CANDIDATE BULLETIN: Connecticut’s Overreliance on the Property Tax
OFFICERS President, Michael J. Freda First Selectman of North Haven 1st Vice President, Luke A. Bronin Mayor of Hartford 2nd Vice President, Jayme J. Stevenson First Selectman of Darien
DIRECTORS Elinor Carbone, Mayor of Torrington Thomas Dunn, Mayor of Wolcott Justin Elicker, Mayor of New Haven John A. Elsesser, Town Manager of Coventry Laura Francis, First Selectman of Durham Joseph P. Ganim, Mayor of Bridgeport Barbara M. Henry, First Selectman of Roxbury Matthew Hoey, First Selectman of Guilford Laura Hoydick, Mayor of Stratford Catherine Iino, First Selectwoman of Killingworth Matthew S. Knickerbocker, First Selectman of Bethel Marcia A. Leclerc, Mayor of East Hartford Curt Leng, Mayor of Hamden W. Kurt Miller, First Selectman of Seymour Rudolph P. Marconi, First Selectman of Ridgefield Michael Passero, Mayor of New London Brandon Robertson, Town Manager of Avon John Salomone, Town Manager of Norwich Scott Shanley, General Manager of Manchester Erin E. Stewart, Mayor of New Britain Mark B. Walter, Town Administrator of Columbia
545 Long Wharf Drive, New Haven, CT • (203) 498-3000 • www.ccm-ct.org
Table of Contents Introduction 4 Property Tax Dependence 5 Why Is Connecticut So Reliant On The Property Tax?
6
What Can Be Done?
12
Appendix A - Municipal Tax Authority by State 14 Appendix B - State-Mandated Property Tax Exemptions
15
Introduction
T
owns and cities in Connecticut are responsible for providing the majority of public services in our state: elementary and secondary education; public safety; roads and other infrastructure; social services; recreation; and others. They must do so while meeting numerous mandates, often underfunded or unfunded, from both the federal and state government.
however, there is one revenue source that provides the majority of local funding – the property tax. A property-tax dependent system only works if two conditions exist: (1) the property and income wealth of a community can generate enough revenue at a reasonable cost to taxpayers to meet the need for public services; and (2) state aid is sufficient to fill local revenue gaps. For many communities in our state, neither condition exists.
Funding for these critical services can come from various sources, including taxes, user fees and charges, revenue sharing, and state and federal aid. In Connecticut,
Relying on the property tax to fund local government services in Connecticut is unsustainable.
6 CCM Candidate Bulletin
Property Tax Dependence
T
he property tax is the single largest tax on residents and businesses in our state. The levy in Connecticut was $10.8 billion in 2018.1
Statewide, 70 percent of municipal revenue comes from property taxes. Most of the rest, 26 percent, comes from intergovernmental revenue, mostly in the form of state aid. Some Connecticut municipalities are almost totally dependent on property taxes to fund local government. Fourteen towns depend on property taxes for at least 90 percent of all their revenue. Another 49 municipalities rely on property taxes for at least 80 percent of their revenue.2
The per capita property tax burden in Connecticut is $2,927, an amount that is almost twice the national average of $1,556 and 3rd highest in the nation.
Property Tax Exemptions Another problem created by the overreliance on the property tax in Connecticut involves state-mandated tax exemptions on real and personal property. There are currently 77 mandated property tax exemptions in state statutes, and towns and cities lose staggering amounts of revenue as the result of these exemptions. (See Appendix B.) These State-imposed obligations and State-imposed revenue losses force all municipalities to increase their property tax rates. While the State reimburses municipalities for some of the lost revenue through payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs), those reimbursements fall short.
Source: Tax Foundation, latest data available
Property tax exemptions impact all communities, but they impact some municipalities significantly. For example, in Hartford, Mansfield, and New Haven, over half the property is exempt from taxation.3 The result is that these municipalities have a limited base from which they can generate revenue.
Source: OPM, Municipal Fiscal Indicators, 2014-2018
7 CCM Candidate Bulletin
Why Is Connecticut So Reliant On The Property Tax?
T
he revenue options available to Connecticut towns and cities are limited by state statute. The property tax is the only tax over which municipalities have significant authority. Municipalities can levy a conveyance tax on real estate transactions, but that tax rate is set by the State and provides a relatively small amount of revenue.Similarly, municipalities can levy user fees and charges to cover some of the costs of providing services. These are again limited by state law and cannot be used to raise revenue, only to cover necessary costs. Connecticut is one of only 15 states that limit municipalities to raise revenue to the property tax.4 Twenty-nine states allow at least some municipalities to levy income or sales taxes along with property taxes. Six states allow at least some municipalities to level all three taxes. (See Appendix A.)
Source: State CAFRs; Adopted state budgets; CCM
Federal revenues to municipalities often come in the form of competitive grants. The nature of these grants means that funding isn’t consistent from year to year, and towns and cities can’t rely on that funding as a steady stream of revenue. Add to that the dire fiscal condition of the federal government, and the outlook for consistent and dependable federal funding is anything but positive.
Many states also have county governments that levy taxes and provide services, in addition to those at state and municipal levels. All of this means that, in terms of generating own-source revenue, Connecticut towns and cities are effectively restricted to the property tax.
The Uncertainty of Intergovernmental Revenue Following the property tax, the largest revenue source for municipalities is intergovernmental revenue. These payments from the federal and state governments account for about 26 percent of all local revenue, with the vast majority coming from the State. There are significant issues with this funding, however, that increase reliance on property taxes.
Source: State CAFRs; Adopted state budgets; CCM
8 CCM Candidate Bulletin
The State provides about $3 billion in education and non-education aid to towns and cities. This accounts for more than 20 percent of all local revenue. While this is a substantial amount of money, the funding is not without its issues.
Non-Education Aid Municipalities receive state funding through a variety of non-education grant programs. The amount of non-education aid has fluctuated dramatically over the years. Shifts in municipal aid have created uncertainly in municipal budgeting from year to year. They also impact communities disproportionally. While there may be an overall increase in statewide municipal aid in a given year, a particular municipality may actually see a decrease in funding due to formula calculations and distribution decisions.
Even more concerning than the reimbursement rates themselves is that fact that those rates have continued to decrease over time.
Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT)
Municipal Revenue Sharing Account
Municipalities receive payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT) from the State as partial reimbursement of lost property taxes on state-owned and on private college and hospital property. The payments are provided to offset a portion of the lost revenue from state-mandated tax exemptions on this property. This lost revenue totals more than $900 million.5
As part of the FY 12-FY 13 biennial state budget, the Municipal Revenue Sharing Account (MRSA) was created to provide additional revenue to municipalities. This account was funded through part of the state sales tax and part of the state portion of the real estate conveyance tax.
Source: State CAFRs; Adopted state budgets; CCM
This marked the first year of direct state-local tax revenue sharing and it established a foundation upon which to reduce the overdependence on property taxes to fund municipal services.
The reimbursement rate for private college and hospital property is supposed to be 77 percent of lost revenue. It is estimated to be only 22 percent in 2020.6 Similarly, the reimbursement rate for most state-owned property is supposed to be 45 percent of lost revenue for most property. It is estimated to be only 14 percent in 2020.7
Unfortunately, funding for MRSA was eliminated as part of the FY 14 budget. In FY 17, MRSA was funded through a portion of the state sales tax. Even before the first payments were made, the State reduced the amounts towns and cities received. The revenue-sharing amount for FY 17 was originally estimated to be $168 million.8 The actual amount was $133 million. Given the history of MRSA, and the State’s continued fiscal issues, it is clear why municipal officials are so concerned about the long-term viability of this funding source.
Source: State CAFRs; Adopted state budgets; CCM
9 CCM Candidate Bulletin
Education Aid
Connecticut has a long history of local control of public schools. At the same time, it is the State that has the constitutional responsibility to ensure that all children, regardless of where they live, receive equal access to quality public schools
Public education in Connecticut is funded through a partnership between the local, state and federal governments. Towns and cities are responsible for funding the majority of these costs. That means that, given the current tax structure, Connecticut is one of the state’s most reliant on the local property tax to fund public education.
In 1989-90, the State’s share of total education expenditures reached a high of 45.5 percent. For FY 19, the State’s share was 41.0 percent.13 In FY 18, Connecticut ranked 47th in the nation for state share of public education funding.14
The cost for public education in our state is over $12.3 billion9 , and municipal property taxpayers: • fund 53.3 percent of that amount ($6.6 billion). The State contributes an estimated 41.0 percent and the federal government 5.2 percent;10 • pay for 62 percent of Connecticut’s $2.1 billion in special-education costs;11 • and pick-up the bill for numerous other state-mandated education priorities that are not fully funded by the State.
Source: State Department of Education (SDE)
The Education Cost Sharing (ECS) Grant The Education Cost Sharing (ECS) grant is the State’s largest education grant. Initially developed in 1988, the ECS formula was intended to equalize a municipality’s ability to pay for education. The most recent changes to the ECS formula occurred in 2017.
Source: State Department of Education (SDE)
The grant totals $2.05 billion in FY 20.15
Statewide, education expenditures account for about 60 percent of total municipal expenditures.12 In some smaller towns, however, that figure can be as high as 80 percent. State law limits municipalities primarily to the property tax for own-source revenue, and when municipalities do not receive adequate state education aid, they are forced to raise property taxes, cut other vital services, or both. Local property taxes cannot continue to shoulder the lion’s share of public education costs. Because property tax bases and incomes differ enormously among towns, a critical function of state aid is to “equalize” the ability of towns to pay for public schools that provide students with equal opportunities for educational excellence.
Source: Adopted State Budgets; State CAFRs. Note: Does not include funding for charter schools, which was added to the ECS account from FY 13 to FY 16.
10 CCM Candidate Bulletin
ECS Underfunding
Additional reductions are allowed for non-Alliance Districts under the following conditions.
The ECS formula has been modified many times by the General Assembly in ways that have significantly limited its effectiveness and the cost to the State. The formula has never been fully funded and implemented as designed.
• Any district with 20 percent or more of its student population eligible for free or reduced price lunches (FRPL) and a student population as of the October 1 count two years prior that is less than the count for October 1 three years prior, may reduce its budgeted appropriation for education by an amount equal to the difference in the number of resident students for such years multiplied by 50 percent of the net current expenditures per resident student (NCEP) up to a one and one-half percent (1.5%) reduction in the district’s budgeted appropriation for education.
The State is scheduled to phase-in full funding of ECS by 2028. It must maintain its commitment to fully funding the grant.
Minimum Budget Requirement (MBR) The MBR and its predecessor, the Minimum Expenditure Requirement (MER), were originally intended to be companions to ECS that would require towns to spend at least the foundation amount for each student. However, with the foundation remaining virtually flat over the years, minimum spending evolved into a requirement for towns to commit all or most new ECS aid they receive to local education budgets. Eventually any connection to per pupil spending or the foundation ceased to exist.
• Any district with less than 20 percent of its student population eligible for FRPL and a student population as of the October 1 count two years prior that is less than the count for October 1 three years prior, may reduce its budgeted appropriation for education by an amount equal to the difference in the number of resident students for such years multiplied by 50 percent of the NCEP up to a three percent (3%) reduction in the district’s budgeted appropriation for education.
The MER, which set a minimum amount of local funding for education, was in effect until 2007, until the MBR was put into place. The original purpose of the MBR was to explicitly prohibit a municipality from supplanting local education funding when it received an increase in ECS funding.
• Any district that does not maintain a high school and pays tuition to another school district and a student population attending high school as of the October 1 count two years prior that is less than the count for October 1 three years prior, may reduce its budgeted appropriation by such difference multiplied by the amount of tuition paid per student.
For FY 21, there will again be no MBR for school districts that have an “accountability index score” in the top 10 percent of all districts in the state. This allows those districts to reduce their education budget with no restrictions.
• Any district that demonstrates new savings through increase district efficiencies or through regional collaboration may reduce its budgeted appropriation for education up to a one-half percent (0.5%).
Member towns of a newly formed regional school district are also exempt during the first full fiscal year following its establishment.
The MBR is the State’s way of forcing towns and cities to make up for state underfunding education. In an era of frozen or reduced state aid and rising education costs, the MBR is unfair to residential and business property taxpayers. It also means every other local public service, every other local employee, and property taxpayers must pay the price for this mandate and the chronic state underfunding of K-12 public education.
The MBR for Alliance Districts, or those formally designated as such, equals the prior year’s budgeted appropriation. The MBR for all other districts is the prior year’s budgeted appropriation plus any ECS increase. If a district is set to receive a reduction in ECS funding in FY 21, it can reduce its MBR by the amount of the reduction.
11 CCM Candidate Bulletin
Special Education The cost of special-education services in Connecticut is over $2.0 billion.16 This spending accounts for about 24 percent of total current expenditures for education in Connecticut.
$20,000 per pupil, it must spend at least $90,000 for a special-education student before being eligible for any state reimbursement. The state grant is supposed to pay for all costs in excess of that figure. Unfortunately, the state appropriation for the Excess Cost grant has remained flat for a decade, even as costs and the incidence of students requiring services have both risen. Reducing the threshold factor from 4.5 to a lower level would allow the state grant to pick up more of these high costs, relieving some of the local burden. Also, the reliance on individual town per pupil spending to set the thresholds results in a wide disparity in the amount of out-of-pocket costs for towns. Higher spending towns end up with the highest contribution rates before state aid is triggered. A single threshold-per-pupil dollar amount, perhaps equivalent to the foundation level, would address this and increase the state share of these costs.
Source: State Department of Education (SDE)
Source: Adopted State Budgets; Comptroller’s Annual Reports
Source: SDE LEA Special Education Expenditures, latest data readily available
The state Excess Cost-Student Based grant provides a circuit breaker once the expenditures for a student exceed a certain level, currently 4.5 times the per pupil spending average of the district. The threshold varies from town to town because of spending differences, but the statewide average is about $85,000.17 So, for example, if a municipality spends an average of
There is also a growing belief that the State should reimburse every town for 100 percent of special-education costs (less federal reimbursement). Under this scenario, the State would also monitor or outsource identification of special-education students and related administrative costs. Such a step would (a) ensure access to necessary resources for all special-needs students, regardless of community wealth and without draining off vital resources from regular-education budgets, and (b) provide significant property tax relief. In addition, services for
12 CCM Candidate Bulletin
severe-needs students could be provided regionally, for more efficiency and effectiveness.
cut policy is contrary to most other states’ policies. The burden of proof in these hearings should be placed on the initiator of the request. This change would provide needed fiscal relief to municipalities since most requests come from parents.
Third, and often overlooked, is the failure of the federal government to fund its fair share of special-education costs. Despite some increases in federal special education funding around the beginning of the decade, and some recent stimulus funding, the federal share in Connecticut has been below 10 percent. This falls far short of 40-percent commitment that came with the federal mandate to provide such services some decades ago. Debate still continues over the decision to fold state special education funding into the ECS grant in 1996. Special education was about 22 percent of the combined grant, and that figure has generally been used to estimate the current portion of ECS that is for special education (about $442 million in FY 20).18 This is problematic. Since there is no special-education component in the ECS formula, that proxy does not reflect the actual costs associated with special-education students.
The State must take primary responsibility for students with special needs. Such students are the collective responsibility of all who live and work in Connecticut, not just their town of residence. Because the costs of special education programs are so high and growing, the State cannot expect individual communities to fund them without significant assistance. When both the state and federal governments underfund mandated programs, regular education programs, other local services and property taxpayers suffer.
Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS) The State administers and funds the Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS), which provides pensions for teachers. In FY 20, the cost of the TRS contribution is over $1.2 billion.19 The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College projected in 2015 that the contribution would exceed $6.2 billion by 2032.20
Complicating matters, unforeseen demands for the most expensive special-education services too often result in local mid-year budget shuffling, supplementary appropriations, and other extraordinary measures. This is particularly true in smaller towns where the arrival of a single new high-cost special education student during the school year can create a budget crisis.
There have been recent proposals that called for towns and cities to contribute to teachers’ pension costs. These proposals, however, do not address the problem in TRS.
It is important to point out that Connecticut’s special-education mandates exceed those of federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and it is time to reevaluate whether all those additional costly mandates are necessary and affordable. In addition to direct funding issues, municipalities are also looking for relief from the burden of proof for special-education services. A parent may request a due process hearing if he or she disagrees with the child’s evaluation, placement, or program. School districts may also request hearings when a parent refuses to agree to a child’s placement or program. State Board of Education regulations place the burden of proof on the school district regardless of who initiates the hearing request, resulting in a costly mandate on municipalities. Connecti-
First, municipalities should not be forced to pay for the underfunding of the TRS in past years. The problem of underfunding goes back decades, and simply passing those costs on to towns and cities is not the solution. Second, this proposed cost shift is not accompanied by any structural changes to the TRS. The system is unsustainable, and any changes to funding must be done in conjunction with structural changes.
13 CCM Candidate Bulletin
What Can Be Done?
O
verreliance on the property tax coupled with inadequate state aid, particularly education aid, place Connecticut towns and cities in a severe fiscal bind. Municipalities are forced to raise already onerous property tax rates, reduce non-educations services, and divert scarce resources to pay for escalating regular and special-education costs. Connecticut is one of the few states locked into such an antiquated, local-revenue system.
2. Fully fund PILOT: The State must fully fund PILOT to provide reimbursement to municipalities for revenue lost due to state-mandated property tax exemptions. In absence of full funding of PILOT, the State should consider eliminating some property tax exemptions. 3. Revenue Diversification: Municipalities should be allowed to levy certain types of local-option taxes in order to reduce property taxes. For example, locally levied sales taxes or hotel taxes can be considered in municipalities where they make sense.
There are approaches that need to be considered as we seek a way out of the property tax chokehold.
4. Allow Regional Tax Levies: Councils of government (COGs) could levy taxes that would fit best with their particular region. COGs comprise chief elected officials, people who are accountable to the voters of their communities for their decisions.
1. Education Finance Reform: o Increase the ECS foundation level to reflect the real cost of adequately educating students tied to a statutorily identified cost index.
For example, a local-option sales tax might drive retail activity to the suburbs and away from cities, but a regional sales tax would not have the same effect. If a retailer wants access to the market of a given region, the tax would apply no matter where it locates.
o Continue the commitment to fully fund the ECS grant. o Eliminate the Minimum Budget requirement (MBR) mandate. o In lieu of a complete State takeover of special-education delivery, decrease the Excess Cost grant threshold to at most 2.5 times the district’s average per-pupil expenditure and fully fund the grant. o Pay 100 percent of marginal costs for severe-needs students, statewide without equalization. o Shift the burden of proof to the petitioner in special-education due process hearings.
Granting local-option taxing authority to COGs would diversify the municipal revenue base. It would combine the advantages of local-revenue enhancement while tailoring it to regional needs and avoiding negative competition between urban centers and suburbs. It would also be a major step towards increasing regional cooperation and thus improve overall governmental efficiency.
o Make modest reforms to the Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS).
14 CCM Candidate Bulletin
1. Office of Policy and Management (OPM), Municipal Fiscal Indicators, 2014-2018.
12. CT Office of Policy and Management (OPM), Municipal Fiscal Indicators, 2014-2018.
2. OPM, Municipal Fiscal Indicators, 2014-2018.
4. National League of Cities, Cities and State Fiscal Structure, 2015.
13. Includes all state revenues on behalf of public elementary and secondary education, including state grants, bond funds, and department expenditures - including the Connecticut Technical High School System, magnet schools, charter schools, vo-ag programs, unified school district expenditures, and teachers’ retirement costs.
5. CCM estimate based on OPM data for the 2017 grand list year.
14. US Census Bureau, 2018 Annual Survey of School System Finances.
6. Ibid.
15. Adopted FY 20-FY 21 biennial state budget.
7. Ibid.
16. SDE, 2017 Data.
8. State Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA). Does not include reimbursement for loss of revenue due to the motor vehicle property tax cap.
17. CCM estimate based on SDE data for the 2018-19 school year.
3. OPM, Municipal Fiscal Indicators, 2014-2018. Reflects October 1, 2018, grand lists.
9. State Department of Education (SDE), FY 19 data. The remaining 0.5 percent comes from private donations and other contributions. 10. Ibid. 11. SDE LEA Special Education Expenditures
18. Governor’s proposed FY 18 state budget. 19. Adopted FY 20-FY 21 biennial state budget. 20. Boston College Center for Retirement Research, Final Report on Connecticut’s State Employees Retirement System and Teachers’ Retirement System, November 2015
15 CCM Candidate Bulletin
Appendix A Municipal Tax Authority by State • Alabama - Property, sales, income (19 cities)
• Maryland - Property, income (Baltimore city - county only)
• Alaska - Property, sales
• Massachusetts - Property
• Arizona - Property (with voter approval), sales
• Michigan - Property, income
• Arkansas - Property, sales, income (not used by any munic-
• Minnesota - Property, sales
ipality)
(22 cities) (some cities, if approved by state legislature)
• California - Property, sales
• Mississippi - Property
• Colorado - Property, sales
• Missouri - Property, sales, income (Kansas City and St. Louis
• Connecticut - Property • Delaware - Property, income (Wilmington only)
• Florida - Property
• Montana - Property, sales (for resort cities with < 5,500 population)
• Nebraska - Property, sales
• Hawaii - Property (Honolulu is
• Nevada - Property
• Idaho - Property, (for resort cities < 10,000 population)
• Illinois - Property, sales
kers only)
• North Carolina - Property • North Dakota - Property, sales
16 CCM Candidate Bulletin
• Rhode Island - Property • South Carolina - Property • South Dakota - Property, sales • Tennessee - Property, sales • Utah - Property, sales • Vermont - Property (some sales)
• Virginia - Property, sales
• West Virginia - Property
(for Atlantic City and Wildwood only)
• New York - Property, sales, income (New York City and Yon-
• Maine - Property
• Pennsylvania - Property, income, sales (Philadelphia only)
• New Jersey - Property, sales
• Iowa - Property, sales
• Louisiana - Property, sales
• Oregon - Property
• Washington - Property, sales, income (business income)
• New Mexico - Property, sales
• Kentucky - Income, property
(only for debt service)
• New Hampshire - Property
• Indiana - Property, income • Kansas - Property, sales
• Oklahoma - Sales, property
• Texas - Property, sales
only)
• Georgia - Property, sales only municipality in Hawaii)
• Ohio - Income, property
• Wisconsin - Property • Wyoming - Property
Appendix B State-Mandated Property Tax Exemptions 1. Property of the United States 2. State property, reservation land held in trust by the state for an Indian tribe. 3. County Property (repealed). 4. Municipal Property. 5. Property held by trustees for public purposes. 6. Property of volunteer fire companies and property devoted to public use. 7. Property used for scientific, educational, literary, historical or charitable purposes. 8. College property. 9. Personal property loaned to tax-exempt educational institutions 10. Property belonging to agricultural or horticultural societies. 11. Property held for cemetery use. 12. Personal property of religious organizations devoted to religious or charitable use. 13. Houses of religious worship.
14. Property of religious organizations used for certain purposes.
for special housing under Title 38 of the United States Code.
15. Houses used by officiating clergymen as dwellings.
22. Surviving spouse or minor child of serviceman or veteran.
16. Hospitals and sanatoriums.
23. Serviceman’s surviving spouse receiving federal benefits.
17. Blind persons. 18. Property of veterans’ organizations. a. Property of bona fide war veterans’ organization. b. Property of the Grand Army the Republic. 19. Veteran’s exemptions. 20. Servicemen and veterans having disability ratings. 21. Disabled veterans with severe disability.
24. Surviving spouse and minor child of veteran receiving compensation from Veteran’s Administration. 25. Surviving parent of deceased serviceman or veteran. 26. Parents of veterans. 27. Property of Grand Army Posts. 28. Property of United States Army instructors. 29. Property of the American National Red Cross.
a. Disabilities. b. Exemptions hereunder additional to others. Surviving spouse’s rights. c. Municipal option to allow total exemption for residence with respect to which veteran has received assistance
30. Fuel and provisions. 31. Household furniture. 32. Private libraries. 33. Musical instruments. continues on page 16
17 CCM Candidate Bulletin
34. Watches and jewelry. 35. Wearing apparel. 36. Commercial fishing apparatus. 37. Mechanicâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s tools. 38. Farming tools. 39. Farm produce. 40. Sheep, goats, and swine. 41. Dairy and beef cattle and oxen. 42. Poultry. 43. Cash. 44. Nursery products. 45. Property of units of Connecticut National Guard. 46. Watercraft owned by non-residents (repealed). 47. Carriages, wagons, and bicycles. 48. Airport improvements. 49. Nonprofit camps or recreational facilities for charitable purposes. 50. Exemption of manufacturersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; inventories. 51. Water pollution control structures and equipment exempt. 52. Structures and equipment for air pollution control. 53. Motor vehicle of servicemen.
54. Wholesale and retail business inventory. 55. Property of totally disabled persons. 56. Solar energy systems. 57. Class I renewable energy sources and hydropower facilities. 58. Property leased to a charitable, religious, or nonprofit organization. 59. Manufacturing facility in a distressed municipality, targeted investment community, or enterprise zone. 60. Machinery and equipment in a manufacturing facility in a distressed municipality, targeted investment community, or enterprise zone. 61. Vessels used primarily for commercial fishing.
69. Property of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 70. Manufacturing and equipment acquired as part of a technological upgrading of a manufacturing process in a distressed municipality or targeted investment community. 71. Any motor vehicle owned by a member of an indigenous Indian tribe or their spouse, and garaged on the reservation of the tribe (PA 89-368) 72. New machinery and equipment, applicable only in the five full assessment years following acquisition. 73. Temporary devices or structures for seasonal production, storage, or protection of plants or plant material.
62. Passive solar energy systems.
74. Certain vehicles used to transport freight for hire.
63. Solar energy electricity generating and cogeneration systems.
75. Certain health care institutions.
65. Vanpool vehicles.
76. New machinery and equipment for biotechnology, after assessment year 2011.
66. Motor vehicles leased to state agencies.
77. Real Property of any regional council or agency.
67. Beach property belonging to or held in trust for cities.
78. Machinery and equipment to color and mix paint.
64. Vessels.
68. Any livestock used in farming or any horse or pony as-
18 CCM Candidate Bulletin
sessed at less than $1000.
CCM is the stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s largest, nonpartisan organization of municipal leaders, representing towns and cities of all sizes from all corners of the state, with 169 member municipalities. We come together for one common mission â&#x20AC;&#x201D; to improve everyday life for every resident of Connecticut. We share best practices and objective research to help our local leaders govern wisely. We advocate at the state level for issues affecting local taxpayers. And we pool our buying power to negotiate more cost-effective services for our communities. CCM is governed by a board of directors that is elected by the member municipalities. Our board represents municipalities of all sizes, leaders of different political parties, and towns/cities across the state. Our board members also serve on a variety of committees that participate in the development of CCM policy and programs. Federal representation is provided by CCM in conjunction with the National League of Cities. CCM was founded in 1966.
