Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 3:24 PM
To: Harrison, Thomas F.
Cc: 'Richard W Hines'; 'Peggy Roell'
3. As far as the practicality of making adjustments to the budget is concerned, I would like to point out that at the
time other revenue items were adjusted after the defeat of the budget in the first referendum, the increase in
conveyance fees was also already known to the Board of Finance. Yet, the Board chose not to adjust budgeted
revenue from the increase in conveyance fees. I submit that the Board should have adjusted this revenue item at
the same time as it adjusted the others. There was no question that it was practical to do so at that time. The
Board did not have the authority to pick and choose what it wanted to adjust.
4. Regarding Section 7-194 which is a "general grant of authority" to municipalities, the principle of statutory
construction dictates that where the statutes also contain provisions that require specific actions to be taken by the
municipality, then those specific provisions must take precedence over the general provisions. In this particular
case, Section 7-344 is unambiguous about the requirement to "deduct any other estimated income for the ensuing
year which the town may have" from estimated expenditures. Section 7-194 does not grant any power to the Board
of Finance to exclude revenue amounts from the budget.
5. I must again take issue with the Town Attorney's interpretation of the following partial quotation from
Caulfield: "... the mere fact that in setting the amount to be levied by taxation, the town has levied an amount
greater than its actual requirement, does not allow a taxpayer to challenge the mill rate, unless the amount levied is
grossly excessive so as to show an improper purpose in making the levy."
Once again, the opinion must be read in its entirety to reveal the Court's true intent, to wit: "These authorities
point out that the mere retention of a surplus, pursuant to statutory authority, is not the exercise of a taxing power
and that the mere fact that in setting the amount to be levied by taxation, the town has levied an amount greater
than its actual requirement, does not allow a taxpayer to challenge the mill rate, unless the amount levied is grossly
excessive so as to show an improper purpose in making the levy." (underscoring supplied)
It is clear from the entire text of the opinion that the Court was referring to retention of surplus pursuant to
statutory authority and not to exclusion of revenue, which is the subject of the first question. I submit therefore that
the Town Attorney's use of the partial quotation is misleading and not applicable.
6. I note with satisfaction that the Town Attorney agreed with my position regarding the BOE Special Program
Fund. Revenues and expenditures associated with this fund must be included in the town budget.
Continued on Page 3
Previous Page Back to Town Attorney's Opinion Back to Summary Page Home Page