No tax increase in the proposed budget!
It took me a couple of days to digest on the Mayor’s new budget proposal because, quite frankly, I’m floored by the fact that there is no tax increase in the budget. I thought for sure I’d have to go and holler about fiscal responsibility, duties to the taxpayer, etc. at the public hearing but… no.
Could it be that the Mayor gets it? Does she understand now the reality that East Hartford Taxpayers can no longer afford annual tax increases? Maybe it’s just the reality of an election year but we can hope.
My only gripe so far is that too much of the budget is balanced on the municipal side. In my opinion the schools should carry a larger portion of the cuts since it is the schools which have grown unchecked and bankrupted this town. Not forcing the BoE to go back and craft yet a leaner budget is a missed opportunity and one which may have repercussions as state legislators continue their budget work. It is a very real possibility that school funding may yet be cut.
You’ll find when you look through the Capital Improvement Plan for example that the regular annual maintenance items, such as town vehicle rotation have been eliminated. This means we aren’t really saving money. Instead we are putting off maintenance spending and ensuring a future tax increase when emergency replacements are needed.
See the chart from the proposed budget below for a quick and dirty look at how the budget is spent. Let’s see how the council handles the budget now. Will they insist that the maintenance items be restored after making a specific point about how they are necessary because previous administrations put them off during last year’s budget season? If so will they insist that the BoE cover the gap or will they raise taxes?
I have yet to go through all 240 or so pages of the budget to find the gimmick reductions but I have no doubt they are there after seeing the cuts in maintenance. Hopefully the council will address any gimmicks in a manner that both supports the town’s infrastructure and prevents extra burden on the taxpayer.
You can find the budget information here:
The town has also made the full detailed budget available this year for the first time. I provided it last year after converting it to a usable format. If you are in the mood for reviewing the entire 240 some odd pages then get it here:
Grand list shrinks…. again. Does this mean tax increases?
The grand list has shrunk again this year marking a consistent trend during the term of Mayor Melody Currey. The only years not showing a drop in the list were attributed to the widely unpopular revaluation, but even the reval adjusted list shrank. This history makes it disingenuous at best when the Finance Director and Mayor make their public budget projections based on the grand list not shrinking.
Despite the annual drop in the list the Mayor has submitted budget after budget which increases the spending of the town without regard for the tax impact on the citizens. Last year some of the council members were declaring victory that the mill rate had fallen despite the fact that the actual tax impact on East Hartford Residents had never been higher.
Now, almost 12 months later foreclosures have become an epidemic and the per household tax burden is approaching $400 per month. Could the two be related? You be the judge.
The newly release Net Taxable Grand List is $3,103,953,346 down $43,013,279 from $3,146,966,625 for the 08/09 budget year. When multiplied by the 98% collection rate that gives the town $3,041874,279 of property to base the mill rate on.
To maintain the same level of spending as 08/09 which was itself an abusive budget tax increases are required.
So far the Mayor has revealed a drop in Non-Tax Revenue of 3.2 million of 08/09 which we’ll assume will exist in 09/10 as well. That brings the Non-Tax Revenue estimate to $55,622,281 reducing portion of the 08/09 spending level of $155,830,432 which needs to be raised through property tax to $100,208151. That means a minimum mill rate of 32.94 to maintain spending. That translates to an average tax increase of $184 or $15/month per household. That’s 4% in one year. How many residents lost their jobs, forget received a 4% increase in wages. As a portion of household income property tax would represent burden of 11.52% up from 11.07% in 08/09. At this growth rate the local property tax burden will equal 14% of the average household income within 5 years.
This picture will get worse as PILOT, ECS and grant money dries up. It’s also going to be magnified many fold if the BoE doesn’t get it’s act together and commit to a serious trimming of fat in the East Hartford education district. So far the BoE has offered no substance to indicate they understand the problem.
What our officials need to do is draw a line. They need to understand that a ZERO increase in all areas of the budget is the starting point this year. They need to pare down from there. To even pretend to be serious about the plight of the businesses and residents of East Hartford our officials must cut spending by $3.9 Million. To properly govern they probably ought to pare at least 3 times that and, as unpopular as it will be with those who have a vested interest, most needs to come from the education side.
The Mayor’s public statements so far have been encouraging, but given the history of East Hartford’s government I’d be surprised if they could even hold the budget, forget implementing the reductions required to prevent a tax increase.
Masters Club doesn't get the go ahead
Today was the final scheduled day for the preliminary injunction hearing in Masters Club v. East Hartford and no ruling either way has been made. It appears three days was just not enough time.
The JI has coverage of Wednesday’s events online now and I expect they’ll have some coverage of today’s events online tomorrow. The story is here.
Based on my conversations this evening with people from both sides it sounds like this issue has a long way to go before the preliminary injunction request is resolved. Experts are needed and probably more days in court later this year or even into next year. This means that for now the town’s regulations as they apply to Masters Club and all adult establishments still stand and Masters Club is not coming to Roberts Streets in the near future.
From what I’ve heard the case presented by Coleman was lacking any real punch on the issue of statements that may have been made by the Mayor and witnesses listed on the witness list never made it to the stand or even the court room.
For today East Hartford is the victor, if only by a lack of a ruling. I’ll take it.
It’s a good thing I didn’t try to go see the hearing while I was in New Haven Tuesday after all. The hearing actually happened in Bridgeport so I never would have found it.
UPDATE
The Judge has made an order following the three day hearing:
SCHEDULING ORDER: Following three days of hearings on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and after conferring with counsel, the Court hereby issues the following scheduling order: Plaintiff will disclose its experts and provide Defense counsel with a 26(a) report by November 17, 2008. Plaintiff may also depose Defendants’ consultant or other fact witnesses during this time period. Defendants will depose Plaintiff’s experts by December 15, 2008. Defendants will then disclose their experts and provide Plaintiff’s counsel with a 26(a) report by January 21, 2009. (If Defendants choose not to use expert witnesses, counsel should notify the Court as soon as possible, but no later than January 21, 2009.) Plaintiff will depose these defense experts by February 21, 2009. The hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction will be continued on March 2-4, 2009. If, however, Defendants decide not to use any expert witnesses, the Court has set aside January 27-29, 2009, for the continuation of the Preliminary Injunction hearing. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge William I. Garfinkel on 9/18/2008. (Smith, M.) (Entered: 09/18/2008)
Basically, it will be early March of 2009 before Masters Club can even hope to get an OK to go ahead. Although if they are successful in challenging the last amendment to the zoning regulations this may not hold true since the special permit would be in force again along with all it’s unconstitutionality.
UPDATE #2
The JI has added another article on the hearing as expected.
You didn't think I made this stuff up did you?
I happened on a copy of the letter from Mr. Chu to the Mayor, which was Cc’d but not timely delivered or in some cases not delivered at all to commissioners and councilmen, where he references the deal he made to the Mayor.
Notice that this letter does not bear a stamp from the Town Clerk. Is it common practice for official correspondence to NOT be stamped and recorded?
As the person from the strip club side explained Mr. Chu was unable to sign this letter before it was delivered to the Mayor, presumably by his counsel, because he was out of state on business. This is a confirmed correspondence.
Note, I have removed Mr. Chu’s phone number for obvious reasons.
While this letter may not appear to say a whole lot I’m informed the letter for legal reasons could not contain details and Mayor Currey was let in on it’s secret details. Word has it that this deal has a very short shelf life. Once either the Masters Club or Pitkin Street start their active court battle (September) the mutual benefit derived from their coming together as businessmen and settling will no longer exist.
Something that has bugged me since the last hearing was the suggestion, though I don’t recall of the top of my head if it was Dayton or Gerard who said it, that commissioners must follow the rules for ex parte communication and could not discuss the zoning application with anyone until the public hearing resumes next week. That struck me as a gag order and bad government so I looked up our ex parte ordinance.
From Section 15-13 of the ordinances:
An official, officer, or employee shall not consider any ex parte or private communications from any person, which he or she knows is or reasonably may be intended to influence unlawfully the decision on the merits of any matter where a determination is required by law to be made on the record after opportunity for hearing to interested parties.
It seems clear from the above that a communication in itself regarding the application is not a violation of the ex parte rules. In fact it seems the ex parte rules don’t preclude the commissioners from talking to anyone about the application unless they know they may be about to receive a bribe, extortion attempt, threat or some similar form of unlawful influence.
Public Hearing Video & What is going on behind the scenes?
The full public hearing video from Thursday night is now available at the bottom of this post, have a look.
I have long thought there was something fishy floating around this whole strip club thing. This whole thing seemed way too political which just doesn’t mesh with a multi-million dollar business deal. Politicians and businessmen do not think alike. My suspicions were confirmed recently when an unnamed (until they decide to come forward officially) person from the strip club side of the aisle filled me in on a bit of the history. Here is the gist of what was conveyed.
It seems that this whole lawsuit issue came about when Masters Club LLC originally sought to follow the proper procedure to get approvals during the purchasing process of the Roberts Street location while the property was under contract. According to the source Masters Club spoke with persons of top authority in town who overstepped their proper role and jurisdiction by unequivocally telling Masters Club that there was no way their type of business could open and a permit could not even be filed.
Masters Club decided that the particular location, whose features are unmatchable in this area, was too valuable to give up on and decided to fight for their right to apply for a permit. They filed a lawsuit and here we are.
Now, this is where things begin to get bad for us as residents. The Mayor was quick to come out in the media with assurances that our zoning and ordinances were both legal and enforceable in court. To this day her public stance is that our ordinances and zoning will win in court. At the same time the ordinances were stripped from the town code and plans were made for rezoning. If our current regulations were enforceable why strip them? If our zoning was fine, why change it?
It’s important to realize that this whole process has been going on since about last October and according to this person multiple olive branches have been extended to resolve the issue in a win/win manner. One such branch came in the form of a letter (which prompted a meeting in which the deal was denied by the Mayor) to the Mayor which was CC’d for the P&Z and Council. It appears that this letter, which included an offer that seems too good to refuse, was withheld from the P&Z members until recently and it’s not known for sure if all council members have seen it even today. This letter, to my knowledge, despite being weeks old has not been received through the town clerk yet.
What was the offer? In exchange for allowing Masters Club to locate on Roberts Street Pitkin Street Entertainment (Kahoots) would cease to exist through a private deal between Pitkin St and Masters Club. The letter clearly said that if accepted Masters Club would be the ONLY club in town. There were no details on the plight of the Venus, though I’m sure it was discussed in the private meeting.
To date we have a moratorium that is expiring in October, no ordinances to protect our neighborhoods, a zoning plan that is guaranteed to lose in court next month and rushed and poorly thought out zoning proposals that will deny Masters Club their location at the expense of our neighborhoods.
It seemed pretty clear why the North Meadows/Prestige Park zones were a bad idea. They would totally alter the atmosphere and quality of life of the neighborhoods targeted. That plan was shot down, and I’m grateful.
Now the plan before the P&Z would do the same exact thing as the last plan but it’s being given a less dangerous sounding description, removal of special permit requirements. Well, the fact is that removal of the special permit requirements with only a 1000′ buffer between adult establishment requirement would open much more of the town to adult businesses than the last plan would. Consider this GIS map which I posted previously.
I understand the logic behind these zoning choices. It’s true that these zone changes may in fact not allow a location that Masters Club or Pitkin St wants, but the danger is that they may create many locations that another Venus Lounge would gladly accept. It makes no sense whatever to block one or two clubs by legislating an invitation for seedier joints to come to town.
As I see it there a handful of certainties that face us.
1. Mr. Gerard is right, if we do nothing we lose anyway.
2. The choices that have been put before us are not the best choices possible.
3. Politics are obscuring the most obvious and beneficial resolution to this problem.
4. The majority of people polled think Roberts Street is the best place for a strip club in town.
5. Despite direction from the Mayor to officials to keep the public informed she herself has not been straight forward and citizens have been excluded at every step through executive mid-day meetings and secret deal sessions. I fail to see the need for executive joint P&Z/Council sessions to discuss zoning and ordinance strategy which according to Mr. Dayton at the last hearing is not being done directly for either lawsuit. At every step we hear one thing only to find the story is belied by their official actions.
To sum up my thoughts, when dealing with businessmen you must act like a businessman. When listening to politicians, remember that’s what they are.
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1879378848442215125&hl=en]
East Hartford hosts foreclosure flop announcement.
CT News Junkie is reporting an announcement made by our local democratic leaders including Senator LeBeau, Mayor Currey and Councilman (and current house candidate) Rojas.
The team gathered to announce the impending salvation of, or at least lip service to, foreclosure assistance. As you may or may not know the legislature passed a foreclosure relief bill which was subsequently signed by the governor. Here are some highlights:
- The state through CHFA will use our tax dollars to buy foreclosed properties to resell at discount to targeted buyers or use for public housing.
- The state through CHFA will make mortgage payments on behalf of approved persons experiencing a “financial hardship” despite the fact that such hardship insurance is and has been privately available to these persons and they declined to purchase it. The state may pay an approved person’s mortgage for as long as FIVE YEARS.
(7) “Financial hardship due to circumstances beyond the mortgagor’s control” means: A significant reduction of at least twenty-five per cent of aggregate family household income which reasonably cannot be or could not have been alleviated by the liquidation of assets by the mortgagor, including, but not limited to, a reduction resulting from (i) unemployment or underemployment of one or more of the mortgagors; (ii) a loss, reduction or delay in receipt of such federal, state or municipal benefits as Social Security, supplemental security income, public assistance and government pensions; (iii) a loss, reduction or delay in receipt of such private benefits as pension, disability, annuity or retirement benefits; (iv) divorce or a loss of support payments; (v) disability, illness or death of a mortgagor; (vi) uninsured damage to the mortgaged property which affects liveability and necessitates costly repairs; or (vii) expenses related to the disability, illness or death of a member of the mortgagor’s family, but is not related to accumulation of installment debt incurred for recreational or nonessential items prior to the occurrence of the alleged circumstances beyond the mortgagor’s control in an amount that would have caused the mortgagor’s total debt service to exceed sixty per cent of aggregate family income at that time; or (B) a significant increase in the dollar amount of the periodic payments required by the mortgage;
- The state will spend 2.5 MILLION dollars on job training programs for persons in foreclosure to the exclusion of those needing job training who don’t happen to be delinquent on a mortgage.
- The state through the judicial branch will hire 13 loan mediators at a price tag of over 150 THOUSAND DOLLARS EACH per year. These mediators are intended to renegotiate repayment terms with borrowers and lenders. Connecticut experienced 23,470 foreclosures last year according to Realty Trac which would have provided a workload of 1,805 foreclosures per mediator. It’s clear that this was poorly thought out and is doomed to fail from the start. The mediators are grossly overpaid, overloaded and replacing a service that already exists in the private market.
- A non-prime lender may not refinance a person out of a “special” mortgage unless the borrower attends counseling. This is a ridiculous overstepping into the borrowers private financial life and an unacceptable imposition.
“special mortgage” means a loan originated, subsidized or guaranteed by or through a state, federal, tribal or local government, or nonprofit organization.
- A non-prime lender is not permitted to include a pre-payment penalty on a loan or any provision which increases the interest rate on default. I’ve never seen the latter except in my credit card agreements, but disallowing pre-payment penalties will result in a direct increase in the interest rate to compensate. Borrowers have been able to waive pre-payment on most loans all along at the cost of a higher rate. The only difference now is that the higher rate will be the only rate.
The biggest thing to note in this long law is the total absence of any form of relief from the impositions the government places on homeowners. They have placed the burden of foreclosure relief solely on the lenders, brokers and banks as well as the taxpayers of Connecticut.
The state has failed to do anything about burdensome property taxes which at least here in East Hartford account for a full 3-4 months of mortgage payments each year. They have done nothing about income taxes or car taxes. They have done nothing about job creation. What they have created are new bureaucracies which will feed on taxpayer dollars and in turn further increase the crushing tax load which is pushing many into foreclosure.
As proud as I’m sure our representatives were to announce their excitement at having finally cracked the foreclosure problem open, I’d rather they had read this bill, found real solutions and sat this press conference out.
