Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations

The following is a Press Release issued by the West Hartford Taxpayers Association. Taxpayers within those municipalities which are presently the subject of revaluation could be experiencing the same concerns once your revaluation efforts are completed.�� The West Hartford Taxpayers Association, Inc. address is P.O. Box 270201, West Hartford, Connecticut 06127-0201.� Their website is http://www.whta.org/ and they can be reached by email at� president@whta.org.� Susan Kniep

Press Release: 2/24/06

The West Hartford Taxpayers Association met on 2/14/06 and discussed the upcoming budget cycle.� The October 2006 grand list will be used to do the 2007 town wide property re-valuation.� Fair market values of homes in West Hartford were quoted as having risen as much as 40% and will ultimately affect how much taxes each homeowner will pay after revaluation occurs.� Tax assessment is based on 70% of the fair market value of property.� It was noted that commercial property has not gone up in value quite as fast or as much as residential property, so there will be a shift in the tax burden from commercial property to residential property by as much as 20%.� This is of major concern to the WHTA, especially if this is accompanied by an increase in spending above and beyond the revaluation issue.�� For example, if the revaluation produces a 20-40% increase in property tax (because of higher residential market values) and it is accompanied by a 6-10% tax increase (based on past few years history of tax increases in West Hartford), then homeowners will be looking at a 26-50% increase in their tax bill. The WHTA finds this prospect to be quite alarming. The WHTA discussed several spending initiatives already outlined by the West Hartford Board of Education and the Town Council.� Some spending items that have been mentioned in the media by these two bodies were:

1) A new $20,000 per year line item for the arts

2) The Superintendent of schools has already announced a desire for a 7% increase on the school side of the budget.

3) The BOE will be including expenditures in their upcoming announcement of the Capital Improvement budget for Astroturf on the Hall and Conard ball fields which will be partially funded by a million dollar grant from the state, but we will have to pick up the extra cost on this project which may be more than� $500,000, and have additional costs to install a sprinkler system and other amenities with this project.

4) The BOE plans to install air-conditioning in the schools.

5) Taxpayer funded Universal Preschool has been proposed and will begin at Smith School and Charter Oak, and although it is funded with grant money now, we will have to pick up the cost when the grants run out and the infrastructure is in place.� It is planned to have this program offered in all elementary schools for all pre-kindergarten aged children at the taxpayer�s expense.��

6) Later School Start times will have a financial impact on the budget if they will require more buses and need money to install special lighting on ball fields for later sports programs.� The use of three new ball fields will be included in the costs for this later start time proposal as well.� There may be other financial needs associated with this proposal which is currently going to be studied by a BOE directed committee whose charge it is to see how to implement later start times.��

7) There has been talk of the need for another elementary school.

8) Teacher contracts have been under mediation and salaries or benefits will be going up.

9) State mandates requiring the adequate funding of pension and retiree benefits will be affecting us.� Currently those pension funds are under funded and will have to be addressed.

10) �The Town Hall consolidation has not yielded any change in staffing and we do not see any savings as of yet for this consolidation plan, plus there has been no information released regarding what the Town Hall renovation plans include.� We have bonded $7 million dollars toward this renovation and will not be getting the Town Hall addition as was first discussed.�

The WHTA feels that not enough information has been given to the public to outline these issues and their financial impact with regard to this budget and the subsequent budget in 2007, and we are planning some upcoming forums to discuss these issues as they relate to taxes and budget.� The WHTA urges the Town Council to hold the line on spending now.� We need to keep the 2006 grand list the same to avoid huge tax increases for 2007.� We are supporting and upholding the position that it will be unacceptable to have more than a 0% tax increase in this upcoming budget cycle for 2006.� The time to rein in spending is now and we will be encouraging the Town Council and Board of Education to pull in their belts.� No new spending should be acceptable.�� The next meeting for the WHTA will be March 16^th, 2006 at Town Hall in room 312 at 7:30 pm and we urge every concerned resident to attend.�

**********

The following was forwarded to me by Brian Freeman of The Federalist Society.� If you have an interest in attending, pls RSVP to Brian Freeman by email at bfreeman@rc.com, or by calling (860) 275-8310.�� Susan

��

On Thursday, March 23, 2006 from 12 noon to 1:30 PM� at the State Capitol in the Judiciary Room in Hartford, the Hartford Lawyers' Chapter of the Federalist Society is pleased to sponsor a timely panel discussion and debate on POLITICS, MONEY AND FREE SPEECH: IS CONNECTICUT'S CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW THE RIGHT APPROACH?� The panel will feature: �Allison Hayward - www.skepticseye.com and contributor to The Weekly Standard, National Review Online, and other publications;� Karen Hobert-Flynn - Common Cause Connecticut;� Suzanne Novak - Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School;� John Samples - Cato Institute; and Moderator: Prof. Jeremy Paul - UConn Law School.� A complimentary sandwich lunch will be available.� This event is free and open to the public.� We look forward to seeing you on the 23rd! � Brian Freeman� Chair, Hartford Chapter - Federalist Society

**********

Is a Sex Offender Living Near You?�

http://www12.familywatchdog.us/Search.asp

**********

The National Debt as of March 2, 2006 is

$8,270,651,337,575.14 TRILLION

�Check it yourself at the U. S. Treasury Department web site, it changes daily.

**********

FY2006-07
Governor Rell�s MidTerm Budget Adjustments

http://www.opm.state.ct.us/budget/2007MidtermBooks/2007GovMidtermBudget.htm

**********

State Debt as of January 31, 2006

�$14.5 Billion

�**********

Payment made on Debt in 2006

$431 Million from Transportation��

$1.27 Billion from General Fund, including UConn 2000 Program

**********

� Payment to be made on Debt in 2007 Per Rell�s Budget�

$442 Million from Transportation��

$1.38 Billion from General Fund, including UConn 2000 Program

**********

The following websites provide further information on the State�s Debt up to the year 2003�

http://www.osc.state.ct.us/2003cafr/statistical/ratioannual.asp

http://www.osc.state.ct.us/2003cafr/statistical/netgeneral.asp

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/fin/rpt/2003-R-0275.htm

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/rpt/2003-R-0256.htm

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/tob/s/2005SB-00646-R00-SB.htm

http://www.osc.state.ct.us/2003cafr/statistical/ratioannual.asp

http://www.osc.state.ct.us/2003cafr/statistical/netgeneral.asp

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/fin/rpt/2003-R-0275.htm

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/rpt/2003-R-0256.htm

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/tob/s/2005SB-00646-R00-SB.htm

**********

HOW DOES YOUR CONGRESSMAN RATE?

http://www.ntu.org/misc_items/rating/VS_2005.pdf

**********

TAXPAYERS� BILL OF RIGHTS GOING

ON BALLOT IN MAINE

Taxpayer's bill going on ballot,� Wednesday, February 22, 2006 , By PAUL CARRIER

Blethen Maine Newspapers AUGUSTA -- Organizers of a drive to cap government spending and give voters the final say on tax increases have enough support to send the issue to voters, guaranteeing a statewide referendum this year. Supporters of a so-called taxpayer bill of rights submitted 51,611 valid signatures to the state, or about 1,100 more names than they needed to place the issue on the ballot. The referendum will be held at the general election Nov. 7, unless the Legislature moves up the vote to the June 13 primary election. "We're awful glad that the taxpayers and the voters will have an opportunity to vote on this," said activist Mary Adams of Garland, a leader of the referendum campaign. "I think they'll grab it just like a drowning man would grab a flotation ring."�� Despite Adams' optimism about the outcome of the ballot question, the campaign is sure to be hard-fought. The Maine Heritage Policy Center, a conservative think tank that drafted the legislation, is working with Adams and her allies to fend off criticism from the likes of Gov. John Baldacci, the Maine Municipal Association, the Maine AFL-CIO and the Maine Center for Economic Policy.� "We've already got what we need in Maine" to rein in taxes and spending, said Martha Freeman, a Baldacci appointee who runs the State Planning Office. Freeman was referring to a tax-relief law the Legislature passed last year to boost state aid to local schools, expand existing tax breaks and cap spending at all levels of government within the state. The proposed spending cap, commonly known by the acronym TABOR (Taxpayer Bill Of Rights), is similar to one in Colorado. It is the only initiated referendum that has been approved by the state this year, although officials have yet to rule on petitions seeking a referendum to legalize slot machines in Washington County. A referendum drive seeking a tax on bottled water failed to collect enough signatures to force a vote. The spending cap would peg the growth in state government spending to inflation and population increases. School districts would have to tie spending increases to inflation and student enrollment. Cities, towns and counties would base their spending increases either on the growth in property values or on inflation plus population, whichever is lower. At the close of each fiscal year, 80 percent of any surplus state funds would be used to provide tax relief, leaving 20 percent to be deposited into a budget stabilization fund, a sort of savings account to be tapped if revenues run short later. Cities and towns would have to use surplus funds to cut property taxes. TABOR would allow governments to increase revenues, but not easily. Raising taxes and fees would require a two-thirds vote of the appropriate legislative body, such as the Legislature at the state level or the selectmen, town council or town meeting at the municipal level, followed by majority approval by voters in a referendum. Much of the debate preceding a vote is sure to center on how TABOR has worked in Colorado, where it is part of the state Constitution. Last November, Colorado voters weakened their state's spending cap by approving a referendum that allows state government to keep revenues that otherwise would have been refunded to voters. House Speaker John Richardson, D-Brunswick, who opposes TABOR, described it in a statement Tuesday as a "calamity from Colorado," but Bill Becker of the Maine Heritage Policy Center countered that the Maine proposal avoids the pitfalls of the Colorado plan. Becker said the Maine plan, unlike Colorado's, would allow the state to save and later use some surplus funds, instead of refunding all of the money to taxpayers. If the cap goes to voters in November, it is sure to have a high profile in the gubernatorial and legislative races, which also will be resolved Nov. 7. Whenever the referendum is held, it will mark the fourth time since 2003 that Maine voters have tackled ballot questions dealing with tax relief. The first round occurred in November 2003, when voters gave preliminary approval to a Maine Municipal Association referendum calling for a one-step jump to 55 percent state funding for local schools. Voters reaffirmed their support for that plan in June 2004, but the Legislature subsequently changed the voter-approved law. In November 2004, voters overwhelmingly rejected a referendum sponsored by Carol Palesky's Maine Taxpayers Action network that would have capped property taxes at 1 percent of valuation. Two months later, the Legislature passed the tax-relief law that is emerging as a focal point of the TABOR debate. Richardson said Tuesday the tax-relief law the Legislature passed last year "is working to reduce spending and slow the increase in local property taxes," but Becker said that law "has not been effective for most cities and towns." Bill of Rights Timeline Sept. 10, 2004 -- Tax activist Mary Adams of Garland organizes a petition drive to cap state and local spending. The Maine Heritage Policy Center, a conservative think tank, developed the language of the Adams proposal. It is based on a spending cap that voters in Colorado approved in 1992 called the "Taxpayers Bill of Rights." Oct. 21, 2005 -- Adams presents signed petitions calling for a referendum. The next day, the group submits another 4,024 signatures that had been inadvertently omitted the day before. Feb. 21, 2006 -- The Secretary of State's Office determines that the petitions have enough valid signatures to send the measure to voters in November. Copyright � 2006 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc

Related Story:� Thursday, February 23, 2006, Missed petition deadline at issue, By PAUL CARRIER, Portland Press Herald Writer, http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/statehouse/060223taxreform.shtml

**********

From Common Cause, Support an Electoral Reform Bill in Connecticut: (Note you can contact your legislators directly from their website which is offered at the end of this message):� The Connecticut General Assembly�s Government Administration and Elections Committee approved legislation on Wednesday March 23 that would require a voter-verified paper ballot (VVPB) on every new voting machine purchased by the state. The legislation is comprehensive � tackling not only concerns about the integrity of our elections but also addressing accessibility issues for people who are visually impaired.� Common Cause Connecticut supports Senate Bill 55 which would require a voter-verified paper ballot for all new voting machines in Connecticut.� Continued at the following website:�

http://www.commoncause.org/siteapps/advocacy/index.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=493883&action=2100&template=x.ascx

**********

From the Wall Street Journal

Don't Kelo My House, South Dakota sticks it to the U.S. Supreme Court

Believe it or not, the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London may yet unite red and blue America in at least one common cause. The 5-4 ruling, handed down last June, gives government more or less unlimited power to seize private property.� The latest blow-back comes from South Dakota, whose Governor this month signed a law prohibiting the state from using its power of "eminent domain"� to take private property for private economic development. No exceptions. No loopholes. The bill passed by unanimous vote in the state senate and 67-1 in� the house.� Two-thirds of Americans own their own homes, which is perhaps one reason� few seem to share the view of the five Justices who ruled that New London,Connecticut, was justified in evicting homeowners so that private developers� could put up a hotel and condominiums that would bring in more tax revenue.� Some elites on the political left endorsed the ruling. But the overwhelming, immediate reaction on both the grassroots left and right was: How do I keep the government's hands off my house? It didn't take long for the political response to get rolling. The sponsors of the South Dakota law said they started work the next day. At the time of the Kelo ruling at least nine states already had outlawed the use of eminent domain to evict homeowners for private development. Nearly every other state has since come up with some sort of anti-Kelo effort via legislation, a constitutional amendment or citizen initiative. In Michigan, the legislature decided not to leave so important an issue to the vagaries of future legislatures and approved an amendment to the state constitution outlawing the taking of private property for private use. The vote was 106-0 in the house and 31-6 in the senate; it goes to the voters in November. Constitutional amendments are also moving forward in
Georgia, New Hampshire, Florida, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Alabama. Initiatives are under way in Colorado, Missouri, California. Arizona, Nevada and Montana. In Washington, D.C., the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill in November that would withhold economic development aid for two years from state or local governments that use private economic development as a rationale for eminent domain. The Senate will soon take up somewhat less sweeping legislation. In his majority opinion in Kelo, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "Nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power." It's good to see voters taking the Justice at his word and throwing the Supreme Court a brush-back pitch.

**********