.
Feedback

RTM Postpones Vote on Tax Break for Farmers

Monday, Waterford's Representative Town Meeting postponed a vote on a new ordinance that would give Waterford farmers a property tax exemption on structures used exclusively for farming.

Monday night, Waterford’s Representative Town Meeting postponed a vote on a proposed ordinance that would give property tax breaks for structures used "exclusively in farming."

RTM members voiced no concerns with the ordinance, but postponed the vote until the group’s February meeting because the proposal did not come with the proper paperwork. The ordinance would mean farmers would not pay property taxes on the first $100,000 of assessed value on structures used exclusively for farming.

“This will have minimal tax impact to the town,” RTM member and chairman of the RTM’s Legislative and Administrative Standing Committee Craig Merriman said. “And this might help these people grow their business.”

The standing committee has already approved the ordinance and it just requires approval from the RTM before it is finalized. Merriman said at most five properties would qualify for this tax exemption, and it might only be one, and it would mean the town would collect about $1,500 less in taxes next year at most.

He added that farmland is far more financially beneficial to the town than residential properties and if this spurs more farms in town it would be good for Waterford taxpayers. The reason is farmland does not come with associated educational costs associated with residential properties, he said.

Reasons for the Ordinance

Merriman said Robert and Teresa Schacht, owners of Hunts Brook Farm, sent a letter to the town asking for the exemption. The proposal went to the RTM’s Legislative and Administrative Committee, where Merriman consulted with the town attorney and the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, which both said such ordinances are common.

An ordinance was drawn up saying that farmers would not pay property taxes on the first $100,000 of assessed value on structures dedicated solely to farming, according to the ordinance. The building must be used “exclusively in farming…., or for any building used to provide housing for seasonal employees of such famer,” according to the ordinance.

The proposed ordinance says to qualify, the farmer or farmers must have derived at least $15,000 of income from the farm or spent $15,000 on the farm, according to the ordinance. A farmer’s home would not qualify for the exemption, according to the ordinance.

If passed, the exemptions would take effect on the Grand List of Oct. 1, 2013.

Why it Wasn’t Passed

RTM member Ted Olynciw said he agreed with the ordinance but could not pass it because the Legislative and Administration Standing Committee did not submit a written report on the reasons for the new ordinance, per RTM rules. The RTM unanimously agreed to postpone the vote until the February meeting, when presumably the committee would submit a report explaining the new ordinance.   

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Waterford Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Ivy's Simply Homemade
nascarblue May 17, 2013 at 08:05 am
happy happy anniversary, i love your food, you can tell when a business takes pride in what they do.Read More wishing you many many more years, i will definatly be back, along with my friends, we love your food.
Naty Bush May 18, 2013 at 11:44 am
Where will the meeting take place? I might be able to go to say why it shouldn't be demolished.
Kate May 15, 2013 at 06:36 pm
There are two state agencies that are involved. Both of them are historical preservation societies,Read More and this is what they do, help communities find viable purposes for historic buildings. While the building has been treated as more or less an inconvenience for the town, it is important to remember it is an historic site. It matters. Every town, every city, must look carefully at it's historic buildings and sites with an eye toward preservation, or, you end up with a community full of houses and walmarts. Cohanzie is a unique building for it's architectural style, for it's historic quarry site, and it's importance as a community hub, not to mention the thousands of citizens that passed through. An old building like Cohanzie is built to last. We won't ever see buildings built like that again. We can always build another Walmart. You raise a good question. Maybe once we hear about what could be done with the building, we need a town referendum to find out how the people of Waterford want to proceed. Many historic buildings are saved at the last minute by people who decide history matters. Will Waterford do the same. I don't know the answer.
Maggie L. May 15, 2013 at 01:56 pm
Do you have any proposals for the use of the building? If the town were to keep the building it mostRead More likely will have to be staffed. Do you believe that most town residents would be willing to see an increase in the town budget to allow for additional staff? I'm just tossing out questions because I haven't heard any concrete proposals for the use of the building
Liz May 12, 2013 at 09:06 pm
Mr. Steiner wants to build 72 three story homes on 32 acres in addition to the 60 condos in the twoRead More large buildings. That is more than two individual units per acre or if you include the 60 condos - that is MORE than 4 units per acre! The area around the property for new building is zoned 3 acres per unit. The average of currently built housing abutting the property is about one acre per unit. That is not in keeping with the neighborhood character.
Daniella Ruiz May 12, 2013 at 05:36 pm
Mr Steiner may be the last hope for this decrepit place. The neighbors need to move along, or buyRead More the place themselves. Change might help the stonewalling attitude that has become evident in nearly the entire town, revolving around exclusive entitled old farts with nothing better to do than remember their glory days of Seaside. Its gone, & it's not going to revert back to a pasture either. (too many complaints about that cow smell and so forth). My advice is to listen carefully and try to work something out, get over your own selfish grandious dreams of Pelham Manor style estates and do SOMETHING before it simply falls apart like Norwich Hospital, the countless thread/manufacturing mills, and every other historic building that has been left to rot.
Daniella Ruiz May 14, 2013 at 08:53 am
mary m>> common sense? heee hee. in this day and age? lawyers have made every attempt toRead More eradicate that concept from our every life activity. write it into some law, that can be thence used as future gurantee of use of, by and for their own existence? it's like job security for that entire group, keep the general public at a disadvantage, unable to apply common sense (whats left of it they havent entombed in laws) and uneasy about acting on their own. John Y has the right attitude, heave the cra.pp on the peoples lawn, and hope it doesn't lay there for days as well!
John Yannacci, Sr. May 13, 2013 at 10:09 am
Mary May, I don't know the legality of posting signs on telephone poles. But, take a ride aroundRead More Waterford on Saturday mornings and you'll see signs on anything that is verticle. Take a ride around the same neighborhoods on Wednesday and half the signs will still be there. I wonder if the folks who have had the same yard sale sign at the corner of Great Neck and Rope Ferry Rds. for two and a half weeks wonder why cars are still stopping at their house every Saturday morning.
Mary May May 13, 2013 at 09:53 am
Um I believe it is ILLEGAl to post ANY sign on a telephone pole ANYWAY but free standing signsRead More should be removed after sale is over ! Really a state law just COMMON SENSE we have lost along the way !