Gotta love that leadership from McLachlan...
In a flurry of last minute activity, the Senate failed to give final passage to bill that extends the municipal conveyance tax, which had passed the House 121 to 27 earlier Wednesday evening.
Given a free pass this year by the Realtors lobby that generally opposes the tax, the Senate failed to put it on the consent calendar which passed right before midnight.
Municipalities rely on the tax, which according to the fiscal note brings in about $20 to $25 million a year for struggling municipalities.
[...]
The tax is set to expire June 30 and without it every city and town in the state could run a deficit.
For those who are not clear about the importance of this tax, here's a little background on the law in it's current form:
With some exceptions, Connecticut law requires a person who sells real property for $ 2,000 or more to pay a real estate conveyance tax when he conveys the property to the buyer. The tax has two parts: a state tax and a municipal tax. The state tax rate is either 0. 5% or 1% of the sale price, depending on the type of property and how much it sells for, and the town tax rate is either 0. 25% or up to a maximum of 0. 5% depending on where the property is located. The applicable state and local rates are added together to get the total tax rate for a particular transaction. The seller pays the tax when he conveys the property (CGS § 12-494-504h).
[...]
In addition to the state tax, sellers must pay a municipal real estate conveyance tax. The municipal tax rate is currently 0. 25% for all towns plus additional tax of up to 0. 25% for 18 eligible towns that chose to impose the increased rate. Thus, the municipal tax rate can range from 0. 25% to 0. 5%, depending on where the property is located.
Now it's important to note that back in 2003, the state approved to increase the for municipalities from 0.11% to 0.25%. The tax was scheduled to revert back to 0.11% on 6/30/07 but, that deadline was extended first to June 30 2008, then to July 1 2010.
Being a part of revenue, municipalities across the state rely upon this tax when drafting their budgets...including Danbury. From earlier this year, in an interview with Democratic gubernatorial candidate Rudy Marconi, I asked the First Selectman of Ridgefield for his opinion regarding the importance of the state to extend the increase of this tax.
Get where I'm going here. With the mayor's recent announcement of his attempts to sell the land that houses the old police station for aprox. 2.5 million, it's VERY safe to assume that the delay extending the increased conveyance will have a negative impact on the overall revenue projections within the city's 2010-11 budget.
...which brings us to Danbury's State Senator.
The State Senate was suppose to address extending the tax during THIS SESSION and although the House adopted the extension, the Senate let this issue slip right on by.
...better yet, as a member of the state's Finance, Revenue & Bonding committee, McLachlan was only one of a handful of senators to VOTE against extending this important tax for the Greater Danbury area.
The legislature's finance, revenue and bonding committee passed a bill Thursday that would extend the current conveyance tax rates until 2012. It would also expempt homeowners who are facing foreclosure or who have homes worth less than what they owe from the tax.
The committee vote was 35-15.
Most municipalities receive 0.25 percent of a property's sale price. More distressed communities, such as Hartford and New Haven, get 0.50 percent of the sale price.
Prior to 2003, the conveyance tax was 0.11 percent. The tax was increased in 2003 in the midst of a state budget deficit, but was set to revert back to the original rate the following year. The General Assembly, however, has consistently extended the tax increase, and now cities and towns rely on the revenue.
The increases are now set to expire at the end of this fiscal year. If they do, it would leave a hole in municipal budgets. The rate would drop to 0.11 percent for most cities and towns and 0.36 percent for distressed communities.
It's McLachlan's responsibility to represent DANBURY'S interest as opposed catering to special interest or far right groups (which does not represent the make-up of his district) with outlandish proposals that only concerns his ultra-conservative base... proposals that everyone knows will no chance in seeing the light of day.
For someone who has no problem blasting Democrats at the Capitol (and given the fact that Danbury's Democrats in the House voted on the extension), the fact that McLachlan's alarm bells being silent as this critical tax for municipalities slipped passed the senate's regular session should give you a clue into this person's political priorities...which has less to do with his district and more to do with his own self-interests.
The 24th district deserves better.
Danbury deserves better.
No comments:
Post a Comment