On May 16, the Town Council voted unanimously to table finalizing the town's new $50.55 million budget with 4.7% tax increase, in a move the nine members hope will to buy time to possibly adjust for more revenue needed; should further potential state budget deficit impacts come to pass. The council will take up the budget vote on Tuesday, June 6, 7 p.m., at Town Hall during the regular Town Council meeting.

The decision to table the vote was based on Governor Dannel Malloy's revised state budget deficit fixes this month, to address a new gap above and beyond an anticipated $2 billion state deficit announced in February. The revisions could mean North Branford stands to be saddled with an additional $1.7 million in expenses owed to state in 2017-18.

North Branford is not alone in the firestorm created by the governor's proposals. Compounding the issue from the start has been the fact that state budget likely won't be finalized for several more weeks, or even months; leaving municipalities in the dark. Towns across the state operating on a fiscal year budget, including North Branford, need to finalize town budgets by early June to begin the new fiscal year on July 1.

With new property tax bills not going to print until June 9 this year, North Branford Finance Director Anthony Esposito advised the council to hold off on finalizing the budget instead of voting as planned.

"I would suggest that we would hold off until the first meeting in June, to see if there are any more concrete numbers, and then finalize the budget at that point in time," Esposito told the council at its May 16 meeting.

To produce the $50.55 million 2017-18 town budget, the council had already decided not to include a potential $1.4 million in extra costs due to the state should a February, 2017 idea proposed by Malloy come to pass. The proposal would have towns make up 10 percent of the state's one-third contribution to the state Teachers' Pension Fund.

As Mayor Michael Doody explained at the time the council recommended the $50.55 million budget in April, should the town be billed the $1.4 million at some point in 2017-18, adjusted tax bills would have to be distributed above and beyond those that would be sent out by July 1, 2017.

With the governor's additional proposal to burden municipalities, councilwoman Rose Angeloni noted adding the proposed $1.7 million to proposed $1.4 million adds up to $3.1 million that North Branford could ultimately be responsible for producing -- none of which is planned for in the current, $50.55 million budget.

"So is it a second tax bill for the $3.1 [million]; or do we take some out of the general fund balance? Are there any other options?" she asked.

Esposito said those question and other questions of process where among those he planned to ask the town's attorney.

"This is uncharted territory," said Esposito. "We've never done it, in 25 years. It's a unique situation."

In setting the $50.55 million budget, the council borrowed an unprecedented $750,000 to help offset state cuts and costs. Additionally, North Branford will take some $1.5 million in debt service cost savings that would have hit next year and use the money to cover state cuts and costs for areas including education spending. The original plan, prior to the state deficit impacts, was for the town use the debt service savings to address infrastructure needs.

Now, the council is now strongly considering another dip into the town's general fund to help make up the additional revenue needed.

Otherwise, as Angeloni pointed out, making up some three million in revenue by taxation would require another two mill increase over the currently-recommended 2017-18 mill rate of 33.51 mills. The 33.51 mill rate is an annual increase of 1.5 mills and equals a 4.7 percent tax increase.

Deputy Mayor Joseph Faughnan asked Esposito if the town should consider borrowing most of the $3 million potential extra expense from the general fund.

Esposito said one of the issues will be adding to the burden of paying back the borrowed money, giving the example that, "...if you take $2 million; you've [already] eaten into the fund this year, now you're another two million behind next year."

"It's a question of when do we pay the piper," said Faughnan. "If we do it with a supplemental bill this year, what's going to happen to our tax payers? As opposed to if we have to make it up next year —  is that more prudent way of approaching it than trying to invent a new process?"

While Faughnan said taking the money from the general fund is "...one possibility," repercussions, such as exceeding a town-set limit on the amount allowed to be removed, need to be explored, he added.

"All I want to do is ask the question, and try to position ourselves to be in the best possible position to make a horrible decision," said Faughnan.

Based on the results of the budget referendum question vote on May 9, the overwhelming majority of residents who came out to the polls voted against adopting the $50.55 million budget due to it being too high. But, even with the one of the highest voter turnouts in recent history – 8.9 percent of the electorate – the referendum turnout failed to meet the Town Charter requirement of a minimum 15 percent turnout for results to be actionable by the Town Council. See the story here