After reading coverage in print and online of Andre Michaud's difficulties with the Tax Collector's Office, and knowing how overwhelmingly frustrating it is to be railroaded by bureaucracy, I decided to figure out what was going on. The "he said, she said" coverage of the story in the Rep-Am did nothing to help readers decide who was right. The official report issued by the city's Corporation Council did little to clarify the matter, as it avoided answering any questions about how the delinquent tax system works.
It's taken me hours to unravel what really happens, even though this is information that should be readily available to the general public. What I discovered is that the system by which real estate property is
auctioned off for delinquent taxes is shrouded in mystery and confusing legal jargon.
Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Why Live Here
The recent announcement of a small increase in the city's tax rate has been met with an outpouring of moaning and whining from people declaring that everyone should move out of the city, and politicking from local Republicans and Independents. I have not come across any viable suggestions of what can be cut from the budget to save money without harming needed city operations, just reactionary negativity about how this is a terrible thing. Yes, we have a municipal budget problem. But the problem will not be solved overnight, and short-sighted, knee-jerk reactions are not going to help.
There are far too many times when negativity has the loudspeaker in Waterbury. In the seventeen years that I've worked and lived in this city, I've encountered a seemingly endless parade of negativity. Too many people are eager to tell you what they hate about Waterbury, or how much they wish they lived somewhere else, and how nothing will ever change.
What amazes me most are the people who think that nationwide economic troubles exist only in Waterbury, or that Waterbury is somehow worse than any other city in Connecticut.
Enough moaning from me about other people moaning about Waterbury. Here is the list of reasons why I gladly choose to live in Waterbury.
Affordability
That's right, affordability is at the top of my list. Yes, the mill rate is high, but that's because the property values are low. My monthly mortgage payment is $600, and that includes the property taxes. There is no way that I could get a mortgage that cheap in the suburbs, or anywhere in Fairfield and Litchfield Counties. I can't even rent an apartment for that small an amount.
Quality Housing
Waterbury is full of houses and apartment buildings that were built to last, and built to be beautiful. Of course, if you want to live in a post-1960, cheaply constructed, firetrap apartment or condo where the walls are so flimsy you can hear your neighbors whispering in their living room, we've got that too. But if you want a distinctive, unique home that makes you smile when you get home at the end of the day, a house that suits your personality and sense of individuality, Waterbury excels.
Food Diversity
We may not have the diversity of restaurants found in a larger city, but if you look past the preponderance of Italian restaurants, Chinese delivery, and pizzarias, you'll find Thai, Japanese, Lebanese, Turkish, Pakistani, Jamaican, Dominican, Puerto Rican, Mexican, BBQ, Soul, and Portuguese.
We also have a good number of small international groceries and delis, each of which specializes in foods of a specific country.
Cultural Diversity
Because there are so many different immigrant groups in Waterbury, it is a very culturally diverse city, which is a great thing. The festivals held throughout the year by the various ethnic groups is one of Waterbury's best features.
Although mainstream sports tends to dominate in Waterbury, there are plenty of organizations, businesses, and activities to appeal to people looking for something other than baseball, football, and basketball.
Entertainment
We don't just have cultural diversity: we also have Culture. Sure, if your idea of entertainment is the movies, we've got that. We've also got museums, a library, music, theaters (the non-movie kind), outdoor Shakespeare performances, parades, lectures, and discussions. We've even got two state college campuses that regularly hold cultural events that are open to the public.
Parks
Waterbury has some great parks and is working on building a new linear park along the Naugatuck River that will connect to other towns. If it's a beautiful day and you want to get outside and enjoy a walk in the park, or take the kids to the playground, Waterbury has that.
Central Location
I love being able to do day trips to New York City and Boston. I like being able to pop up to Hartford or down to New Haven for quick visits. I like that I can go to the beach, or go for 26-mile car-free bike ride, or go hiking in the woods during the summer, and spend the winter skiing or snowboarding (not that I'm any good at either of those things, and haven't done them in years, but I like that I could). From Waterbury, it's a short drive to a wide variety of excursions.
Safety
Waterbury is a safe city. Our police department does an amazing job not only of keeping major things like the homicide rate extremely low, but they also do an amazing job of building community through PAL and the Community Relations department.
Convenience
Living in a city is all about convenience. I'm a ten minute drive, at most, from anything I need, be it a hospital or a grocery store.
Opportunity
Waterbury's size is "just right" for anyone to have their voice heard or to establish a platform for success. In some ways, Waterbury is like an overgrown small town, where it's very easy to get to know a large number of people. There are countless volunteer opportunities to help you feel connected, keep you busy, or let you give back to the community. It's also a very supportive town: whatever you want to do, you will find someone to cheer you on and help make it happen. Despite the negativity I mentioned at the start of this post, Waterbury is full of people who are eager to see this city and its people succeed.
Community
Last, but not least, when you live or work in Waterbury, it's very easy to feel connected to other people. Newcomers are quickly welcomed into a community of people who don't think twice about making them feel like they belong here. I've lived and worked in towns where newcomers are treated as pariahs, so that makes me appreciate Waterbury's openness even more.
There are far too many times when negativity has the loudspeaker in Waterbury. In the seventeen years that I've worked and lived in this city, I've encountered a seemingly endless parade of negativity. Too many people are eager to tell you what they hate about Waterbury, or how much they wish they lived somewhere else, and how nothing will ever change.
What amazes me most are the people who think that nationwide economic troubles exist only in Waterbury, or that Waterbury is somehow worse than any other city in Connecticut.
Enough moaning from me about other people moaning about Waterbury. Here is the list of reasons why I gladly choose to live in Waterbury.
Affordability
That's right, affordability is at the top of my list. Yes, the mill rate is high, but that's because the property values are low. My monthly mortgage payment is $600, and that includes the property taxes. There is no way that I could get a mortgage that cheap in the suburbs, or anywhere in Fairfield and Litchfield Counties. I can't even rent an apartment for that small an amount.
 |
| Fresh paint and new flooring; from when I bought my house in 2007. |
Quality Housing
Waterbury is full of houses and apartment buildings that were built to last, and built to be beautiful. Of course, if you want to live in a post-1960, cheaply constructed, firetrap apartment or condo where the walls are so flimsy you can hear your neighbors whispering in their living room, we've got that too. But if you want a distinctive, unique home that makes you smile when you get home at the end of the day, a house that suits your personality and sense of individuality, Waterbury excels.
 |
| A large home in the Overlook neighborhood. |
Food Diversity
We may not have the diversity of restaurants found in a larger city, but if you look past the preponderance of Italian restaurants, Chinese delivery, and pizzarias, you'll find Thai, Japanese, Lebanese, Turkish, Pakistani, Jamaican, Dominican, Puerto Rican, Mexican, BBQ, Soul, and Portuguese.
We also have a good number of small international groceries and delis, each of which specializes in foods of a specific country.
 |
| Pastries at the Albanian Festival. |
Cultural Diversity
Because there are so many different immigrant groups in Waterbury, it is a very culturally diverse city, which is a great thing. The festivals held throughout the year by the various ethnic groups is one of Waterbury's best features.
Although mainstream sports tends to dominate in Waterbury, there are plenty of organizations, businesses, and activities to appeal to people looking for something other than baseball, football, and basketball.
 |
| Coasters for sale at the Greek Festival. |
Entertainment
We don't just have cultural diversity: we also have Culture. Sure, if your idea of entertainment is the movies, we've got that. We've also got museums, a library, music, theaters (the non-movie kind), outdoor Shakespeare performances, parades, lectures, and discussions. We've even got two state college campuses that regularly hold cultural events that are open to the public.
 |
| Shakesperience performance at Library Park. |
Parks
Waterbury has some great parks and is working on building a new linear park along the Naugatuck River that will connect to other towns. If it's a beautiful day and you want to get outside and enjoy a walk in the park, or take the kids to the playground, Waterbury has that.
 |
| Tulips at Hamilton Park. |
Central Location
I love being able to do day trips to New York City and Boston. I like being able to pop up to Hartford or down to New Haven for quick visits. I like that I can go to the beach, or go for 26-mile car-free bike ride, or go hiking in the woods during the summer, and spend the winter skiing or snowboarding (not that I'm any good at either of those things, and haven't done them in years, but I like that I could). From Waterbury, it's a short drive to a wide variety of excursions.
 |
| The three major transit routes to and from Waterbury: I-84, Route 8, and the train line. |
Safety
Waterbury is a safe city. Our police department does an amazing job not only of keeping major things like the homicide rate extremely low, but they also do an amazing job of building community through PAL and the Community Relations department.
 |
| PAL's Summer Youth Employment Program at work, helping a senior with his yard. |
Convenience
Living in a city is all about convenience. I'm a ten minute drive, at most, from anything I need, be it a hospital or a grocery store.
 |
| Farmer's Market on the Green. |
Opportunity
Waterbury's size is "just right" for anyone to have their voice heard or to establish a platform for success. In some ways, Waterbury is like an overgrown small town, where it's very easy to get to know a large number of people. There are countless volunteer opportunities to help you feel connected, keep you busy, or let you give back to the community. It's also a very supportive town: whatever you want to do, you will find someone to cheer you on and help make it happen. Despite the negativity I mentioned at the start of this post, Waterbury is full of people who are eager to see this city and its people succeed.
 |
| Community volunteers creating the "Cool Waters" mural at the Palace Theater. |
Community
Last, but not least, when you live or work in Waterbury, it's very easy to feel connected to other people. Newcomers are quickly welcomed into a community of people who don't think twice about making them feel like they belong here. I've lived and worked in towns where newcomers are treated as pariahs, so that makes me appreciate Waterbury's openness even more.
 |
| A game of chess at the Old Skool Picnic at Lakewood Park. |
Thursday, December 09, 2010
City Taxes
While doing some research on Waterbury's industrial history, I came across an interesting tidbit of information in Volume I of Pape's History of Waterbury (1918). In 1905, the widow of Augustus Sabin Chase purchased land to create a park in memory of her husband. She donated the park to the city, which led (somehow, not explained by Pape) to a charter amendment "providing for an annual tax for park purposes of one quarter of a mill passed the General Assembly and became a law operative for 1906."
Furthermore, "The appropriation under the new tax brought about rapid improvements particularly at Hamilton Park. Boats were placed on the lake for the first time. Flower beds were laid out, trees were set out, and work was begun on the swimming pool and on the athletic field."
An abundance of park improvements followed over the next few years. A playground was created at Locust and Walnut Streets, the Green was given new soil and seeded with grass, a marsh at Hamilton Park was turned into a lake and a baseball field and lawn tennis courts were laid out. By 1913, Hamilton Park "had become the great breathing place of the city."
I don't know what happened with the park department budget. I can see that they are woefully underfunded, but I don't know if they are still budgeted for a quarter of a mill.
[UPDATE: Since posting this, I've been informed that a quarter of a mill in Waterbury is currently about $1.25 million and that the Waterbury park department operating budget is about $2.1 million. For comparison, the New York City park department operating budget in 2008 was $340 million, while Central Park alone has an operating budget of about $20 million; Lincoln, Nebraska (with a population of about 251,000) has a park operating budget of $11.35 million for its 6000 acres of parks and open space; Lowell, Massachusetts (population of about 104,000) had a park department budget of $2.7 million in 2009.]
If city taxpayers were told that the mill rate was to be increased by a quarter of a mill in order to pay for improvements to the parks, I think they would be happy about that. In fact, the same is probably true for any city service--when we're told the mill rate is going up in order to maintain the status quo, taxpayers rightfully get upset. We're being asked to pay more without getting more, which is hard to stomach when we're not getting enough as it is. But if we were told that the mill rate is going up in order to pay for desired additional city services (like good sidewalks, better enforcement of anti-blight and anti-litter laws, improved parks), I think most taxpayers would be willing to make that sacrifice (assuming they can afford it!).
Furthermore, "The appropriation under the new tax brought about rapid improvements particularly at Hamilton Park. Boats were placed on the lake for the first time. Flower beds were laid out, trees were set out, and work was begun on the swimming pool and on the athletic field."
An abundance of park improvements followed over the next few years. A playground was created at Locust and Walnut Streets, the Green was given new soil and seeded with grass, a marsh at Hamilton Park was turned into a lake and a baseball field and lawn tennis courts were laid out. By 1913, Hamilton Park "had become the great breathing place of the city."
I don't know what happened with the park department budget. I can see that they are woefully underfunded, but I don't know if they are still budgeted for a quarter of a mill.
[UPDATE: Since posting this, I've been informed that a quarter of a mill in Waterbury is currently about $1.25 million and that the Waterbury park department operating budget is about $2.1 million. For comparison, the New York City park department operating budget in 2008 was $340 million, while Central Park alone has an operating budget of about $20 million; Lincoln, Nebraska (with a population of about 251,000) has a park operating budget of $11.35 million for its 6000 acres of parks and open space; Lowell, Massachusetts (population of about 104,000) had a park department budget of $2.7 million in 2009.]
If city taxpayers were told that the mill rate was to be increased by a quarter of a mill in order to pay for improvements to the parks, I think they would be happy about that. In fact, the same is probably true for any city service--when we're told the mill rate is going up in order to maintain the status quo, taxpayers rightfully get upset. We're being asked to pay more without getting more, which is hard to stomach when we're not getting enough as it is. But if we were told that the mill rate is going up in order to pay for desired additional city services (like good sidewalks, better enforcement of anti-blight and anti-litter laws, improved parks), I think most taxpayers would be willing to make that sacrifice (assuming they can afford it!).
Friday, April 30, 2010
State of the City
There have been a lot of things going on lately here in Waterbury, and they are all interwoven. The basic theme of recent events: the city government is proving to be a big disappointment to many residents, and the residents have lost patience and are making themselves heard. I'm going to address at least some of what's been going on in this post.
On Saturday April 17, more than 100 people came together for the Unity for Justice rally and Charter Revision Committee public hearing in the WOW neighborhood. Earlier in the day, the WOW neighborhood was visited by Congressman Chris Murphy, with Aldermen Joyce Petteway and Paul Pernerewski tagging along.
Most of the two dozen people at Murphy's public meeting were teenagers, members of the WOW/NRZ Youth Council. There was some discussion of opportunities for internships and the possibility of a bus trip to Washington, D.C. for the Youth Council.
Some of what Murphy said sounded like a standard speech about the stimulus money, but he also spoke on a few topics more specific to Waterbury. I was very pleased to hear him say that it is cheaper to rehabilitate existing housing than to build new. This is a topic near and dear to my heart, not only because I love historic architecture but because it is unbelievably wasteful to tear down structurally sound, well-constructed buildings and replace them with new buildings using modern cheap materials.
Murphy also stated that more money needs to be spent on education and positive activity programs for youths--and that doing so will reduce the amount of money we need to spend on juvenile corrections. (Someone should send that message to Waterbury's Public Works department, which has proposed cutting park & rec youth programs.)
I was a little surprised when Joyce Petteway spoke up to say that we can't look to government to solve our problems, although I have heard her say this before. I don't think she means for it to sound as callous as it does. As she said, the citizens have a responsibility to get involved and to be knowledgeable about what is going on, but what she didn't acknowledge is that there are limits to what citizens can do on their own. We can't replace the sidewalks without help from the city; we can't tear down dangerous abandoned buildings without help from the city; we can't enforce the law without help from the city.
.jpg)
Chris Murphy followed up with a better approach, tossing out a few factoids: 20% of twenty-year-olds vote; 80% of eighty-year-olds vote; and there is seven times as much federal money spent on eighty-year-olds as there is on 20-year-olds. Active participation is essential.
Active participation is what followed that afternoon. The Unity for Justice Rally started at 2:30 in the WOW Center with rousing speeches by Jimmie Griffin, Monroe Webster, Lisa Lessard, Dani McEvoy, James Monroe, Robert DeCosmo, Victor Diaz, Paul Vance, myself and probably one or two people I'm not remembering at the moment. After the speeches, we all gathered in the street outside and marched to Walsh School for the Charter Revision Committee's public hearing on Aldermen by District.
.jpg)
The weather wasn't too terrible, only a little bit of drizzle. As we marched along Walnut Street and turned the corner at Wood Street, we passed by two abandoned, decaying buildings that really symbolize the city's lack of interest in helping us improve this neighborhood--the school bus stop is right at these structures, and children have to stand under them every morning. This is why we want Aldermen by District, because we can't seem to get anyone in the current system to care enough about our neighborhood's problems.
.jpg)
Not everyone was able to walk to Walsh School, so some people met us there. The total crowd was a little over 100 people in attendance, with 30 people speaking at the public hearing. I was impressed by the long line of people signing up to speak. We were allowed ten minutes each, but most everyone kept the speeches short, so we were done in less than two hours.
.jpg)
The final result was immensely disappointing. Even though more than 100 people turned out in support of Aldermen by District and maybe only 5 people ever spoke out against it (not at Walsh School, where the speakers were unanimously in favor), all but two members the Charter Revision Commission ultimately voted against it. I've heard a rumor or two about why they voted it down, but whether or not they are true, I have to agree with Commissioner Bryan Baker, one of the two who voted for it, when he wrote on Twitter "The citizens of Waterbury got screwed tonight."
What a lot of people seem to misunderstand is that it wasn't up to the Charter Revision Commission to change our system of electing Aldermen. It was up to them to allow us the opportunity to vote on it in the fall. The citizens of Waterbury demanded the opportunity to vote in a democratic process to determine how we are to be governed, giving countless examples of how the current system doesn't work, and we were effectively told that our opinions and concerns are not valid. We were denied the right to vote.
.jpg)
At the same time that all of this was going on, the city and citizens were also responding to Mayor Jarjura's proposed increase of the mill rate. Here's a reminder for anyone paying attention during campaign season last year: Jarjura's 2009 campaign advertising boldly stated "Mayor Jarjura and his Democrat Team DID NOT RAISE YOUR TAXES IN 2010." Technically this is true. In 2009, Jarjura had not raised our taxes in 2010, since it hadn't happened yet. But now it is 2010 and he is raising our taxes (or does the increase not start until 2011?). Remember this when he starts his state-wide campaign promises.
One of the biggest complaints from Waterbury's taxpayers is that they are getting very few services in return for their taxes. The increase in the mill rate is not connected to any improvement in services. At the moment, it looks like the only way we'll keep the taxes from increasing this year is to get rid of some basic, necessary services. (Hey, look! We're getting screwed again!)
One of the early good guys in this story is City Clerk Michael Dalton, who readily gave up his $6,300 raise. The Republican-American contrasted this with City Auditor James Berthelson, who refused to give up his $2,550 raise but earns a little over $30,000 a year more than Dalton does. Mysteriously, Mayor Jarjura was apparently undecided about giving back any of his $119,000 a year salary (so much for leading by example).
What distresses me the most about the budget situation is that every department head seems to automatically assume that a budget cut will require laying off workers, closing fire stations, prohibiting swimming at Lakeville, shutting down youth programs, and getting rid of the anti-blight team. Whatever happened to economizing? Whatever happened to finding more cost-efficient ways of getting the same things done?
This is a slightly trivial analogy, but if I want a cup of coffee every morning, I can spent $2 a day buying it from a cafe, or I can spend a few pennies a day making it at home. Considering how large the city's budget is, I'm sure there are plenty of similar choices that can be made. The most obvious one is the city's budget for electricity. The Education Department has a budget of $4 million for their electricity needs. They could save 10-20% if the city switched to Positive Energy as their supplier. Waterbury's taxpayers could potentially save close to $1 million just by changing their utilities contracts. Why hasn't this been done? I've been told that Mayor Jarjura was approached by Positive Energy and refused the opportunity to save this money. I can only assume that there are many other cost reductions that are also being ignored.
It's easy to see why so many people have left Waterbury. For those of us who have chosen to stay here and do what we can to make things better, it can be very frustrating to see just how much work we have in front of us. But to everyone who lives in Waterbury and wants to see it get better, I say keep trying, keep working together, and never let them get you down!
On Saturday April 17, more than 100 people came together for the Unity for Justice rally and Charter Revision Committee public hearing in the WOW neighborhood. Earlier in the day, the WOW neighborhood was visited by Congressman Chris Murphy, with Aldermen Joyce Petteway and Paul Pernerewski tagging along.
Most of the two dozen people at Murphy's public meeting were teenagers, members of the WOW/NRZ Youth Council. There was some discussion of opportunities for internships and the possibility of a bus trip to Washington, D.C. for the Youth Council.
Some of what Murphy said sounded like a standard speech about the stimulus money, but he also spoke on a few topics more specific to Waterbury. I was very pleased to hear him say that it is cheaper to rehabilitate existing housing than to build new. This is a topic near and dear to my heart, not only because I love historic architecture but because it is unbelievably wasteful to tear down structurally sound, well-constructed buildings and replace them with new buildings using modern cheap materials.
Murphy also stated that more money needs to be spent on education and positive activity programs for youths--and that doing so will reduce the amount of money we need to spend on juvenile corrections. (Someone should send that message to Waterbury's Public Works department, which has proposed cutting park & rec youth programs.)
I was a little surprised when Joyce Petteway spoke up to say that we can't look to government to solve our problems, although I have heard her say this before. I don't think she means for it to sound as callous as it does. As she said, the citizens have a responsibility to get involved and to be knowledgeable about what is going on, but what she didn't acknowledge is that there are limits to what citizens can do on their own. We can't replace the sidewalks without help from the city; we can't tear down dangerous abandoned buildings without help from the city; we can't enforce the law without help from the city.
.jpg)
Chris Murphy followed up with a better approach, tossing out a few factoids: 20% of twenty-year-olds vote; 80% of eighty-year-olds vote; and there is seven times as much federal money spent on eighty-year-olds as there is on 20-year-olds. Active participation is essential.
Active participation is what followed that afternoon. The Unity for Justice Rally started at 2:30 in the WOW Center with rousing speeches by Jimmie Griffin, Monroe Webster, Lisa Lessard, Dani McEvoy, James Monroe, Robert DeCosmo, Victor Diaz, Paul Vance, myself and probably one or two people I'm not remembering at the moment. After the speeches, we all gathered in the street outside and marched to Walsh School for the Charter Revision Committee's public hearing on Aldermen by District.
.jpg)
The weather wasn't too terrible, only a little bit of drizzle. As we marched along Walnut Street and turned the corner at Wood Street, we passed by two abandoned, decaying buildings that really symbolize the city's lack of interest in helping us improve this neighborhood--the school bus stop is right at these structures, and children have to stand under them every morning. This is why we want Aldermen by District, because we can't seem to get anyone in the current system to care enough about our neighborhood's problems.
.jpg)
Not everyone was able to walk to Walsh School, so some people met us there. The total crowd was a little over 100 people in attendance, with 30 people speaking at the public hearing. I was impressed by the long line of people signing up to speak. We were allowed ten minutes each, but most everyone kept the speeches short, so we were done in less than two hours.
.jpg)
The final result was immensely disappointing. Even though more than 100 people turned out in support of Aldermen by District and maybe only 5 people ever spoke out against it (not at Walsh School, where the speakers were unanimously in favor), all but two members the Charter Revision Commission ultimately voted against it. I've heard a rumor or two about why they voted it down, but whether or not they are true, I have to agree with Commissioner Bryan Baker, one of the two who voted for it, when he wrote on Twitter "The citizens of Waterbury got screwed tonight."
What a lot of people seem to misunderstand is that it wasn't up to the Charter Revision Commission to change our system of electing Aldermen. It was up to them to allow us the opportunity to vote on it in the fall. The citizens of Waterbury demanded the opportunity to vote in a democratic process to determine how we are to be governed, giving countless examples of how the current system doesn't work, and we were effectively told that our opinions and concerns are not valid. We were denied the right to vote.
.jpg)
At the same time that all of this was going on, the city and citizens were also responding to Mayor Jarjura's proposed increase of the mill rate. Here's a reminder for anyone paying attention during campaign season last year: Jarjura's 2009 campaign advertising boldly stated "Mayor Jarjura and his Democrat Team DID NOT RAISE YOUR TAXES IN 2010." Technically this is true. In 2009, Jarjura had not raised our taxes in 2010, since it hadn't happened yet. But now it is 2010 and he is raising our taxes (or does the increase not start until 2011?). Remember this when he starts his state-wide campaign promises.
One of the biggest complaints from Waterbury's taxpayers is that they are getting very few services in return for their taxes. The increase in the mill rate is not connected to any improvement in services. At the moment, it looks like the only way we'll keep the taxes from increasing this year is to get rid of some basic, necessary services. (Hey, look! We're getting screwed again!)
One of the early good guys in this story is City Clerk Michael Dalton, who readily gave up his $6,300 raise. The Republican-American contrasted this with City Auditor James Berthelson, who refused to give up his $2,550 raise but earns a little over $30,000 a year more than Dalton does. Mysteriously, Mayor Jarjura was apparently undecided about giving back any of his $119,000 a year salary (so much for leading by example).
What distresses me the most about the budget situation is that every department head seems to automatically assume that a budget cut will require laying off workers, closing fire stations, prohibiting swimming at Lakeville, shutting down youth programs, and getting rid of the anti-blight team. Whatever happened to economizing? Whatever happened to finding more cost-efficient ways of getting the same things done?
This is a slightly trivial analogy, but if I want a cup of coffee every morning, I can spent $2 a day buying it from a cafe, or I can spend a few pennies a day making it at home. Considering how large the city's budget is, I'm sure there are plenty of similar choices that can be made. The most obvious one is the city's budget for electricity. The Education Department has a budget of $4 million for their electricity needs. They could save 10-20% if the city switched to Positive Energy as their supplier. Waterbury's taxpayers could potentially save close to $1 million just by changing their utilities contracts. Why hasn't this been done? I've been told that Mayor Jarjura was approached by Positive Energy and refused the opportunity to save this money. I can only assume that there are many other cost reductions that are also being ignored.
It's easy to see why so many people have left Waterbury. For those of us who have chosen to stay here and do what we can to make things better, it can be very frustrating to see just how much work we have in front of us. But to everyone who lives in Waterbury and wants to see it get better, I say keep trying, keep working together, and never let them get you down!
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Tax Time
If you are like me and forgot, you can pay online at http://www.waterburyct.org/content/458/646/4965.aspx
Friday, July 31, 2009
Online Tax Payments
I've been waiting eagerly to use the city's new online payment option for property taxes, launched this summer. Today was payday and my car tax is due August 3rd, so today was the day to do it.
I'd been reading the letters to the editor in the Rep-Am written by taxpayers who were angry at having to pay a 3% convenience fee for paying by credit card. I didn't think this was a real problem, since they have always done that. The credit card companies charge the city that fee, so the city passes it on to the credit card user so that they don't lose any tax revenue. Nothing new there.
A letter to the editor from Steve Gambini, the Mayor's aide, seemed to clarify everything. Yes, there's a 3% fee for using a credit card, but that's normal. If you pay online by check, the fee is only fifty cents. Given that a stamp costs nearly that much and snail mail requires an earlier payment, I was content.
I went online this morning and eventually manoeuvred through the bill pay site (I had to do it twice--after I got through maybe five or six screens, I got a message telling me that I was using the wrong browser and needed to switch to Firefox). I finally got to the section where you actually pay the bill and was shocked by what I saw.
For a payment of $155.89, there is a mystery convenience fee of $4.68 which appears to be completely separate from the "convenience" fees related to the form of payment. That's a 3% fee, completely unexplained. I started getting very upset, but in the interest of properly testing the system for myself, I continued with the payment (also, I really didn't want to go wait in line for an hour at the Tax Collector's office).
Lo and behold! When you enter your direct debit information and move on to the next screen, the 3% fee magically transforms into the 50¢ fee!
I'll keep using the site to pay my taxes, but whoever designed the tax payment site needs to take a remedial course in User-Friendly Design.
I'd been reading the letters to the editor in the Rep-Am written by taxpayers who were angry at having to pay a 3% convenience fee for paying by credit card. I didn't think this was a real problem, since they have always done that. The credit card companies charge the city that fee, so the city passes it on to the credit card user so that they don't lose any tax revenue. Nothing new there.
A letter to the editor from Steve Gambini, the Mayor's aide, seemed to clarify everything. Yes, there's a 3% fee for using a credit card, but that's normal. If you pay online by check, the fee is only fifty cents. Given that a stamp costs nearly that much and snail mail requires an earlier payment, I was content.
I went online this morning and eventually manoeuvred through the bill pay site (I had to do it twice--after I got through maybe five or six screens, I got a message telling me that I was using the wrong browser and needed to switch to Firefox). I finally got to the section where you actually pay the bill and was shocked by what I saw.
For a payment of $155.89, there is a mystery convenience fee of $4.68 which appears to be completely separate from the "convenience" fees related to the form of payment. That's a 3% fee, completely unexplained. I started getting very upset, but in the interest of properly testing the system for myself, I continued with the payment (also, I really didn't want to go wait in line for an hour at the Tax Collector's office).
Lo and behold! When you enter your direct debit information and move on to the next screen, the 3% fee magically transforms into the 50¢ fee!
I'll keep using the site to pay my taxes, but whoever designed the tax payment site needs to take a remedial course in User-Friendly Design.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Tax Address
I just wrote a check to the city tax collector for the second payment on my motor vehicle tax bill. I don't have time or patience to pay in person (the last time I had to stand in that line, I was there for 40 minutes), so I'm paying by mail. The mailing address is a post office box in Hartford. I'm really not sure what to make of that. I'm going to swing by Grand Street, put the check in the mailbox located at the post office, two blocks away from the tax collector's office, and my letter is going to be sent all the way to Hartford before it finally returns to the office two blocks away from the post office I mailed it from.
I'd like to believe there is something logical about this system, but I can't imagine what it might be.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Mill Rate Goes Down, Taxes Go Up
For years everyone has been moaning about Waterbury's high mill rate, while a few people have pointed out that housing is more affordable here than anywhere nearby. Yesterday's news article makes it sound like the city is ready to make some changes.
The good news is that they want to lower the mill rate to 39.5, which is on level with other places around the state and is far less likely to scare off potential buyers. The bad news is that assessed values will be changed to reflect recent market trends. So, for example, if they do a random sampling of houses sold in the past six months and determine that the houses were sold on average for 40% more than their previous valuation, everyone's property value will be increased by 40% (at least, that's how I understand it). The mill rate is then applied to 70% of the property value.
There are going to be a lot of upset building owners when this goes through. One of Waterbury's selling points has been the affordability of housing. I'm sure there are people in the city government who wish that they could bring in as much per house in taxes as the surrounding towns do, but the reality is that most people in Waterbury can't afford to own a home in those towns. Housing in Waterbury has to stay affordable. It's one of the last affordable places in the state.
The good news is that they want to lower the mill rate to 39.5, which is on level with other places around the state and is far less likely to scare off potential buyers. The bad news is that assessed values will be changed to reflect recent market trends. So, for example, if they do a random sampling of houses sold in the past six months and determine that the houses were sold on average for 40% more than their previous valuation, everyone's property value will be increased by 40% (at least, that's how I understand it). The mill rate is then applied to 70% of the property value.
There are going to be a lot of upset building owners when this goes through. One of Waterbury's selling points has been the affordability of housing. I'm sure there are people in the city government who wish that they could bring in as much per house in taxes as the surrounding towns do, but the reality is that most people in Waterbury can't afford to own a home in those towns. Housing in Waterbury has to stay affordable. It's one of the last affordable places in the state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)