April 12, 2012

Woonsocket's Startling 13% Supplemental Property Tax Faces Uncertain Reception in the General Assembly

Monique Chartier

Observers of Woonsocket's current financial straits are aware that the city has proposed a 13% supplemental property tax - an increase, by the way, that would then form the basis, going forward, for Woonsocket's new (higher) tax rate. Such a step requires approval by the state legislature. The Valley Breeze reports, however, that at a work session Monday night, Woonsocket's delegation to the General Assembly was not overly encouraging.

Rep. [Jon] Brien said that while he was glad to sponsor the legislation, it serves as no guarantee he'll be able to get it passed.

"Naturally there's going to be opposition in the room," said Brien. "It's not just cobbling together the 38 votes, it's cobbling together the functions of the leadership of both the House chamber and the Senate chamber." ...

Each member of the delegation asked a number of questions, many with the common theme: How can Woonsocket residents be sure this won't happen again? ...

Sen. Marc Cote said he was hesitant to support a tax plan based on the assumption that state legislation would later fix the structural problems. ...

"My fear is the constituency in the city of Woonsocket will not have the means to pay the bill," said [Rep Lisa] Baldelli-Hunt.

Woonsocket faces nothing but bad choices because, conversely, of course, without this supplemental tax, the city almost certainly would be tipped into receivership and bankruptcy.

One puzzling matter sticks out from Sandy Phaneuf's article. She lists the steps that the city has put in motion to extricate itself from involvency.

Plans to address the crisis include a 13 percent tax hike on all city property, a temporary 10 percent pay decrease for all municipal unions employees and a number of additional legislative measures that could decrease the city's obligations on everything from pensions to education mandates.

Question: why is the 13% supplemental tax permanent but the pay decrease for employees temporary?

In a related matter, it's worthwhile to note here Justin's determination on Ocean State Current that, contrary to the assertion by RI Federation of Teachers President Frank Flynn,

Teachers here in Woonsocket haven’t had a raise in five years

in fact, the current teachers contract includes $4.7 million in bonuses and step raises increases.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

How do we know that this 13% is enough? How do we know that if it were to pass, some other shoe doesn't drop and the school department needs even more money?

As for Frank Flynn, I don't know why this is so hard to understand, if you make more money today than you did yesterday, that is a raise. Bonus, step increase, whatever you want to call it, the fact is there's more money being paid. That's not a raise? Or is he stating that teachers have been moving through their steps but not getting any increase in pay?

Posted by: Patrick at April 12, 2012 4:27 PM


Oh,I'm so touched by my representative's concern for the constituancy.

By the way,as I recall,the "Valley Breeze endorsed Cicilline. I could be wrong,but I think I'm right.

Posted by: helen at April 13, 2012 6:18 AM


I've lived where I live for around 20 years. I have never heard nor seen hide nor hair of my "representative". Lots of laughs. But her name is on the ballot,unopposed.

Posted by: helen at April 13, 2012 6:40 AM

I have a question (raising hand). Has anyone explored how if any the Caroulo Act will effect next years school budget if the taxpayer is forced to cover the cost of over spending this year? My understanding is in the best case scenario, a municipality, under normal circumstances, has to at least level fund the budget going forward from the previous year. Is this technically increasing this year's budget?

Posted by: Max D at April 13, 2012 9:21 AM

Max,

One of the Governor's municipal relief bills takes this question on directly (S2829, see the last item in this post bit.ly/HODrpM), but I'm not sure how "settled" the law is in Rhode Island, in the event S2829 isn't passed.

Posted by: Andrew at April 13, 2012 10:43 AM

The supplemental tax bill legislation specifically exempts the application of these funds to the maintenance of effort requirement.

John Ward, President
Woonsocket City Council

Posted by: John Ward at April 13, 2012 11:26 AM

"One of the Governor's municipal relief bills takes this question on directly (S2829, see the last item in this post bit.ly/HODrpM), but I'm not sure how "settled" the law is in Rhode Island, in the event S2829 isn't passed."

"The supplemental tax bill legislation specifically exempts the application of these funds to the maintenance of effort requirement."

Thank you both.

Posted by: Max D at April 13, 2012 12:12 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.