In a statement about his freedom of information complaint against the city regarding disclosure of revaluation information on his North End home, former Mayor John Fabrizi writes “The city broke the law and has not provided the public’s information regarding this issue.” Fabs statement follows and includes state statute language upon which he based his complaint.
“The primary focus of the FOI complaint that I filed yesterday is related to 12-55 of the Connecticut General State Statutes. This statute, approved by the General Assembly is mandated by law. A clear reading of the Statute states that the “new” revaluation/assessment data should have been included in the October 2013 grand list and posted for public inspection.
“Regardless if you use the statute’s date, or the date that was referred to in the City Attorney’s letter (February 28th), this data should have been posted in the Tax Assessor’s office for public inspection. The vote by the Legislature, signed by the Governor and accepted by the City Council, did not take place until 2 months after the date that this information should have been displayed for public inspection. You cannot skirt the Statute based on a presumption that the vote to delay the revaluation would take place somewhere down the road. I included the Statute for your review. The City broke the law and has not provided the public’s information regarding this issue. This is why I filed the complaint.”
Sec. 12-55. Publication of grand list. Changes in valuation. Notice of assessment increase. (a) On or before the thirty-first day of January of each year, except as otherwise specifically provided by law, the assessors or board of assessors shall publish the grand list for their respective towns. Each such grand list shall contain the assessed values of all property in the town, reflecting the statutory exemption or exemptions to which each property or property owner is entitled, and including, where applicable, any assessment penalty added in accordance with section 12-41 or 12-57a for the assessment year commencing on the October first immediately preceding. The assessor or board of assessors shall lodge the grand list for public inspection, in the office of the assessor on or before said thirty-first day of January, or on or before the day otherwise specifically provided by law for the completion of such grand list. The town’s assessor or board of assessors shall take and subscribe to the oath, pursuant to section 1-25, which shall be certified by the officer administering the same and endorsed upon or attached to such grand list. For the grand list of October 1, 2000, and each grand list thereafter, each assessor or member of a board of assessors who signs the grand list shall be certified in accordance with the provisions of section 12-40a.
(b) Prior to taking and subscribing to the oath upon the grand list, the assessor or board of assessors shall equalize the assessments of property in the town, if necessary, and make any assessment omitted by mistake or required by law. The assessor or board of assessors may increase or decrease the valuation of any property as reflected in the last-preceding grand list, or the valuation as stated in any personal property declaration or report received pursuant to this chapter. In each case of any increase in valuation of a property above the valuation of such property in the last-preceding grand list, or the valuation, if any, stated by the person filing such declaration or report, the assessor or board of assessors shall mail a written notice of assessment increase to the last-known address of the owner of the property the valuation of which has increased. All such notices shall be subject to the provisions of subsection (c) of this section. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a notice of increase shall not be required in any year with respect to a registered motor vehicle the valuation of which has increased. In the year of a revaluation, the notice of increase sent in accordance with subsection (f) of section 12-62 shall be in lieu of the notice required by this section.
(c) Each notice of assessment increase sent pursuant to this section shall include: (1) The valuation prior to and after such increase; and (2) information describing the manner in which an appeal may be filed with the board of assessment appeals. If a notice of assessment increase affects the value of personal property and the assessor or board of assessors used a methodology to determine such value that differs from the methodology previously used, such notice shall include a statement concerning such change in methodology, which shall indicate the current methodology and the one that the assessor or assessors used for the valuation prior to such increase. Each such notice shall be mailed not earlier than the assessment date and not later than the tenth calendar day immediately following the date on which the assessor or board of assessors signs and attests to the grand list. If any such assessment increase notice is sent later than the time period prescribed in this subsection, such increase shall become effective on the next succeeding grand list.
Saying the city violated the law “finch” is like saying there is uncollected garbage in the Park City.
How does it feel, John? Payback’s a bitch, isn’t it?
John,
It is wonderful to have some company identifying the areas where the law fails to be followed by those elected to office. I know your request was personal in nature and very minimal in terms of revealing the data the City commissioned from Vision Appraisal.
What to do? Well, appealing for an alternative opinion from the City Attorney is worthless.
The CT Post carried a front-page story about the City once again being in a US TOP TEN LIST. This time it is about the % of property in the City where the debt is greater than the property value, i.e. where your net equity is less than zero and you still owe payment, taxes and insurance on the property. A revolting situation, no? But it is a revealing one to those who pay attention.
Had the revaluation been seen through to its conclusion, it is likely more property in the City would be underwater AND the mil rate would be higher (discouraging more folks from outside Bridgeport) and neither the Mayor nor his “follow the leader Council” would exercise the type of budget analysis, monitoring and ultimate control that would reverse the decline.
What to do? Can you chat up the folks at the CT Post and other media outlets? At a minimum perhaps you can get them to admit they are taking a break from City Hall news items for the most part. It is just a period of time we must pass through to rid governance of the sickening status quo.
What to do? Perhaps file a suit? Is there an unconflicted attorney in the City to help you? It seems you have uncovered another episode of ignoring or breaking the law in this case. If you are serious about running for Mayor again, a legal action may be worth considering, it seems to me.
There are many who are unhappy about the postponement. There are many more who would be unhappy if they realized City Hall has not let them understand certain less wealthy neighborhoods in the City are paying higher taxes today than they would after revaluation because of market changes in the past six years in various neighborhoods. If they woke up to the injustice of Finch’s action, perhaps they would use their voter registration this time around and raise the voting % above the 12-14% range. Time will tell.