Ganim To Implement Revaluation Of City Property

After a two-year delay, state-mandated revaluation of city property will be implemented in 2016, according to Mayor Joe Ganim with notices going out to property owners the first week of January.

News release from Ganim:

Mayor Joe Ganim today announced that the Bridgeport property tax revaluation scheduled for 2016 is on schedule and city property owners should be receiving notices of their revaluation within the first week of January 2016. The current 2015 grand list revaluation was scheduled for 2013 but was delayed by two years by action of the Connecticut General Assembly. Bridgeport Tax Assessor Elaine T. Carvalho is currently entering the final phase of the required City 2015-16 revaluation process. The Assessor’s Office and Vision Government Solutions, the City’s revaluation contractor, are working diligently to complete all tasks on time so that the City’s revalued 2015 grand list is certified by February 29, 2016. All property owners will receive a notice of their new assessment on or about the first week of January 2016. Property data and assessment information is valued as required by state statute as of October 1, 2015.

“As we grapple with Bridgeport’s current fiscal and budgetary challenges, it is critical to receive an accurate picture of our revenues,” said Mayor Ganim. “We are committed to making sure this property revaluation is done correctly and fairly, and that this is a transparent process to all property owners in our city who will be impacted.”

Property owners who may not feel that their new assessment represents 70% of fair market value as of October 1, 2015 may request a personal informal hearing to discuss their property value. The informal hearings will take place with Vision Government Solutions Inc at 45 Lyon Terrace in Bridgeport, by appointment only from January 6-22, 2016. Information on scheduling an appointment will be included in the notice sent to all property owners.

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 in the late spring of 2016.

By State law, the purpose of a revaluation is to bring the overall level of assessment for all property classes to the required 70% ratio of a property’s market value as of October 1 2015, based upon qualified market sales from October 1, 2014 to October 1, 2015.

The final grand list of assessments will be certified by the Assessor on February 29, 2016. Property Owners who are not in agreement with the final assessment valuation for their property may then formally appeal their assessment to the Bridgeport Board of Assessment Appeals. Hearings will be scheduled in late March and April 2016.



  1. I am thinking those who hated Mayor Finch’s attempt to delay the revaluation will be just short of ecstatic, am I right? Can I get an AMEN? Oh sorry, this isn’t Facebook.

  2. It is interesting to see what the community response to Mayor Ganim’s compensation give-back has been. Perhaps we have been starved too long for a sign that taxpayers feel strung out, ignored.
    The revaluation timing controversy has fully played out, but it will be interesting for people to get their “valuation gift” from Vision Appraisal as of ??recent time period but dated 10-1-15, stored and wrapped by City Assessor office, and now sent out after Christmas, with two weeks of meetings in January to review taxpayer problems with Vision personnel.
    Later gripes and concerns can be shared with our local Board of Assessment Appeals that is authorized to have 15 members but currently has only three listed members on the City website. Only one of these three citizens is currently serving an unexpired term, Chair Rich DeParle. If you are still unhappy you can take your issues to the CT court system with Housing Court in New Britain, CT.

    A revaluation is intended to be a regular process so current values, fairly assessed across a community are respected as trustworthy indicators of taxable property. When many values are recognized as lower in the current economy compared to October 1, 2008, then the entire City Net Taxable Grand List will likely become reduced. It is at that point genuine budget analysis and spending reductions become critical. Only when the budget is adopted and compared to the new and certified Grand List will we see what the Mil Rate for the coming year will be.

    Stay tuned to each former employee departing, new employees entering and the shape of Departments on the City side overall and compared to the current 2015-16 budget year. There is likely to be much confusion. Who will speak for the City in the interest of OPEN, ACCOUNTABLE, TRANSPARENT and HONEST in this regard? Will it make for a Happy New Year? Time will tell.

    1. Revaluation is an ugly proposition when property values have been in decline (welcome to Connecticut). Bridgeport desperately needs new business investment to lower the tax burden on its citizens and its existing businesses. Any company considering moving into Bridgeport and also those that might move out, inherently evaluate the mil rate to consider the tax consequences. Bridgeport sits smack in the middle of the “Gold Coast” and should be very expensive property. We’re on the waterfront, yet property values are not even close to existing communities. Why doesn’t Bridgeport rise up? This is where corruption and crime come into play. Are people safe? Can a business operate ethically? Bridgeport is a “double-edged sword” with low property values and high taxes. The city of Bridgeport is on the cusp of real economic growth if it is seen as a safe haven (in more ways than one). The city has put its faith and trust behind our new mayor. The citizens and the business owners who are invested in Bridgeport deserve Joe Ganim’s best efforts to move us forward.

  3. Wait a minute. I didn’t study Joe’s campaign promises and definitely didn’t keep his lit, but didn’t Joe promise or imply he was inclined to continue to put off this reval?
    Pretty much like Finch’s $600 but in some neighborhood this will be a lot more than $600.

  4. I’m having a difficult time understanding how anyone can ethically be against reval.

    Your fair share of the city’s budget is 70% of your fair market value times the mil rate.

    Reval corrects for changes in fair market value over time. Some properties have gone up, others have gone down, others have stayed the same. (If everyone’s property values went up or down by the same amount, there wouldn’t be a problem.)

    If my assessment is no longer 70% of fair market value, then I am not paying my fair share. If my market value has gone up, then I am paying less than my fair share. If my market value has gone down, then I am paying more than my fair share.

    All you people against the reval, how do you justify screwing someone whose property values have gone down to give someone whose property values have gone up a break on their taxes???

  5. The reval is appropriate both legally and ethically. The Taxable Grand List is likely to go down and the distribution may change between different sections of the City. The mil rate is a plug number based on the City Budget and the Taxable Grand List. What matters most is your actual tax bill in dollar terms, not the mil rate. There is plenty of waste and abuse in the City Budget. Taxes on our home are up 40% since 2008 partially due to some improvements that have already been considered in our tax assessment. I for one will do everything possible to avoid paying higher taxes in dollar terms. Many other people tell me they feel the same way. Enough is enough. Higher taxes mean less development, lower property values, and more people being forced out of their homes. Mayor Ganim campaigned against tax increases. We will see what he proposes.

  6. Booty,
    You have written a brief essay that makes sense. However, I never saw it in evidence in 2013 when the City was budgeted to spend $359,000 on revaluation, and proceed within the five year period, with Vision Solutions performing the work and delivering it to the City by which time the City managed to push back until today. But we now have paid for two revaluations I believe (or most of two) and will only be able to show the result of one of them because Bill Finch performed what amounted to a “pocket veto” after taking a quick look at the numbers in the various neighborhoods and decided it would be a bad idea. So the material disappeared from public view, even if it never was shredded, and the co-chair of the City Council Budget and Appropriations said it was only “raw data.” That was a “raw lie” that was foisted on the public without challenge.

    In retrospect it was one of the “lies,” fumbled stories, or ways of avoiding reality that were part of the Finch administration that caused the broad anti-Finch movement in the City that resulted in the Ganim second-chance win and administration.

    The lack of budget discipline and maneuvers hidden in Sherwood Forest for years with the taxpayer finding no Robin Hood benefits has been the other mechanism distancing voters from Finch. Have you seen anything that looks like straight talk about cutting down on non-performing personnel, eliminating employee positions that are not critical or priority, or revising the entire City Table of Organization so the 2016-17 budget will be much lighter than the current budget? Where are there any signs of this? Time will tell.

  7. Let me say thank you to Ricky Torres because he is the first person I recall expressing disdain at the practice of overcharging people of certain neighborhoods more than their houses are worth thus forcing them to pay more taxes than they should. I wonder why the council people of those certain neighborhoods didn’t do what Ricky Torres did, look out for the best interest of their constituents.


Leave a Reply