This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
05/29/2015 06:45 PMNORTH BRANFORD — Shortly before setting the town's new mill rate at 31.08 mills on May 19, creating a 3.88 percent tax increase next year, some Town Council members paused to recognize the clear message sent by over 90 percent of residents who came out to vote down North Branford's new, $50.4 million budget at the polls during the annual budget referendum question vote on May 12.
While the question drew almost nine percent of the entire electorate to the polls — an exceptional turnout when measured against past years — it wasn't enough to hit the minimum 15 percent threshold Town Charter requires for referendum results to be actionable by the council. The budget was immediately adopted following the vote. Acting in its capacity as North Branford's finance board, the Town Council then met on May 19 to set the new mill rate.
On May 19, noting "other things came up" which will create some adjustments within the parameters of the adopted budget, council member Donald Fucci asked, "...do we have to set the mill rate – is there any ability for the council to go back in and do anything with the budget, at this point?"
Councilman Al Rose said he asked a similar question of Town Attorney John Gesmonde shortly after the referendum vote was completed.
"I was asking it based on, wow, almost 10 percent of the people came out and voted and (the majority) of them said it was too high."
As previously reported in The Sound, a total of 786 voters, or 8.9 percent of the registered electorate (8,785) voted on the question, "Shall the Town Council Recommended Budget of $50,464,605, which will require a mill rate of 31.08 mills, be adopted?" The question drew 708 votes to reject the budget for being too high, 70 voting to accept the budget, and eight voting to reject the budget for being too low.
Gesmonde said the short answer to whether the council could make changes to the budget, based on the results of the May 12 vote, is "no."
"There wasn't the requisite percentage turnout that would have them have their say," said Gesmonde. "The budget was presented to the townspeople, they had the right to vote and they did; but unfortunately, not enough of them came out."
Fucci said he felt that voters may not be voting because the referendum isn't binding.
"In any surrounding town where it is binding, people do go out," said Fucci.
In neighboring North Haven, where budget referendum voting is binding, a nine percent turnout at the polls in May rejected a 4.4 percent tax increase proposed with the town's new budget. A revised budget with cuts will be returned for another referendum vote set for June 16.
North Branford used to have binding referendum voting on its budget until the 15 percent threshold was set as new language in the Town Charter about 10 years ago. Fucci said he recalled the charter was changed a time when one Connecticut town had to hold nine referendum votes in order to adopt its budget. Costs for referendum votes are charged to the town each time.
In Nov. 2012, North Branford voters had a chance to throw out the Town Charter's 15 percent rule and change it to a simple majority vote. The opportunity appeared as one of four Charter Revision questions included with the national, state and local election ballot. The question read, "Shall the Town Charter be revised so that a plurality of votes to accept the budget, or to recommend to the Town Council its rejection, be effective regardless of the number of qualified electors voting?" Of those turning out to vote, 2801 answered "No" while 2430 decided "Yes," and so the change was not approved.
Gesmonde said there is "some wisdom" to the idea of not relying on a "minimum turnout" to "decide for a town." In this case, had the vote been binding, North Branford's population of 14,000 would have had to abide by having the budget rejected due to the responses of 786 voters.
However, the fact that 708 of those 786 voters rejected this budget as being too high certainly resonated with some members of the council.
"I think almost 32 mills is ridiculous for the amount of services we're able to provide to our citizens," said Fucci. "I think it's shameful."
"What's ridiculous?" asked Councilman Dan Armin. "We know where the money's going —everything is allocated to something worthwhile to the people that live here."
"I think there's a lot of things that have got to be seriously revisited. That's just my opinion," answered Fucci.
Armin said, "...we're looking at developing a tax base so it's not on the homeowner."