The Proposed Tax Cap
Many people have written Letters to the Editor regarding the proposed Tax Cap, including myself. Some people have a prejudiced and distorted view of the facts, and all but one person has avoided libelous statements. Any statements that people have read that reportedly came from me, that were not in my personal Letter to the Editor, should be disregarded, because they were most likely the deliberately false distortions intended to discredit me. I would like to offer some facts to put the proposed Tax Cap Regulation in the proper perspective.
1 I have read the proposed ordinance, and it does not replace the FTM, and it does not veto the FTM.
2 The proposed ordinance limits the maximum property tax levy to the same extent as the unenforced RIGL 44-5-2; and goes one step farther by limiting the maximum municipal property tax levy to 2 ½ %. I would hope that the Town Docket is corrected, so that all costs appear in the proper Departments.
3 Tiverton’s voters have not rejected several recent ballot initiatives to eliminate the FTM. The voters approved a recent ballot initiative to supply them with alternatives to the FTM; and the voters rejected a ballot initiative to replace the FTM with the vote of the previous Town Council, because that is what was presented to them.
4 The proposed ordinance would not block the FTM from voting on budgets unless the council first approves. It would limit the maximum property tax levy only.
5 It was Tiverton Taxpayers who sued the town, and they sued to force adherence to RIGL 44-5-2, because the previous Town Council violated RIGL 44-5-2, that specifically required affirmative votes by BOTH 4/5ths of the Town Council and the FTM majority, by use of the words “shall also approve the excess levy.”.
6 The proposed Tax Cap does not bypass the FTM, it limits the excess tax levy only.
7 While the wording could be clearer, and less prone to misinterpretation, the wording of the State’s Tax Cap Levy is not ambiguous. The use of the words “shall also approve the excess levy”, makes it clear that BOTH approvals are necessary, although some people would like to delete the word “ALSO”. Is the proposed Tax Cap levy illegal or in violation of the Tiverton Town Charter? The maximum property tax levy is already limited to 4.25% this year, and 4.0% next year, unless the conditions in RIGL 44-5-2 are met, and unless BOTH the Town Council and the FTM approve the increase. Therefore, a reiteration of state law RIGL 44-5-2, cannot violate state law or the Town Charter.
However Susanne Greschner, Chief of the Division of Municipal Finance, in a letter dated August 27, 2010, indicated that the Division would not enforce the voting requirements of RIGL 44-5-2, because the law did not specify that the municipalities must report that information to her. That is a major reason why the proposed regulation is necessary. The Proposed 2.5% maximum property tax levy for the Municipal portion would not adversely impact the School Budget, but would limit the Municipal Budget to 2 ½%, unless justification for exceeding the cap exists, and unless BOTH the Town Council and the FTM approve the increase. RIGL 44-5-2 does not prohibit any municipal tax caps, and I have not been able to find any other RIGL that prohibits Municipal Tax Caps. There is a question of whether or not the Tiverton Town Charter prohibits this type of a tax cap.
The Town Charter has no mention of a tax cap; however, the Tiverton Town Charter Section 304 Powers of the Electors, states “The electors in Special Meeting or Financial Town Meeting shall have and exercise all powers granted Financial Town Meetings by the laws of the state not inconsistent with this Charter.” Therefore, the question remains: “Would the imposition of the 2 ½ % cap on the Municipal side of the Budget violate the right, duties and obligations of the 11, 755 Registered voters in Tiverton? I have a logical answer to that question. Last year, when a relatively large number of Tiverton Voters attended the FTM, 1,151 voters attended the FTM of May 08, 2010. That was 9.8% of the eligible voters. That means that 90.2% of Tiverton’s eligible voters abdicated their rights, duties, and responsibilities. I have found that over the last 25 years, the turnout has been between 2.56% and 17%, meaning that over the last 25 years, over 80% of Tiverton’s Registered Voters have abdicated their rights, duties, and responsibilities, and abdicated them to small minority special interest groups like the 564 voters, 4.8% of the registered voters that decided the budget last year, Since far less than 20% of the voters attend the FTM, how can the Town Council, elected by 47% of the voters, usurp the rights, duties, and responsibilities of the voters at the FTM, when over 80% of the voters have repeatedly abandoned or abdicated them over the last 25 years, by not attending the FTM? The FTM represents the voters, only when over 50% attend the FTM.
If I placed my lawnmower in front of my house, on top of my 20 gallon trash can, on trash collection day, and somebody stopped their car, removed the handle and air filter, and then drove off; I would be crazy to call the police. The lawnmower would be abandoned for anybody to pick up. The rights, duties, and obligations at the FTM have been abandoned by over 80% of Tiverton’s voters. Any action that limits the ability of small minority special interest groups should be considered as a gift to the Tiverton Voters and Taxpayers. A small minority special interest group is a group of between 2% and 20% of the taxpayers that vote together, regardless of who they represent. 7.0 min
Very Truly Yours,
Roger A. Bennis
Loading ...