The city’s proposed $172 million budget will likely include $400,000 in extra conveyance tax revenue that may never arrive.
In the partisan bickering that that slowed legislation to a crawl in Hartford this week, the General Assembly apparently dropped plans to extend the special tax that’s helped 18 so-called “distressed communities” raise additional revenue every time a piece of property changes hands.
For Bristol, that means a loss of at least $400,000 in the next fiscal year – money that officials were counting on to assist in balancing the books during a particularly tough budget year.
City Comptroller Glenn Klocko said he will recommend to decision-makers on the Board of Finance and City Council to go ahead and leave the conveyance tax money in the spending plan despite the failure to extend the tax past June 30.
He said that he’s heard there is likely to be a special session of the legislature in June that will push through the measure in time to keep the cash flowing.
The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, which is fighting to keep the tax in place, said the extension was “caught up in budget politics” because Democrats didn’t want to bring it to the floor unless Republicans agreed not to try to amend it.
Gov. Jodi Rell and the Democratic leadership of the General Assembly agreed last week to a “do-nothing” budget for the state that doesn’t change the expenditures approved in 2007 for the following year’s state spending.
State Rep. Frank Nicastro, a Bristol Democratic who is also a city councilor, said he doesn’t know whether the conveyance tax will come up for a vote today, the final day of the session.
The city is aiming to cut the municipal budget approved by the finance board enough to cut the mill rate hike by a third, which would require lopping $1 million extra.
The Board of Education is absorbing $200,000 of that extra cut, but it’s not yet clear how the city will find the rest of the money.
A joint session of the council and finance panel is slated for 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 15 to weigh budget options.
If the city opts not to risk leaving the extra conveyance tax money in its budget, officials would have to find another $400,000 in spending cuts to make up the difference.
*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
16 comments:
Duh, gee why? The housing market's almost dead, how can it be possible for the Dum-o-crats in Hartford to want to not increase a tax when they have the opportunity?
The converyance tax was suppose to sunset years ago. Stop including money in the budget that was a one time winfall and then you won't have to worry how to replace it.
This is really not good for the city. Where are they going to find another $400k??? Not im my damn pocket, that's for sure.
I see a special session coming up!
Glen Klocko ain't no friend of Art Ward.
Don't blame Art Ward - he has got to rely on someone to tell him what to do and unfortunately he has bad taste in friends.
here we go again property taxes are going up this year and guess what they will go up again next year. this money has to come from somebody.
Glen Klocko also said additional money was coming from the state.
Is it?
If not, where does that leave us?
Since we now have a charter revision going on , how about doing something similar to Terryville and institute a budget cap of 3% per year .
It seems like the hogs will keep stuffing themselves until the public puts a stop to it .
How about you republican'ts ?
Stay tuned for the usual press release from Hamzy and Burns explaining all our ills away.
The conveyance tax is a regressive tax policy with the increases which were put into place in the budget crisis in 2003 scheduled to sunset. That has never happened. The promises made to the tax payers were not kept. How could our city take money that has a scheduled sunset date and place that money into the budget. This is completely fiscally irresponsible. At this time when the governor and the legislature are asking everyone including themselves to tighten their belts, it is time for the city to do the same!! Mr Finley from CCM has been quoted saying that legislators PROMISED to keep the tax and should honor that promise. Well What happened to the promise to sunset the tax made to us tax payers?
The Republicans didn't want the conveyance tax anyway.
Where does Jerome stand on the conveyance tax???
Where are all these concerned real estate agents? They could reduce there commission to 5% instead of 6%. Without your house or land they have nothing.
How come all these 5:00 PM "public meetings"???
Post a Comment