NO Property Tax Increase

Posted By: ed j
Published 03/26/2011 12:00 AM
Updated 03/26/2011 10:22 PM
0
0
COMMENTS (0)
Bookmark and Share
print this article

To the Honorable Mayor Streeter, Members of the Groton Town Council, Town Manager and Town Clerk,

My latest correspondence from the Social Security Administration confirms that for the calendar year 2011, once again, I shall receive no increase in monthly payments. Their exact words to me were: “Your Social Security benefits are protected against inflation. The government measures changes in the cost of living through the Department of Labor’s Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI has not risen since the last cost-of-living adjustment was determined in 2008. As a result, your benefits will not increase in 2011.” Yet, some of my expenses for products and services, along with my property taxes, continue to rise.

The Groton FYE 2012 proposed Budget now shows an increase of 3.4% in expenditures over the FYE 2011 budget, principally due to the Education budget, which I believe has been submitted on the basis that the Phase II proposal will NOT pass. Because of the loss of a major business in this area that relocated out of state, homeowners may also be facing a higher mil rate and many of us estimate an approximate 10% increase in our property taxes. At this point, I’m estimating that the current property revaluation will not produce a dramatic downward shift in values, as some would hope, but will probably remain the same or even go up slightly.

In view of the fact that I will not be receiving any cost of living increase, I am therefore not in favor of ANY increase in my property tax. Here are some suggestions as to how the above 3.4% increase can be eliminated:

a) Convert and utilize existing encumbered funds as an extra reserve to reduce Town expenses;

b) Inasmuch as the Town Manager and Town Clerk have willingly set the example of “no salary increase,” have all other Town AND BOARD OF EDUCATION STAFF, including the Superintendent and his direct subordinates, receive no salary increases, and additionally have the Board of Education proceed with layoffs if necessary in order to arrive with ZERO budget increase, or less if needed (Waterford did this recently);

c) Since the CPI has not gone up, there should be no union pay increases, and if union members feel they are entitled anyway, arrange appropriate layoffs, since you won’t be in a position to pay those increases;

d) If the Groton City and Groton Long Point governments are insisting on presenting increased budgets to the Town of Groton, DENY THEM OUTRIGHT and continue with your ongoing evaluations of their separate services with a strong eye towards consolidation;

e) Where there are Town properties, such as former schools that are not going to be utilized, rather than continuing to provide maintenance, consider offering them to the local fire districts, perhaps providing a one-time monetary incentive to help them with initial restoration/maintenance, after which the Town will be no longer obligated;

As a Groton citizen and taxpayer, I AM saying that I WANT REDUCTION IN SERVICES in order to arrive at a point where there is NO INCREASE IN MY PROPERTY TAX. I cannot express this situation more clearly.

And if ever I wanted an opportunity, as a citizen, to actually VOTE on the final approval of the budget, this is certainly the year for it. Unfortunately, the Town Charter is not written in such a manner that currently allows that to happen. And yet, the majority of the Groton Town Council and RTM saw fit to pass along the $133 million Phase II project to the voters. Where is the balance of responsibility here?

In looking at the future, I am still very much opposed to the Phase II School proposal. While the figures have been “adjusted” to show that it would result in “no cost increase for the next 3 years” by those actively promoting the project, they don’t highlight the much higher “long range” costs, which will cause major budget problems for us later on. In other words, we are being shown a “buy now and pay later” policy, totally inappropriate for our current financial situation. And I have heard comments to the effect that in the Phase I project, the Chester School site was NOT recommended by the engineers as a good expansion location back then for reasons which included (a) being potentially unsafe under the aircraft landing flight path, (b) being in a flood zone and (c) having a high area traffic density. Those who were actively promoting the use of the King property back then would probably remember this. And many citizens, including myself, have already come to the same conclusions and expressed them publicly.

Please arrange for no property tax increases for the FYE 12 budget.

Thank you all for the time that you spend on these matters.

Ed Johnson, Groton, CT