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.
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.
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.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
