Milfords New Mill Rate Decreased To 28.23

Milford's Mil Rate was once 34.36 according to a 2005 George J. Smith assessment today that number has decreased to the above mentioned 28.23 Mill Rate. This figure is listed at the town website tax assessors link proving that conditions now exist that are pressuring the number downward.

Some have clamored that this is merely an election year ploy to make the incumbent leadership look good, while others believe that the 2005 assessments are not indicative of the true value of properties today. But to set the speculation and conjecture aside what is really going on is the Mill Rate is merely leveling out. While most experts could debate the actual growth of the grand list, one thing we all agree on is that mill rates decrease with increases in property values. This is why Connecticut's wealthiest towns like Greenwich, Darien, and Westport have recognizably low Mil Rates. (In most cases these are in the single digits.)

Milford's affluence appears to have grown, but not happily because with that image or "illusion" comes the unwelcome decrease in state funding to our schools creating the sore topic of an unfair cost sharing formula, but the good news is that average homeowners will be paying a little less taxes this coming year an average of 2.5% less.

Put down the champagne, because this is a Pyrrhic victory. The 2005 re-evaluation was done at the peak of the market only to be followed by a three year bust in real-estate that caused prices to stagnate and in some cases decline. Most residents on or near the water saw staggering 50%-100% property tax increases virtually overnight at the higher mil-rate, now perhaps the give back will render some desperately needed relief.

This decrease is very welcome but only because we have been taxed so excessively hard in the last couple of years due to the false reality of an inflated "bubble" real estate market. In my opinion this decrease falls short and is still slightly out of balance with true and accurate home values. By my personal calculations the mill rate should have been at 26.5. and not 28.23. (Estimate derived from chart above.)