Torrington council debates phased tax implementation; joint meeting with board of finance ordered after 5‑year phase‑in motion fails

Torrington — The Torrington City Council spent more than an hour Monday evening reviewing options to ease the immediate property tax impact of the city’s 2024 grand‑list revaluation, then voted down a motion to adopt a five‑year phase‑in and directed staff to convene a joint meeting with the Board of Finance to reach a decision.

The discussion followed two public comments urging a multi‑year phase‑in rather than tapping the city’s reserve. “I do not support using any of our rainy day fund,” said Veronica Gelermino of 37 Water Street, who urged the council to adopt a multi‑year phase‑in and avoid drawing down reserves. Christine Altman of 111 Edward Avenue also spoke in favor of a three‑ or five‑year phase‑in to avoid abrupt tax increases.

Why it matters: The revaluation raised assessed values across residential property, producing a large shift in the tax base that, without action, would require a much higher mill rate to fund the fiscal year 2025 budgets. Council members and staff said the options are to (a) implement the full grand list immediately, (b) phase increases in over 2–5 years under state statute, or (c) use one‑time reserves and other revenues to smooth the impact. Each approach shifts burden between homeowners, motor vehicle taxpayers and business personal property in different ways and has secondary effects on state grants and exemptions.

Assessor Stacy Maldonado and staff briefed the council on technical effects and administrative work. Maldonado warned that a phase‑in reduces residential tax increases in year‑1 but shifts a larger share of the burden onto business personal property, which is not eligible for phasing. She also noted state reporting requirements: “When a reval is done, we have to look at the change in assessment from the reval year to the year prior to that…we are required to apply what’s called the reval factor,” which affects veteran exemptions and other state programs.

Key figures and program notes presented by staff and reviewed in public: - The city’s combined available fund balance and designated reserves cited in discussion totaled about $16 million, composed of a roughly $13 million undesignated balance plus $3.9 million of one‑time funds proposed for budget adoption. - The assessor said the motor vehicle transition grant (paid by the state to offset motor vehicle cap losses) and bond premium receipts were treated as one‑time revenues in the year‑1 calculations and were excluded from out‑year estimates. - Staff estimated roughly 1,400 veterans could be affected by reval factors and subsequent changes to exemptions; Maldonado characterized that as “just over 1,400.” - Example impacts presented to the council (illustrative, from the assessor’s examples): for a 2‑year phase‑in the “average” business (assessment shown in meeting materials) would pay roughly an additional $1,256 in year‑1; a large utility taxpayer (Eversource/CL&P in the materials) could see a change in the hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on the phase‑in timeline.

Economic development director William Wallach told the council that a faster move to a lower mill rate can aid business attraction, but that economic development is multifaceted. He said Torrington has identified projects that could add housing and jobs if the city secures state development funding; if successful, those projects could increase the grand list and broaden the tax base over time.

Council debate and result: After extended public and staff discussion, Councilman [motion maker] moved to adopt a five‑year phase‑in; the motion was seconded and discussed. The vote failed (the chair recorded that “the no’s have it”), and the council did not adopt any phase‑in rule at the meeting. Instead the council voted to schedule a joint meeting with the Board of Finance as soon as possible so both bodies could review numbers and make a coordinated decision. The assessor requested that any council action be decided quickly so that her office could implement whatever the council chooses.

What happens next: Council members said they want the Board of Finance to review the technical budget assumptions, fund‑balance policy implications and legal notifications to the state (Office of Policy and Management) before the council makes a final determination. Staff noted that certain notices to OPM and other filings are time‑sensitive and recommended the council provide as much lead time as possible to the assessor.

The meeting record shows the council also agreed to schedule that joint meeting for next week; no final phase‑in policy was adopted at the May 5 meeting.

Ending: The phase‑in question will return to public view at the joint council/Board of Finance meeting, where staff will present finalized numbers and legal/administrative timelines for notifying state agencies and implementing any phase‑in chosen by the council.