Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 3:24 PM
To: Harrison, Thomas F.
Cc: 'Richard W Hines'; 'Peggy Roell'
Subject: RE:
Importance: High
Mr Harrison,
Thank you for sending a copy of the Town Attorney's response to my questions. Sadly, I find the response
unconvincing for the reasons detailed below.
1. The core issue in Caulfield v Noble was "home rule" and did not relate to budgeted revenues. The
Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Town of New Canaan on the strength of a specific section in the Town's Charter
(i e, Section C5-28) that authorized the Board of Finance to transfer end-of-year surpluses into a surplus account.
The Town of Avon's Charter does not have a similar provision. Without this provision, the Board of Finance of the
Town of Avon does not have the same authority. Accordingly, the provisions of Section 7-344 General Statutes must
apply to the Town of Avon.
2. In response to my question #1, the Town Attorney lifted a partial quotation from Caulfield, to wit: "... has
considerable discretion in the composition of the municipal budget" and used it to justify the construction of the
budget that excluded certain items of revenue. This quotation however was taken out of context by the Town
Attorney. The Supreme Court's opinion must be read in its entirety to reveal the Court';s true intent. The Court's
opinion referred to the Town's power of taxation and the retention of the surplus - and not to the exclusion of
revenue items from the budget, which was the subject of my question. The Court's opinion in this regard is
reproduced below:
"The plaintiff first asserts that General Statutes Sections 7-191a and 7-192 preclude the town from exercising any
power to levy or collect any tax not authorized by the General Statutes, arguing that Section C5-28 of the town charter
contains no express grant of taxing power, and if so interpreted, directly conflicts with that section of Section 7-192 which
provides: "[***21] Nothing contained in this chapter shall empower any town, city or borough to levy or collect any
tax not authorized by the general statutes" The [**1167] plaintiff's argument appears to be that since the town
held the year end surplus in a surplus account, rather than applying it to reduce the mill rate, it was exercising an
unauthorized taxing power in violation of Section 7-192. We disagree. A levying body has considerable discretion in the
composition of the municipal budget; and the mere retention of a [*95] cash surplus created in one fiscal year is not
the exercise of a taxing power as to the effect the retention has on the ensuing fiscal year. In view of the specific
authority of Section C5-28 of the charter, the board of finance, in fixing the mill rate for the fiscal 1977, was not required
to take into account the existing cash surplus." (underscoring supplied)
Continued on Page 2
Back to Town Attorney's Opinion Back to Summary Page Home Page