Mayor Blake cites the following key factors as responsible for the City's budget increase:
- There will need to be a significant increase in Milford's pension contribution based on the decine in the value of pension assets experienced during the market downturn between 2007 and 2009.
- The City's debt service has grown as a series of past capital projects, including several major sewer upgrades, have been completed.
- The annual health insurance cost for Milford will rise 10% based on projected claims.
The Building Inspection Department will need to work on the $75 million in building projects to help with inspections in the wake up Hurricane Sandy's damage.
"I am proud of our City's exceptional government and believe this budget keeps Milford's financial future on a prudent path," Mayor Blake said.
The Budget still needs to go through the Finance Board recommendations before going to the Board of Aldermen, who have their next monthly meeting on Monday, February 4th.
So after a discussion with the Milford assessor, who patiently provided a lengthy and thorough explanation (thanks Mr. Thomas), I understand why my tax bill is going up despite an apparent drop between our '06 and '11 assessed property values. It has to do with a "phased-in" approach to assessed property values. In '06, at the peak of the market, some properties in Milford had doubled or tripled in relation to the last assessment in 2000. Rather than apply that hit in one shot to Milford tax payers, they city opted to gradually apply the new 2006 assessment rate, 20% each year, until the next assessment in 2011. Then, in 2008, the market crashed, and they froze the phase-in. So, here were are in 2012, and the assessment rate is again calculated as %70 of current market value, instead of what we saw for the past 3 years, which was an artificial manufactured rate of the 2000 assessment + %40 of the difference between 2000 and 2006 (i.e. the phase in). This explains the tax jump despite assessment going down between 2006 and 2011. Connecticut needs to dump the 5 year assessment window and begin doing this annually. There is too much opportunity for leaps in assessment values this way, and for someone like me who just bought the property in 2007, it is an opaque process with considerations on the state of the property before I ever owned it.
If in our city there were no foreclosures, empty storefronts or high unemployment, then the Mayor's job would be easy, as he would have a budget surplus and the ability to cut taxes. Such is not the present case, and while I want the Mayor to be aware of his promises, I will not fault him if the task is impossible.
Alas, it is true. Ah, but the Richetelli administration was so thoroughly indefensible. Wasn't it? That said I leave you to your uninformed bashing. But for the record: Banks pay taxes on foreclosed properties and unemployment is a nation wide problem - not just municipal. Also. You are using the words "budget surplus" in a way that legally does not apply to a municipal budget.
What does it mean? Impose control on tax expenditures? - That's what a 'budget' is all about. Keep taxes constant? - That's kind of hard to achieve. Some people's taxes will go up and some will go down depending on the improvements and/or demolition. That said. The city has been through a lot of crap since Blake made that "hold the line" comment. Remember Irene? Remember Sandy? Take a ride along the shoreline. Some of those structures that used to be part of the grand-list have been torn down. No structure on a lot means a lower tax assessment. Also, public works has been working a lot of overtime on clean-up. FEMA will eventually reimburse the city for about 75% of that cost, but the operative word is 'eventually.' In the mean time we have to pay the bills. A 2.7% increase seems low to me once all this is taken into account.
At the same time most costs have also gone up, be it gasoline, food or taxes. We would be hard put to find an item that has gone down in cost at this time. Is there anyone in public service who does not want to see things better here in Milford. I know this is the case be they Democrat or Republican administrations
As a self employed individual I have had to cut my personal expenses due to a 14% increase in healthcare as well as other expenses. For those who work for a company they can't affect their income by soliciting their employer for more money, they need to adjust their lifestyle to make ends meet... if they can. It is with the same regard that I feel all municipalities operate accordingly.