disposition of the property to the East Hartford Redevelopment Agency.
Also, I received and reviewed the discussion agenda for the Green Committee meeting I was unable to attend. I would look forward to a tour of the recycling facility. The last 2 weeks of July would work great.
Jon Searles
(860) 930-4149
The JI, Reminder and Gazette have mentioned the Daley Court events. Unfortunately due to the JI’s relatively recent subscriber model I can no longer link their stories.
http://www.remindernews.com/node/7/&town=easthartford&url=EASTH-2009-06-24-2-Ar00200
I received a response to my request from the Mayor on 06/26/09 at 7:21 PM.
I am awaiting word from the state's attorney concerning next steps. Depending on his reply, I will be in touch or his office will on this issue. Mayor Melody A. Currey (860) 291-7200 Town Hall 740 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06108 mcurrey@ci.east-hartford.ct.us www.ci.east-hartford.ct.us
Daley Court – Video and Documents
Finally I have processed the documents and video from the hearing last Tuesday. Video is below and the documents are at the bottom. You be the judge. I’ll be glad to answer questions through the comments section.
History shows that Mr. Horan reads this blog. Here is a challenge Mr. Horan, as Chairman of the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee, show me the law that WAS followed in the council’s disposition of the property because I have listed the law that I believe wasn’t.
Council Calls Public Hearing To Order
[blip.tv ?posts_id=2271804&dest=-1]
Chair of Redevelopment Agency Speaks
[blip.tv ?posts_id=2271847&dest=-1]
Developers Bill & Dan Speak
[blip.tv ?posts_id=2271869&dest=-1]
Jon Searles (Me) Speaks
[blip.tv ?posts_id=2272018&dest=-1]
Mayor Currey Addresses Council
[blip.tv ?posts_id=2272025&dest=-1]
Council Debates and Passes Transfer and Sale Motions
[blip.tv ?posts_id=2272154&dest=-1]
** If any of the below documents give you an error please update your adobe reader to 6.1 or better or let me know about the problem so I can down convert the document for compatibility.**
Town Fact Sheet
State Response to EHRA Eminent Domain 06-18-2001
State Refusal to Authorize Property Sale – 2000
Sheldon Oak Central Windfall Profit
RFP 08-043
Redevelopment Minutes 02-27-03
Property Card 2009
Property Card 2003
Koteen Offer 12-02-2002
Karno Letter Pushing Koteen 06-21-2002
HUD H 08-08
Hud 202 Guidebook
Hovanec EHHA appraisal 09-08-2000
GIS Property Card 2009
EHHA to EHRA update on deal 12-05-2000
EHHA to EHRA on expedition of emminent domain 07-02-2002
EHHA EHRA Solicitation 03-22-2000
East Hartford Town Ordinances Chapter 10 – Finance & Taxation
CGS 8-137
CGS 8-24
Certificate of Taking – Eminent Domain – 08-13-2002
Sheldon Oak 2007 990
New Samaritan 2007 990
EHRDA vs Beatman Emminent Domain 06-14-1999
EHRDA vs Karabetsos Emminent Domain 04-20-2000
ToEH vs EHHA Emminent Domain 07-19-2002
Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee FOI Appeal
Town Council Agendas Page 1
Town Council Agendas Page 2
Town Council Minutes
Town Council Subcommittees
Town Council Minutes 05-14
East Hartford Notices 04-15 to 05-11
East Hartford Notices 05-11 to 05-20
Can I back it up? I wouldn't have said it otherwise.
As I stated tonight when I gave my public testimony regarding Daley Court, I have documents to back up everything I said. Soon I will process the relevant parts of the council video and scan in the relevant documents which are not already scanned in for the review of the general public.
In the meantime I have a few comments.
First, I sincerely hope the Mayor is honestly going to start an investigation tomorrow. I have documents.
Second, if Mr. Kehoe was interested in the accuracy of any of my statements or information he could have asked me to demonstrate the information during my comments or when the questions arose. I was sitting right there. Instead he attempted to impugn my character, research and the accuracy of my data. It is evident based on the course he chose that finding out the truth was not his goal.
Third, I invite any media outlet to contact me to verify my information. My claims will stand, theirs wont.
Fourth, I am disappointed that the matter was not referred to the Investigation & Audit Committee for review despite documentation to warrant it.
All in all it was a great night for the citizens of East Hartford because those on the council and in town hall are on notice that at least one person is watching.
05/19/09 Council Meeting
05/19/09 Agenda
05/19/09 Minutes
This past Tuesday’s Town Council meeting was somewhat eventful with a decent discussion of what lies ahead for the dike repairs. According to Denise Horan, the town engineer, we have spent almost all of the original 7 million dollars we were told the project would cost back in 2007. She indicated that for the almost 7 million spent we have a host of engineering reports and surveys as well as some tree/vegetation/wildlife removal on the dike and little actual repair work. The total cost of the project has ballooned to 27 million dollars and even that is a number that could “wiggle” according to Horan.
Mayor Currey reported that she has word that Dodd is earmarking 15 million dollars in an upcoming energy bill for the East Hartford dike and another earmark for 2 million dollars has been stuck into an upcoming agriculture bill. Odd that they can’t allocate money with a simple “East Hartford Dike Repair” bill instead of spending the money on the sly.
In addition to that potential 18 million the town previously received a commitment from the State DEP for 4 million in reimbursements for approved projects which has and will fund dike repair costs and the Council approved the Mayor to enter into contract with the state for another 3 million dollars which would bring the state chip-in to 7 million dollars. Assuming the federal money doesn’t show up we’ll have a 13 million dollar hole to fill before this project can be completed.
Worse yet, the project completion deadline before our dike is de-certfied is February 22, 2010, a date the mayor is confident can’t be met. According to the mayor if the funding is lined up the earliest this project could be completed is by the end of the 2010 construction season, meaning fall 2010. We were assured that our federal legislators were diligently working on crafting an exemption for East Hartford.
The Fire Department has stepped up to the plate in response to the elimination of funding for maintenance items by identifying two FEMA grants which will pay about 90% of the cost for replacement of Engine #5, 50 SCUBA sets and 3 thermal imaging cameras which aid in identifying the location of fires. The sum of these three maintenance items would be about $669,000 but with the grants they will cost the department $60,850 which will be funded entirely from the existing Fire Department budget. The grant process is expected to take about a year.
The final interesting piece of the meeting came in the form of an approved motion to permit the finance director to refinance, to speak simply about a complicated process, up to 26 million dollars of outstanding bonds. The expected savings is between $125,000 and $600,000 over the remaining life of the bonds if the full amount were refinanced. It is important to note that Mr. Walsh, the finance director, was not optimistic about then entire amount being possible to refinance due to market conditions and it’s unclear how the bottom line savings would be adjusted by a reduction in the amount refinanced. None of the council members saw fit to ask.
Mayor's Response to Tax Lien Pension Relief
Although It slipped my mind the Mayor did respond to my suggested use of municipal tax liens as relief from future pension funding liability. Here is her response dated the 13th of April.
Jon, Thank you for your recent e-mail suggesting that the Town's Pension Plan invest in Town Tax Liens. While the investment of pension plan funds rests solely with the 5 member Town Retirement Board led by Town Treasurer Joseph Carlson, I would be reluctant to recommend your strategy to them for the following reasons: Statutory: Connecticut General Statutes Chapter 112 section 7-400 is the starting place for guidance on municipal investments. Unrated tax liens are not a municipally allowed investment by statute. Liquidity: While the 18% investment returns you cite are attractive, such rates of return must be realized, and while the town would have priority as you have pointed out, the ability to efficiently monitor and possibly dispose of these properties through a long foreclosure process would be difficult and outside of the annual goals and objectives I have set for departments. Not a core competency for local government: The function of overseeing properties where the town held the tax lien is not a core competency of the town, meaning that acting as a property maintainer, if even for a short time, would not be a process in which the town would excel. Liability under "Prudent Man": A Pension Plan's Board is measured by a variety of competencies, and one such measurement is the "Prudent Man" rule. In short, could investing in a non-graded local tax lien be deemed imprudent by taxpayers or employees, subjecting the plan and town to litigation? I believe the potential is there. So in summary, while the information you point out in your request is accurate, the town would have considerable obstacles in the form of statutory, liquidity, core competency, and liability, among others not mentioned here in order to make this a consideration of the Retirement Board. Jon, I thank you again for reaching out. Melody
Assessment Appeals, know your rights.
The deadline has passed on assessment appeals. I did not personally appeal my assessment but I value my right to do so, every year if need be.
I was very disheartened to see the disinformation campaign that came out of the Mayor’s office in response to Councilman Thompson’s letter in the Gazette encouraging residents to appeal their assessments. The Mayor and her representatives, including the Tax Assessor, have been attempting to use the ambiguity of our great English language and the general ignorance of the CT General Statutes which exists in the citizenry to convince us that we don’t have the right to appeal our assessments. That is wrong and they know it.
From CGA 12-62(b)(1):
The town shall use assessments derived from each such revaluation for the purpose of levying property taxes for the assessment year in which such revaluation is effective and for each assessment year that follows until the ensuing revaluation becomes effective.
This is the section that the Mayor, her legal counsel and the tax assessor claim as the rule that sets your assessment to the revaluation value and disallows an assessment appeal based on the 16+ percent decline in the value of your property since the last revaluation. I can only believe that these three are being intentionally obtuse on this issue. The fault in their logic is clearly defined when time is taken to read the entirety of the statutes in question. One major issue comes from their interpretation of the word derived. They are defining derived to mean “the same as”. Derived has no legal definition, so here are few common dictionary definitions from the web:
Princeton Wordnet:
develop or evolve from a latent or potential state
Dictionary.com
to receive or obtain from a source or origin
A synonym of derived is “educe” which means “to infer or deduce”.
As you can see derived does not mean “same as”. When something is derived it is developed or built upon from a source. In the case of your assessment this means that the revaluation value is modified by data pertinent to the assessment to derive the current assessment. This interpretation, unlike the Mayor’s, is supported by other language in the statutes. First, had the legislation been intended to do as the Mayor et al. suggested the word derived would not need to appear in the language of the statute at all. Instead it would read:
The town shall use assessments from each such revaluation for the purpose of levying property taxes for the assessment year in which such revaluation is effective and for each assessment year that follows until the ensuing revaluation becomes effective.
Do you see how that one word changes the entire paragraph? The second support comes from CGS 12-55(b) which reads as follows:
Prior to taking and subscribing to the oath upon the grand list, the assessor or board of assessors shall equalize the assessments of property in the town, if necessary, and make any assessment omitted by mistake or required by law. The assessor or board of assessors may increase or decrease the valuation of any property as reflected in the last-preceding grand list, or the valuation as stated in any personal property declaration or report received pursuant to this chapter. In each case of any increase in valuation of a property above the valuation of such property in the last-preceding grand list, or the valuation, if any, stated by the person filing such declaration or report, the assessor or board of assessors shall mail a written notice of assessment increase to the last-known address of the owner of the property the valuation of which has increased. All such notices shall be subject to the provisions of subsection (c) of this section. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a notice of increase shall not be required in any year with respect to a registered motor vehicle the valuation of which has increased. In the year of a revaluation, the notice of increase sent in accordance with subsection (f) of section 12-62 shall be in lieu of the notice required by this section
This section clearly demonstrates that the current assessment is set each and every year and can vary year to year separate from a change based on revaluation. If your assessment increases the assessor must specifically give notice of your right to appeal, but it exists regardless of any notice received from the assessor and regardless of whether your assessment goes up, down or remains the same. This clearly voids the reasoning given to us by the Mayor and others.
As I commented on the Gazette website, I understand the knee jerk reaction to Mr. Thompson’s letter. Imagine if say 100 of the 1000’s of households in East Hartford appealed their assessment and succeeded. Based on the average reval assessment and a 20% decline in value since the reval the town would stand to lose $79,112 in revenue. Imagine now if the number of appeals reached 1000 or if some of the higher valued neighborhoods started appealing. The town’s tax and spend history would catch up with it rapidly. Fear is no excuse for lies, especially from our elected representatives. It is inexcusable for the Mayor and her representatives to be misinforming the citizenry in the manner which they been on this issue.
