Readers may or may not recall all of the weeks of discussion and debate about what the town had to do in order to exceed the state’s cap on property tax increases. One reason you may not remember the resolution is that, well, there was no resolution. The powers who be weren’t able to slip their preferred interpretation — starkly against the plain statutory language — into local policy, so they left it as a let’s-wait-and-see situation. Fast forward to 1:52 of the video from Monday night’s Town Council meeting, and you’ll see that all but one of the councilors are just going to pretend — with the cover of their hired manipulator of the law, Solicitor Andy Teitz — that the law doesn’t apply to them.
Specifically, RI General Law 44-5-2 contains the following legal requirement:
Any levy pursuant to subsection (d) of this section in excess of the percentage increase specified in subsection (a) of this section shall be approved by the affirmative vote of at least four-fifths (4/5) of the full membership of the governing body of the city or town or in the case of a city or town having a financial town meeting, the majority of the electors present and voting at the town financial meeting shall also approve the excess levy.
Note the words “shall also.” Only somebody deliberately attempting to skirt the law could argue that the process does not require a 4/5 vote of the governing body (i.e., the town council) and a majority of the financial town meeting electors, with a certification from the state Division of Municipal Finance that the circumstances apply in such a way as to permit exceeding the cap and that the process has been followed.
Regarding that process, we turn to regulation 3.02 of the state’s “Standards and Procedures for Property Tax Levy Cap for Rhode Island Cities and Towns“:
No later than fifteen (15) calendar days prior to adoption of the annual operating budget, a city/town may petition the Department of Administration (Department of Revenue) to override the levy cap in accordance with amended RIGL Section 44-5-2(d)(1) or (3).
Now, here’s the telling exchange at Monday night’s Town Council meeting:
Councilor Jay Lambert: Lambert: I take it, Mr. Goncalo that you’re not requesting a vote by the town council for this certification at this point.
Town Solicitor Andrew Teitz: In fact, a vote is not required. This is an action of the financial town meeting, which the town administrator needs to put forward as an administrative, basically ministerial act, to convey the financial town meeting’s resolve to the state.
Lambert: At some point before there is a tax levy will there be a vote by the town council.
Teitz: No. Not under the charter.
And that was it. Teitz is being careful with his language, there. The town charter says nothing about exceeding the state tax cap. What the charter does say is that what the FTM does is set the levy. It’s done. It’s set. The budget is adopted. According to regulations, the town should have petitioned the state no less than 15 days prior to the FTM. The problem — for those who like to tax the rest of us — is that, as the budget stood at that time, the town did not require a waiver because it was not over the cap. In other words, the problem was that certain key players couldn’t control the Budget Committee, so they’ve thrown process and law out the window.
There is no other explanation that fits the evidence, and it’s very difficult not to question the honesty and/or courage of every Town Council member, with the exception of Jay Lambert. They just don’t want to go on record voting for a massive tax increase in the middle of the Great Recession. Or else, they don’t want to set the precedent that the Town Council must actually, you know, follow the law in case they lack a controlling hand during future budget cycles.
Not a single one of them, besides Lambert, spoke up for process and honest accord with the law. They got what they wanted — your money — and now they just want the difficult questions to go away.
Loading ...