Log in Register

 

Mohegan Sun Housatonic Community College Elle Sera OIB the book
Bridgeport Public Library OIB Classifieds
OIB TV

Mohegan Sun


Stevens Quicklane

The Plastic Factory

Greater Bridgeport Transit

Connecticut Characters





Trattoria ’A vucchella



Grand List 15 Percent Lower, Mixed Bag Expected For Tax Bills

March 9th, 2016 · 9 Comments · City Budget, City Council, News and Events

In about four weeks, Mayor Joe Ganim will submit his proposed budget to the City Council that will factor in the grand list of taxable property based on the new revaluation to kick in for July 1. The grand list, according to a news release issued by city Communications Director Av Harris, is 15 percent lower, a figure that Finance Director Ken Flatto says is not as bad as originally anticipated. Flatto says when taxpayers receive their July 1 bill some will see a cut, some will stay the same, some will see an increase based on the reval and corresponding mil rate set by the City Council to fund city services.

News release from Harris:

The 2015 Bridgeport property tax revaluation is now complete, below is the grand list assessment of city properties. Overall, the total assessed taxable grand list in Bridgeport stands at $6,041,621,208–a figure approximately 15% lower than the total assessed taxable grand list property valuation for Bridgeport in 2014 which stood at $7,149,521,127. In raw dollars, the total assessed taxable property values in Bridgeport declined by just over $1 Billion dollars as a result of the revaluation, the first revaluation since 2008. Here is a breakdown of the new taxable grand list assessment:

Reassessment Grand List Information:

All Taxable: 2015 Grand List 2014 Grand List
Real Property $4,751,098,913 $5,969,035,557
Personal Property $ 830,236,504 $736,712,095
Motor Vehicles $460,265,791 $443,773,475
TOTAL GRAND LIST: $6,041,621,208 $7,149,521,127

Change as % 2015 v 2014: – 15.49%
Change $ 2015 v 2014: – $1,007,899,919

Property assessments as a result of revaluation by law must represent 70% of fair market value of the property as of October 1, 2015. Property owners who are not in agreement with the final assessment valuation for their property can formally appeal their assessment to the Bridgeport Board of Assessment Appeals. Hearings will be scheduled in late March and April. Mayor Ganim reminds Bridgeport property owners that they should not apply the current tax (mil) rate to new assessed property values, as a new mil rate will be determined to reflect the new property revaluation. Using the current mil rate will result in an inaccurate tax calculation. The new mil rate will be determined only after the City budget process is completed later this spring.

Below is a listing of the highest 20 valued properties in Bridgeport

Combined Top 20 Real Estate Taxpayers

Taxpayer Assessment
CRRA/US Bank Nat assoc James E. Mogavero $153,984,140
Peoples United Bank $37,832,560
PSEG Power Connecticut LLC $25,154,120
Watermark 3030 Park LLC $23,434,710
Success Village Apts Inc $21,706,740
Brookside (E&A) LLC $16,624,720
Bridgeport Lafayette 2005 LLC $12,510,090
BLD Parcel I Owner LLC $12,049,790
RDR Mob Ground LLC $10,488,270
Remo Tartaglia Associates LLC $9,489,430
CU-Bridgeport Limited $9,220,380
Fairbridge Commons LLC $9,153,440
Sprague Connecticut Properties LLC $9,105,810
Bridgeport Energy LLC $9,093,840
2500 SS Limited Partnership $8,852,880
1070 Hotel Partnership $8,613,080
Bridgeport Towers LLC $8,417,600
Stratfield Apts LLC $7,912,520
Bridgeport Phase 1Owner LLC $7,509,700
Extra Space Properties Forty Five LLC $7,381,200

Share

Tags: ··

9 Comments so far ↓

  • Frank Gyure

    So the mil rate will go up. Ganim will blame it on Finch with the Flatto $20 million deficit, when the City of Bridgeport costs 700 million dollars.

  • Bob Walsh

    Folks, this is BAD news. Don’t buy the Flatto spin. And speaking of Flatto, I hope everyone who said he would not be political but purely professional realizes now he is nothing but a professional politician.

  • Godiva2011

    I truly pity the taxpayers in Bridgeport who are already taxed to the max, and who are they going to fault for this reassessment? Most likely the scapegoat will be the tax assessor they just laid off. After all, they need to lay the blame on someone.

  • Andrew C Fardy

    The blame belongs squarely on the taxpayers and voters of Bridgeport who keep electing whomever the DTC puts up. The people of Bridgeport never attend meetings, most don’t read the rag called the CT Post. Some read the blog OIB, which has turned into a soft-issue blog.
    We keep sending the same dumb asses to the council. Now on Fairfield Ave we have trolley tracks coming through the roadway. That did not just happen.

  • Andrew C Fardy

    You can also thank the council for all the tax abatements they have granted. My favorite is the former Rotary Senior housing high rise. This complex was 100% occupied. Rotary was paying the full tax bill and some out-of-state company buys the complex and right away asks for a tax abatement, which the council grants. I don’t believe there is one, well maybe one, request for a 30- or 40-year tax abatement the council has turned down.

  • Jeff Kohut

    I thought Bass Pro, the Sports Authority, Chipotle, Starbucks and the proposed train station were going to save us. I guess we’ll have to wait for the new waterfront power plant and fuel cell hot water pipe to bring salvation, along with their two dozen jobs and extra $7-$10 million (to close our $20+-million current budget gap, which will undoubtedly double or triple by the time that revenue starts to trickle in).

    When will Bridgeport’s leadership learn bowing and scraping for the Gold Coast will only bring us lower, no matter what kind of squeaky clean gyrations we perform for our own internal delusion and external entertainment?

    Sure, let’s try to have open and honest government. But let’s not squander our energy on perfectionist, feel-good/look-good tail chasing.

    Let’s use our energy to throw down the gauntlet to Hartford, Washington (Stamford-Greenwich) regarding what we want in terms of local, living-wage jobs and high-value tax base for our city. We have the votes. If we don’t make our Gold Coast representation work for their Bridgeport votes, all we’ll get in the future are more power plants, budget deficits and failing schools. (Truly, we need to replace our representation with urban-friendly faces from places in the region/Connecticut who are sympathetic to our needs and not out to rig the deck against us.)

    Bridgeport has the electoral power. We should be calling the shots when it comes to our city.

  • BOE SPY

    OK Kohut, power plant jobs are living-wage job while casino and shore side resort jobs are not. Power plants are just electricity-making factories and aren’t we crying out for the return of BPT’s factory working past? We ARE still waiting for the miracle solution from Joe you alluded to during the election cycle.

    The problem is not BPT’s low land use capitalization. Bpt simply spends too much and has positioned itself in such a way to attract a population that needs more than they can pay.
    www .ct.gov/sots/cwp/view.asp?a=3188&q=392426
    Bridgeport
    City 19.4 sq mi (50.2 km2)
    Land 16.0 sq mi (41.4 km2)
    Water 3.4 sq mi (8.8 km2)
    Grand List $7,110,904,657 or $444.5 mil/Sq.Ml

    Stamford
    City 52.1 sq mi (134.9 km2)
    Land 37.7 sq mi (97.9 km2)
    Water 14.3 sq mi (37.0 km2)
    Grand List $18,839,166,277 or $499.7 mil/Sq.Mi

    These calculations only count the land area of each city and the Net Grand List 2014-2015. Stamford’s per square mile value is only 11% more than Bridgeport while Bridgeport’s mil rate is more than double Stamford’s. You may also want to note that more of Stamford’s grand list comes from higher residential property values and not commercial assets.

    Cities Homes Median Tax
    Bridgeport 27,901 5,429.50
    Stamford 31,703 $6,143.92

    On average Bridgeport has $151.5 mil in residential property value and Stamford has 194.8 mil or 22% more. People in Stamford pay a lower percentage in taxes but their property values are much higher. Resulting in an 11.6% higher total tax bill.

  • Jeff Kohut

    BOE SPY. You are obviously not knowledgeable about economics/economic drivers. You are also not a very deep or clear thinker. You pretend to be adept at utilizing statistics, but frankly it’s surprising you were even able to locate the stats cited in your posting. The portion of your posting cited below supports my contentions about your spurious economic acumen:

    “The problem is not BPT’s low land use capitalization. Bpt simply spends too much and has positioned itself in such a way to attract a population that needs more than they can pay.”

    Bridgeport spends too much? By what yardstick? What do Hartford, New Haven, Stamford, Waterbury, et al. spend per capita?

    No problem regarding low land-use capitalization?! No problem?! There’s a huge problem here, but it isn’t through choice. It’s called red-lining. Who foisted projects such as the Juvenile Jail on Bridgeport, on downtown, waterfront property, no less?!

    What about the untaxable second train station and heavily tax-abated workforce housing for Stamford, aka “transit oriented development?”

    Are you aware of the overall effect on surrounding taxable property of huge, fossil-fuel power plants? Of course you’re not.

    And you would call the production of a transient commodity used to support various human activities “manufacturing.” Stupid! Calling power plants manufacturing facilities is the same as calling your car engine a manufacturing facility. (Ideally, our power plants would be supporting Bridgeport-based manufacturing, rather than supporting the economies and lifestyles of our neighbors who don’t want power plants dragging down the value of their tax base and otherwise sullying their local environment.)

    And again; who provides the regional services? And at what level of compensation? No low land-use capitalization, indeed!

    Stamford, $20 billion vs. Bridgeport $6 billion. No problem with land-use capitalization?! (Your stats were off a bit, of course.)

    And do you think the handful of decent jobs going to out-of-towners can possibly justify the use of a huge area of waterfront property for power plants that undermine our existing tax base and crowd out higher value tax base (hospitality or even manufacturing/shipping) and thousands of potentially decent hospitality jobs?

    BOE SPY, you are either a BRBC/BCFC Stamford-Greenwich shill (and not a very clever one) or you are just plain stupid. No wonder you’re afraid to use your own name.

    Go back to the ‘burbs. You’re an a-hole.

    • BOE SPY

      Jeff, I did research to support my claim. If you want to compare BPT and Hartford, New Haven, Stamford, Waterbury, et al. spend per capita, go right ahead. The article was not about spending per capita it is about paying the bills with the resources at hand. BPT spends too much based on its area. To achieve the income of Stamford, BPT’s land asset value would have to be double that of Stamford. Currently BPT’s land value is 88.9% that of Stamford but the mil rate is double. Hence our problem.

      To look at Stamford’s $20 billion vs. Bridgeport $6 billion would be like comparing the total land value of Texas to that of Connecticut. Stamford is simply much larger. Hence, more property tax. Stamford’s close proximity to New York is also an asset that helps to inflate the value of Stamford’s many bedroom communities.

      Don’t all factories support the economies and lifestyles of our neighbors? You could hardly make a profit building cars in BPT for only the people of BPT. The factory owner is not responsible for who gets the jobs in his facility. The factory creates the jobs. Getting the job is the responsibility of the worker. Since when is hospitality a good living-wage job? What great hospitality industries are on your ‘Gold Coast?’ BPT has Holiday Inn.
      www .bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag70.htm?scrlybrkr
      The average hourly hospitality wage is $14.49 and the average weekly hours are 26.1. Looks like low-paying part-time jobs.

      You have to concede Bridgeport (and the people you elected to run BPT) opened the prison, projects and red-lining you speak of. You elect people who do these things then invent conspiracies to explain it. The waterfront was on as in vogue when the projects were built. Living in the shore is a recent tony fad. When the projects were build the shore was considered smelly, buggy, it flooded and was frequented by shady sailor types. The weather was hot and sticky in the summer and cold and wet in the winter. People did not want to live near the shore because it sucked. It still does but living near the shore is currently a fad.

      On a positive note, I am sure now that Ganim has three police chiefs we will see a reduction in crime. No doubt that will help property values. However, it will not do much for reducing the city budget.

Leave a Comment

You must log in to post a comment.