Agenda

Charter Revision Commission - Agenda - Mar 30, 2026

Mar 30, 2026

A public record published by the Town of Simsbury (simsbury-ct.gov). mySimsbury indexes it and makes it readable; it is not the official copy. View the original file.

Municipality Population Size Form of Govt. P&Z Commission? Board of Finance?* S&P Rating (2023) Charter Notes
Simsbury 24,807 TM-BOS No Yes (E) AAA click here n/a
Avon 18,848 TM-Council Yes Yes (E) AAA click here n/a
Bloomfield 21,480 TM-Council Yes Yes** AA+ click here n/a
Farmington 26,645 TM-Council Yes No Aaa (Moody's) click here n/a
Newington 30,365 TM-Council Yes No AA+ click here n/a
South Windsor 26,767 TM-Council Yes No (Board of Tax Review) AAA click here Just completed CRC
Wethersfield 27,124 TM-Council Yes No AA+ click here n/a
Windsor 29,376 TM-Council Yes No AAA click here n/a
Berlin 20,113 TM-Council Yes Yes (E) AAA click here n/a
Torrington 35,357 Mayor-Council Yes Yes (A) AA- click here Has Personnel Dept. & Director
Cheshire 28,628 TM-Council Yes No AAA click here n/a
Rocky Hill 20,746 TM-Council Yes No AA+ click here n/a
Vernon 30,326 Mayor-Council Yes No Aa2 (Moody's) click here Has Town Administrator
For Chartered Boards & Commissions, please see 'Board & Commission Matrix'
**Mentioned in Charter Section 306 but nowhere else**
*Elected (E) / Appointed (A)*
Town of Simsbury CRC Comparable Communities Research
Comparable communities determined by: population, actual mill rate, total grand list, total revenue, property tax revenues, total expenditures, median household income, and proximity
Municipalities:
Chartered Appointed
Boards & Commissions
Aging &
Disability
Commission
Board
of
Ethics
Building
Code Board
of Appeals
Conservation Commission /
Inland Wetlands &
Watercourses Agency
Culture, Parks &
Recreation
Commission
Economic
Development
Commission
Historic
District
Commission
Housing
Authority
Open
Space
Committee
Police
Commission
Public
Building
Committee
Water Pollution
Control
Authority
Design
Review
Board
Simsbury √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Avon X X √ X X X X X X X X √ X
Bloomfield X X X X X X X X X √ X X X
Farmington X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Newington √ X X √ √ √ X X X X X X X
South Windsor X X X √ X √ X X X X √ X X
Wethersfield X √ √ X √ X X √ X X √ X X
Windsor X X X X X X X X X X √ X X
Berlin √ √ X √ √ √ X X X √ √ √ X
Torrington √ X X X √ X X X X X X X X
Cheshire X X √ X X √ X X X X X √ X
Rocky Hill X X X √* √ √ X X √* X √ X X
Vernon X X √ √ X X X √ X X √ √ X
*Combined*
Town of Simsbury CRC Comparable Communities Board & Commission Matrix
Town of Simsbury
933 HOPMEADOW STREET ~ SIMSBURY, CONNECTICUT 06070
Town Manager’s Office
Telephone (860) 658-3230
Facsimile (860) 658-9467
An Equal Opportunity Employer
townmanager@simsbury-ct.gov
www.simsbury-ct.gov
8:30 am - 7:00 pm Monday
8:30 am - 4:30 pm Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
8:30 am - 1:00 pm Friday
MEMORANDUM
To: Kris Barnett, Charter Revision Commission Chair
From: Franklyn Barrueco, Management Specialist
Cc: Charter Revision Commissioners
Bob DeCrescenzo, Town Attorney
Date: February 28, 2025
Subject: Forms of Government Research
The Charter Revision Commission is interested in learning more about the various forms of local
government and the distinction between the roles of the Town Manager and Town Administrator.
Below, you will find my research explaining the forms of government, the relative strengths and
weaknesses of each form, and the similarities between the Manager and Administrator.
Background
Generally, the powers between the executive and legislative government branches is similar in all forms
of government. Municipalities in Connecticut commonly utilize one of the three forms:
 Mayor-Council;
 Town Manager-Council;
 CEO-[Representative] Town Meeting.
The legislative body (Selectmen/Aldermen/Directors/Council/etc.) is elected by residents and
serves as the authority on policymaking and local law; can enact, amend, and repeal local ordinances;
create, consolidate, and abolish boards and commissions, and is responsible for approving the budget
or (in municipalities that have a Board of Finance with budget approval authority) presenting the
budget to the Board of Finance for final approval. The legislative body usually has a chairperson, who
may also fill the role of Chief Elected/Legislative Official having their own Charter stipulated powers,
and who ‘represents’ the municipality.
The head of the executive branch (Mayor/Town Manager/Town Administrator/etc.) is usually
appointed by the legislative body with a multi-year contract (usually 2 or 4 years) to serve as the Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) or Chief Appointed/Administrative Officer (CAO) of the municipality. The
CEO/CAO is responsible for daily municipal administration, implementing all policies, resolutions,
and the vision of the legislative body, ensuring local law is faithfully executed, complying with all
applicable state and federal laws, supervising and managing all municipal employees, and is authorized
to engage in contracts and agreements on behalf of the municipality.
A summary of each form’s roles, responsibilities, and differences:
Form of
Govt. Mayor-Council Town Manager-Council [Representative] Town
Meeting (RTM)
Municipalities Hartford & New Britain Farmington &
Glastonbury Plainfield & Greenwich
Function
Mayor as CEO
Council as Legislative
Body
Mayor can be strong
(not needing Council
approval for actions and
has veto power over
legislative body) or weak
(needs Council approval)
Mayor serves dual role as
Chief Elected/Legislative
and Chief Executive
Officer(s)
Town Manager as CEO
Council as Legislative
Body
Town Manager usually
appointed on the basis of
professional
qualifications, education,
and experience
Most common form of
local government in U.S.
(40%) according to 2018
ICMA survey
In CT as of 2020, 33 of
169 (20%) municipalities
have a Town Manager
Manager/Administrator/
Mayor/Council as CEO
[R]TM as Legislative
Body
The residents are the
legislative body (Town
Meeting) or (to reduce
size) residents are elected
as representatives (RTM)
Town Meeting convened
for major legislative
decisions (ex: adopting
budget) and delegates
administrative tasks to
another entity
Strengths
Power is centralized in
the Mayor, which can
lead to speedier decision-
making and instant
communication between
the legislative and
executive branches
Professional Town
Manager can be more
efficient and accountable;
Charter can require
academic qualifications or
specific experience
Allows for healthy and
constructive disagreement
between branches
The highest level of
direct citizen
involvement and purest
form of democracy
Oldest form of local
government
Unique to small towns
Weaknesses
Elected Mayor may not
be the most ‘qualified’ to
oversee daily municipal
operations
Mayoral elections are
extremely influential
Town Manager is
unelected
Creates perception of two
(2) people “running” the
government (Chief
Elected v. Chief
Executive)
Town Meetings can be
difficult to manage given
the amount of people
Requires high degree of
citizen participation;
vulnerable to special
interests
Process can be slow and
challenging for complex
issues
Town Manager v. Town Administrator
The head of the local executive branch is commonly a Town Manager (Chief Executive Officer) or a
Town Administrator (Chief Administrative Officer). In the public sector, they have nearly identical
responsibilities regarding daily municipal administration, personnel management, budget preparation,
contracting, and local law execution.
In the private sector, the roles are more distinct; the CAO is responsible for day-to-day operations
and personnel management while the CEO makes the major organizational decisions, acts as the
communication channel between the Board of Directors and the rest of the organization, and sets the
strategic direction of the company or corporation. The CEO represents the organization.
The general consensus is that the Town Manager has more authority and independence in executing
policies and managing daily operations compared to the CAO in municipal government. There is
limited research specifically stating the practical differences between both roles. In today’s world
particularly, it is important to separate the administration of local government from the politics of
local government. A Town Manager, as a more independent person, may be better suited for that role.
Resources
https://crcog.org/breaking-down-the-forms-of-municipal-government-in-the-crcog-region/
https://www.ccm-ct.org/Portals/CCM/PDF/Workshops/2022/Fundamentals-of-Municipal-
Government-January-2022.pdf?ver=0MYv_rg9tOLFfHcViI_CZw%3D%3D
https://cttcma.govoffice3.com/vertical/sites/%7B5463D4E1-5CDA-4913-B0FD-
1C467098117B%7D/uploads/%7B2BDC8C22-BEA9-49FB-902F-3FF205905147%7D.PDF
https://icma.org/sites/default/files/2018%20Municipal%20Form%20of%20Government%20Surv
ey%20Report.pdf
https://icma.org/sites/default/files/Survey%20Research%20Snapshot_MFOG.pdf
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2020/rpt/pdf/2020-R-0332.pdf
Town of Simsbury Charter Revision Commission Requested Town Planner Comments
As of March 14, 2025
Simsbury Planning Director George McGregor
1. I randomly surveyed 44 other Connecticut Towns. 36 had joint Planning & Zoning
Commissions; 6 had separate; 2 with elected City Councils responsible for zoning
decisions.
2. The Zoning Commission reviews an average estimated 38 applications per year.
3. The Planning Commission reviews an average combined (applications and advisory
recommendations) 10-12 per year. The Planning Commission also spends a significant
amount of their time on broader policy and plan initiatives such as the POCD update in
2023 and the Tariffville Plan in 24/25.
4. Annually, about 2-4 applications per year go to both Commissions.
5. Broadly, combining the two bodies might yield efficiencies in review (applicants for text
amendments or zone changes would not have to proceed to Planning for advisory
recommendations). A combined zoning and planning commission might achieve
improved consistency and coordination when developing policy and then transitioning to
action steps. A combined body would reduce the total number of meetings for staff and
others (although meetings of the new joint commission would likely be longer). A
combined body may struggle with prioritization between the legislative/administrative
requirements of land use applications, and the broader, more policy-related
responsibilities found in the POCD and general, aspirational plan-making.
6. Broadly, NOT combining the bodies would preserve the independence of a separate land
use policy-making body; not combining the bodies could continue prioritization
challenges when selecting action items for zoning implementation from those developed
during the policy process.
7. If the bodies are combined, I recommend no change in the total numeric makeup of 6
members and 3 alternates (or 7 members and 2 alternates). A larger group does not
enhance decision-making in my opinion nor is it possible to accommodate a larger group
in any of our available meeting rooms.
Wethersfield Town Planner David Elder
I have not worked with any towns with separate commissions in my 20+ years of Land Use
Planning in Connecticut. The closest to that situation I can think of is the Watertown Fire
District, which had its own Zoning Commission for activities within the district but the Planning
functions occurred at the whole Town level by the Town of Watertown's Planning Commission.
I assume there is a reason Simsbury is considering the question, and would offer that one
obvious benefit is that when Combined, the Commissioners would have a working knowledge of
the Zoning Regulations which are the regulatory mechanism to carry out the "vision" presented
in the Comprehensive Plan for the community.
Best of luck with the effort.
Thanks for reaching out.
Town of Simsbury Charter Revision Commission Requested Town Planner Comments
As of March 14, 2025
Canton Town Planner Neil Pade (paraphrased)
Canton went from separate to combined through a charter review process.
Open Space & Conservation Commission combined. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency
(IWWA) is their own separate commission.
Connecticut Association of Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commissions recommends
keeping IWWA and Conservation Commission separate.
If he had to job search, would not look at towns with separate commissions; more inefficient.
In Canton, when commissions were separate, perceived “no connection” between the two.
Combined commission is a simpler and more efficient system. Everything is streamlined.
Two drawbacks with combined, less eyes on it and a lot of power vested in one commission,
rather than split between two.
Planning drives Zoning. Good planning gets implemented through zoning regulations. Doesn’t
think planning takes a backseat. By bringing them together, you bring planning to the table to
more influence zoning decisions. Sometimes, a lot of zoning applications could take the majority
of the meeting.
Cheshire Town Planner Michael Glidden (paraphrased)
Has nine (9) regular members and three (3) alternates; in Waterford was seven (7) and two (2)
alternates.
By far, combined is better setup than separate commissions.
Separate commissions complicate zone district changes and text amendments.
In Simsbury, other than subdivisions and POCD, Planning Commission serves no regulatory
role.
Handles updating POCD by making a subcommittee that meets once a month.
Myth that if it’s a combined commission that they will focus more on zoning than planning. He
has seen a combined Commission able to do both. No issues whatsoever.
It’s a one stop shop vs. multiple stops for a complex application.
More efficient use of Commission members time, staff time, and applicant’s time.
Meets twice a month for regular meeting and once for the POCD subcommittee.
The separate commissions go back to an older style of government in CT.
Town of Simsbury Charter Revision Commission Requested Town Planner Comments
As of March 14, 2025
Avon Planning Director Hiram Peck
Re: Requested comments regarding P&Z structure.
The question has been asked for my comments regarding the pros and cons of combining the
Planning and Zoning Commission functions. My comments follow. They are based on over 30
years of land use experience in working for separate and combined Commissions.
Some people seem to feel that combining the commissions is done simply for the sake of
expediting either approval or denial of applications. The people who favor separate commissions
also feel that combined commissions would push the planning function and considerations to the
rear when applications are being reviewed and decided. Still, others feel that separating the
planning considerations and the zoning considerations separately better preserves the individual
statutory requirements and offers more public input into application decision making when
public hearings are required and held.
The reality is that approximately ½ of CT municipalities have separate planning and zoning
commissions. In the past few years more communities have combined commissions than have
separated them. The legislature has recently passed a number of pieces of legislation which add
to local zoning regulation considerations. Many of these pertain to defining zoning regulation
specifics pertaining to local decision-making regarding items such as parking, housing and
general authority clarification and definition. Another example is the recent revision of CGS Sec
8-2 which specifies what zoning regulations shall contain as opposed to previously when
regulations may do certain things.
In my experience there are more benefits to everyone from a combined Planning and Zoning
Commission than there are to separate commissions. A few of those benefits are as follows:
1. The application process is far less costly to the municipality and the applicant with
combined commissions and yet the decision is not affected in any substantial way as long
as it follows all statutory requirements. Including proper referral and proper public notice.
2. The process is far easier for municipalities to manage and far less likely to result in
delayed decisions and procedural errors than with separate commissions.
3. The ability for the commission to focus on the specific issues which legally pertain to that
commission for that application is far greater with combined commissions, in my
opinion. There are no (non-applicable) issues to cloud the commission and staff’s review
or decision when the commissions are combined.
4. The combined commission should be better versed in the totality of the applicable
application, process and legal requirements than separate commissions which have only
“part of the total picture.” In addition, separate commissions tend to offer comments and
opinions which are not in keeping with their statutory responsibilities.
5. The reality in today’s land use arena is that large or significant subdivision applications
are becoming fewer and fewer. Thus, the subdivision and POCD process which have
been the sole tasks for planning commissions are becoming far fewer in number.
Town of Simsbury Charter Revision Commission Requested Town Planner Comments
As of March 14, 2025
6. Finally, combined commissions are in a better position to know about related but not
legally applicable aspects of the application specifics. This is helpful when the public
participates in required public hearings and offers comments on an application.
My recommendation is to properly combine the commissions for the best possible effect for all
participants in the application, review and decision-making process.
If you have any questions on the above or any other questions, please feel free to contact me.
Board/Commission Authority Comments? 2024 Meetings Regular Membership Term (Years) C.C. C.G.S.
Board of Assessment Appeals [E] Charter & Code (Chp. 5) No 4 3 + 3 Alt. 4 (S) 9-185,199
Board of Education [E] Charter No (Presented) 12 8 4 (S) 9-185,203, 206a
Board of Finance [E] Charter Yes (Presented) 16 6 6 (S)
Board of Selectmen [E] Charter Yes (Presented) 24 6 2
Library Board of Trustees [E] Charter & Code (Chp. 34) Yes 11 9 6 (S) 11-21
Planning Commission [E] Charter & Code (Chp. 50) Yes (Presented) 16 6 + 3 Alt. 4 (S)
Zoning Board of Appeals [E] Charter Yes 7 6 + 3 Alt. 4 (S) 8-5
Zoning Commission (ZC) [E] Charter & Code (Chp. 50) Yes (Presented) 25 6 + 3 Alt. 4 (S)
Aging & Disability Commission [A] Charter & Code (Chp. 3) Yes 9 12 + 4 Alt. 4 (S) & 2 Alt. 3/12
Board of Ethics [A] Charter & Code (Chp. 13) Yes 1 6 4 (S) 2/12
Building Code Board of Appeals [A] Charter No 0 5 + 2 Alt. 5 (S) & 2 Alt. 4/12 29-266
Business Development Committee [A] (BOS Temporary Committee) No 0 5 + 1 Alt. 2
Conservation Commission / Inland Wetlands &
Watercourses Agency [A] Charter & Code (Chp. 85) Yes 17 7 + 2 Alt. 4 (S) 5/12 22a-42
Culture, Parks & Recreation Commission [A] Charter Yes (Presented) 9 9 4 (S) 5/12
Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Council [A] (BOS Temporary Committee) Yes 10 15 2
Economic Development Commission [A] Charter & Code (Chp. 9) Yes 10 7 3 (S) 5/12
Fair Rent Commission [A] Code (Chp. 15) No 2 5 + 2 Alt. 4 (S) 7-148b
Flood & Erosion Control Board [A] Charter* & Code (Chp. 20) No 0 6 2
Historic District Commission [A] Charter & Code (Chp. 25) Yes 3 5 + 3 Alt. 5 (S) 0/12 7-147a,147c
Hometown Hero Selection Committee [A] (BOS Temporary Committee) No 3 6 2
Housing Authority [A] Charter No 10 5 5 (S) 2/12 8-40,41
Open Space Committee [A] Charter & Code (Chp. 21) Yes (Presented) 9 8 2 1/12
Police Commission [A] Charter & Code (Chp. 52) Yes (Presented) 9 5 4 (S) 2/12
Public Building Committee [A] Charter Yes 13 9 4 (S) 6/12
Recycling Committee [A] (BOS Temporary Committee) No 1 4 2
Sustainability Committee [A] (BOS Temporary Committee) No 13 5 + 5 Ex-Officio 2
Technology Task Force [A] (BOS Temporary Committee) No 3 9 2
Water Pollution Control Authority [A] Charter Yes 9 7 4 (S) 4/12
Eno Farms Subcommittee [AF] None (BOS Subcommittee) No 0 2 2
Finance Subcommittee [AF] Charter* (BOS Subcommittee) No 0 3 2
Long Range Planning Subcommittee [AF] No (BOS Subcommittee) No 0 2 2
Personnel Subcommittee [AF] Charter* & Code (Chp. 48) No 13 3 2
Public Safety Subcommittee [AF] Charter* No 4 2 2
Retirement Plan Subcommittee** MOU No 3 8 2
Aquifer Protection Agency [Z] Code (Chp. 4) No 0 6 + 3 Alt. 4 (S) 22a-354o
Design Review Board [Z] Charter No 15 6 + 1 Alt. (up to 4 Alt.) 4 (S) 0/12
Town of Simsbury Charter Revision Commission Board & Commission Master Sheet
"Boards & Commissions" not included:
Central Regional Tourism District Board of Directors
Charter Revision Commission
Communications Committee of the North
Central Emergency Management Services Council
Justices of the Peace
Hartford Area Cable Television Advisory Council
Subcommittees of primary board/commission
Juvenile Review Board (BOS Temporary Committee)
Youth Services Advisory Board (BOS Temporary Committee)
NOTES
*mentioned in Charter; role and membership not specified*
**established by the Board of Finance**
[ E = Elected / A = BOS Appointed / AF = Appointed by First / Z = Appointed by ZC]
S = Staggered / Alt. = Alternates
C.C. = Comparable communities with appointed board in Charter
(3 or less = Red / 3 to 6 = Yellow / More than 6 = Green)
Town of Simsbury
933 HOPMEADOW STREET ~ SIMSBURY, CONNECTICUT 06070
Town Manager’s Office
Telephone (860) 658-3230
Facsimile (860) 658-9467
An Equal Opportunity Employer
fbarrueco@simsbury-ct.gov
www.simsbury-ct.gov
8:30 am - 7:00 pm Monday
8:30 am - 4:30 pm Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
8:30 am - 1:00 pm Friday
MEMORANDUM
To: Chair Kris Barnett
Charter Revision Commissioners
From: Franklyn Barrueco, Management Specialist/Charter Revision Commission
Administrative Liaison
Cc:
Date:
Subject:
Town Attorney Robert M. DeCrescenzo, Esq.
George McGregor, AICP, Director of Community Planning & Development
April 15, 2025
Connecticut Municipal Legislative Body as Chief Zoning Authority Research
At the April 1, 2025 Charter Revision Commission regular meeting, the Commission asked for
research on Connecticut towns and cities where the legislative body is the ultimate zoning
authority. Below is a summary1 of my limited research findings. Please let me know if the
Commission requires additional information or clarification. Connecticut General Statutes Chapter
124 Section 8-1 provides more information regarding the ability for municipal legislative bodies
to act as a zoning commission.
Municipality Form of
Govt.
Population
Size2 Charter Reference
West Hartford Council-
Manager 63,969
The town council shall be the zoning authority of
the town.
(Chapter 3 Section 3 & Chapter 12 Section 1)
Glastonbury Council-
Manager 35,204
…the council shall have the power to enact,
amend or repeal any building or zoning
ordinance…(Chapter 3 Section 307)
Norwich Council-
Manager 39,881
Subject to the provisions of section 4 of this
chapter the council shall have power to regulate
by ordinance…The council shall also provide by
ordinance for the manner in which such
regulations and the boundaries of such zones
shall be respectively enforced and the conditions
under which exceptions or variations may be
granted by the zoning board of appeals.
(Chapter 15 Section 6)
1 Please note that this is not a comprehensive, exhaustive, list of all Connecticut municipalities where the legislative
body is the chief zoning authority
2 Connecticut Department of Public Health Estimated Population as of July 1, 2023
Town of Simsbury
933 HOPMEADOW STREET ~ SIMSBURY, CONNECTICUT 06070
Town Manager’s Office
Telephone (860) 658-3230
Facsimile (860) 658-9467
An Equal Opportunity Employer
townmanager@simsbury-ct.gov
www.simsbury-ct.gov
8:30 am - 7:00 pm Monday
8:30 am - 4:30 pm Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
8:30 am - 1:00 pm Friday
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Cc:
Date:
Subject:
Chair Kris Barnett
Charter Revision Commissioners
Franklyn Barrueco, Management Specialist/Charter Revision Commission
Administrative Liaison
Town Attorney Robert M. DeCrescenzo, Esq.
May 6, 2025
Summary of Comments Received Regarding the First Selectman, Board of
Selectmen, and Town Manager Charter Chapters and Sections
This memorandum serves as a summary of the written public comment the Commission has
received to date regarding the roles, responsibilities, and relationship between and amongst the
First Selectman, Board of Selectmen, and Town Manager. The information provided is in no
particular order and categorized by entity. If the Commission requires a summary of verbal
comment during public comment, or meeting discussions, please let me know. As always, please
let me know if additional information or further clarification is required.
-
Board of Selectmen:
 Any new member of the Board of Selectmen (BOS) run for a two-year term…if they have
done a good enough job to get reelected, let them be reelected for four years… (Linda
Schofield)
 Clarify that the BOS sets general government policies… (Lisa Heavner)
 Consider language ensuring the BOS has authority to review actions by the Town Manager
and has the authority to reverse by a majority vote. (Lisa Heavner)
 Evaluate whether there should be a citizen recall referendum provision or “say on pay”
mechanism in the Charter to help the BOS evaluate the Town Manager’s effectiveness.
(Lisa Heavner)
 Consider a Charter provision requiring that the sale of Town property, land, or open space
over a certain dollar amount require citizen referendum, upon the recommendation of the
Board of Selectmen…Consider the language requiring two independent appraisals before
the sale or purchase of Town property over a certain dollar amount. (Lisa Heavner)
 The BOS should transition to a Council form of government…maintaining the BOS
duties… with 5 members elected to two-year terms and the selection of the Chairman from
the Council members (Joan Coe)
 Rename BOS to [Town] Council. (Wendy Mackstutis)
 There should be no compensation for all members of the Council. (Joan Coe)
 The Town Attorney should be appointed by the Council and serve under the Town Manager
as an employee with an office in the Town. (Joan Coe)
 4-year term (Wendy Mackstutis, Steven Antonio, Kevin Beal)
 Keep the 2-year term (Ellen Gilbert)
 Staggered terms – inconsistent – why the Board of Education, Board of Finance and not
BOS…may be difficult as we all come in as a team and run as a slate, so starting at different
times may impact goal setting and policy items. (Wendy Mackstutis)
 Stagger terms…with a minority of members (Kevin Beal) … so half of the terms are elected
every other year (3 in odd years, 2 selectmen and 1 First Selectperson in even years) …
(Steven Antonio)
 Allow BOS to be part of Town Manager budget discussions with Department Heads…
(Wendy Mackstutis)
 Stipend - Regarding the council, it should be clarified that they can be reimbursed for
expenses or even get a small stipend. (Wendy Mackstutis)
 Legal issues with other boards – should the BOS be looped in (examples are zoning issues
with Town being sued – should the highest-level board be included, at least in the exec.
session to understand the issue). (Wendy Mackstutis)
 Possibly have BOS ‘ratify’ unaffiliated voters that complete an interest form to serve on
an appointed Board or Commission. (Steven Antonio)
 Clarification that the BOS acts as the Chief Executive Officer for the Town; establishing
policy; and the Town Manager acts as the Chief Administrative Officer performing
administrative duties and the implementation of policies set by the BOS. (Steven Antonio)
 Amend Charter Section 704(2) requiring the Town Manager consult with the Board of
Finance (instead of the Board of Selectmen as current) … (Lisa Heavner)
 Duties of the Board of Selectmen on the Budget: Recommend changing the dates to allow
more time for budget deliberation, providing a communication role and responsibility for
the First Selectperson, and providing that each department office, board, commission or
agency has a right to be heard by the Board of Selectmen before any budget is submitted
to the Board of Finance. (Lisa Heavner)
 Request an oversight portion of the charter/ boards agenda as a way to have a progress
report on projects approved…Adding to the agendas a brief update on each active project
by a delegated member of the board could be most helpful. (Ellen Gilbert)
 Public audience letters sent…written comments…should be attached as part of the minutes
of each meeting. (Diane Nash, Helen Peterson)
 No change to the number of Selectmen. (Kevin Beal)
 In Chapter IV, Section 402, or at a place appropriate, include the following Policy
Governance provision: “The Board of Selectmen will govern using the published principles
of Carver’s Policy Governance model with respect to the board’s internal process, its
relationship to other entities including town staff, and its manner of decision-making,
except as otherwise provided in Charter or Connecticut General Statues.” (Kevin Beal)
 The current Charter authorizes the Board of Selectmen to apply for grants, and I
recommend eliminating that provision or, alternatively, amending it to specify the authority
rests with the Town Manager. (Marc Nelson)
 Where not prohibited by State Law…clarify that other boards and commissions are
advisory in nature… Centralizing authority over policy and budgetary matters with the
Board of Selectmen (or Town Council) is something I urge the Commission to consider.
(Marc Nelson)
First Selectman:
 Return to the First Selectman (FS) style of governance [with a longer term], with an elected
full-time and well-paid First Selectman [as Chief Executive Officer], and a professional
Chief Operating Officer or Chief Administrative Officer. (Linda Schofield)
 Clarify the role, if any, of the First Selectperson in declaring an emergency. (Lisa Heavner)
 4-year term (Wendy Mackstutis)
 Rename First Selectman to Mayor and keep separately elected. (Wendy Mackstutis, Steven
Antonio)
 Vote counting for Runner up [to First Selectman] – look at other communities – is there a
threshold that can give weight – that the loser of the Chief Elected has to have X number
of votes more than a Selectmen to be in the mix…or restructure how the ballot/slate works.
(Wendy Mackstutis)
 Separate First Selectperson candidates from those running for Board of Selectmen…
(Steven Antonio)
 The First Selectman election being a stand alone one should be considered. The current
way that this is done confuses everyone. (Carl Meyer)
 Have the BOS elect a presiding officer from among its membership. (Kevin Beal)
 I don’t recommend a change to the charter that would modify the provision for an
“unsuccessful candidate for first selectman” referenced in Connecticut General Statutes §
9-118. (Kevin Beal)
 Structure needed to the “directing/ordering staff” Charter provision to avoid
misinterpretation or application…should be defined so that it can be applied equally…
(Wendy Mackstutis)
 Chief Elected Official should be in the room when an emergency happens, and decisions
are made around opening an EOC… Is this part of Public Safety – should FS be chair of
this, or is it not needed if FS is part of the emergency management team initiation? (Wendy
Mackstutis)
 FS in chain of command for information and then shared with all board - or full board if
able to. Information across the BOS, attempt at order, sharing equally… (Wendy
Mackstutis)
 Stipend – in last charter discussions it was recommended that 15% of the TM salary would
be used but somewhere along the line that was voted down, I assume. Most Council -
Managers currently do not get a stipend but given TM salaries of 150-200 with benefits
and expenses, it seems absurd that we are doing this essentially for free and are most
accountable to the public. (Wendy Mackstutis)
 In the situation of litigation; the chief elected official and/or the Town Manager should be
a member of the panel. (Steven Antonio)
Town Manager:
 The Board of Finance (BOF) should have a role in hiring and terminating the Town
Manager…add an “advice and consent” role for the BOF in Charter Section 501 consistent
with C.G.S. 96, Sec. 98…there should be language to require that the Town Manager
respond promptly to BOF requests for information and proactively keep the BOF informed
of any matters
affecting expenses and revenues… (Linda Schofield)
 Add more [stronger] checks and balances… (Lisa Heavner)
 Clarify that the Manager implements general government policies… (Lisa Heavner)
 Consider Charter language that stresses that the Town Manager is an administrator, not a
policymaker, and should not take actions that would change or bypass board-established
policies…more clearly define which powers the Town Manager has or does not have. For
example, clarify that the Town Manager can perform administrative tasks but BOS
approval is required for:
o Contracts or purchases over $___ dollar amount;
o Appointments and/or dismissal of department heads and other key personnel as
determined by the BOS;
o Policy decisions; and
o Issuance of debt after debt is authorized by referendum or by supplemental
appropriation. (Lisa Heavner)
 Consider adding language to the effect that the Town Manager is responsible for providing
Town elected boards with the information, analysis, reports, and resources they need, as
determined by those boards, in the fulfillment of their elected duties, as determined by
those boards. (Lisa Heavner)
 Consider adding language clarifying that the Town Manager is responsible for ensuring
meeting minutes and agendas for all town meetings are properly noticed and filed with the
Town Clerk and are posted online, along with any accompanying documents...Consider
language like PA 23-160: that the Town Manager shall ensure Town board, commission,
committee, subcommittee agendas, and any associated documents be posted on the Town’s
website. (Lisa Heavner)
 Consider language clarifying that the Town Manager is responsible for ensuring he/she and
Town staff share material information proactively with all board members, not just with
some members. (Lisa Heavner)
 Evaluate which emergency powers should be given to the Town Manager and what limits
should be placed on those powers including the time and scope of that authority, Selectmen
notification, Selectmen consultation where practical, and ratification. (Lisa Heavner)
 Consider requiring the budget include all Town Manager compensation and benefits listed
as a separate line item for citizen comment at hearings. (Lisa Heavner)
 Evaluate whether to limit Town Manager contract to 3 years, consistent with C.G.S. Sec.
7-98. (Lisa Heavner)
 The Town Manager should be the Chief Administrative Officer, assuming the legal
responsibilities of the office including the hiring and firing of employees, including but not
limited to, the management of the Personnel files…more clearly define the duties… (Joan
Coe)
 In the situation of litigation; the chief elected official and/or the Town Manager should be
a member of the panel. (Steven Antonio)
 Add language that each department office, board, commission or agency has a right to be
heard by the Town Manager before final budget approvals. [check and balance] (Lisa
Heavner)
 Duties of the Town Manager: Recommend changing the dates to ensure adequate
deliberation time for the budget [transparency] and adding “check and balance” language
that the Town Manager Budget include sufficient appropriations to support elected boards
in their performance of their duties. (Lisa Heavner)
 Keep the Manager-BOS structure (Kevin Beal)
 Recommend that authority to delegate duties of Personnel Director to a Human Resources
Director be clarified in Section 502.C. (Kevin Beal, Marc Nelson)
 Section 502: Duties of Town Manager; create explicit charter authority for the Town
Manager to manage economic development incentives, under EDC advisement, and
establish performance metrics for regular reporting on economic development to be
determined by the Town Manager. (Leland Holcomb)
Town of Simsbury
933 HOPMEADOW STREET ~ SIMSBURY, CONNECTICUT 06070
Town Manager’s Office
Telephone (860) 658-3230
Facsimile (860) 658-9467
An Equal Opportunity Employer
fbarrueco@simsbury-ct.gov
www.simsbury-ct.gov
8:30 am - 7:00 pm Monday
8:30 am - 4:30 pm Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
8:30 am - 1:00 pm Friday
MEMORANDUM
To: Charter Revision Commission
From: Franklyn Barrueco, Management Specialist/Charter Revision Commission
Administrative Liaison
Date: July 3, 2025
Subject: Board & Commission Recommendations
Below is a summary of the recommendations that the Charter Revision Commission has received,
to date, from the Town’s boards and commissions. All written comments can be found here.
 Aging & Disability Commission
o Implement an attendance policy
 If a commissioner does not attend at least 2/3 of regular meetings scheduled
for the calendar year, they should be removed with their spot considered
vacant, and it is the duty of the Chair to submit written notice of that vacancy
to the BOS or Town Clerk
 Board of Selectmen
o Implement 4-year staggered terms
o Clarify roles of Board of Selectmen and Town Manager
o Make it clearer and easier for unaffiliated voters to serve on boards/commissions
 Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency
o Include public audience
o Require an annual joint meeting of all land use boards
 Culture, Parks & Recreation Commission
o Separate ‘Culture’ from the Commission and create board/commission focused on
arts and culture
o Consider an attendance policy and minority representation
o Amend Director of Culture, Parks and Recreation duties (Sec. 704 (3)) adding “and
facilities” after “program”
 Library Board of Trustees
o Amend Town Code Sec. 34-2 to say nine (9) instead of six (6) members
o Change ‘Directors’ to ‘Trustees’
o Delete Town Code Sec. 34-7 or amend to read that the Simsbury Public Library is
the principal public library
 Open Space Committee
o Include public audience
o Specify membership party representation: the political parties (Republican,
Democrat, and Unaffiliated) of the three other Town electors should be clearly
stated and that they hold their position for four-year terms
o “he” or “she” in Charter should change to “person”
o The Committee has proposed Charter language revisions here
 Planning Commission [members]
o Keep separate from Zoning Commission
 Zoning Commission [members]
o Keep separate from Planning Commission
 Historic District Commission
o Two (2) Commissioners have submitted conflicting comments regarding
mandating that at least three (3) regular members and two (2) alternate members of
the Commission must be owners of record or residents with the District
 Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Council
o Include a Preamble to the Charter
 Economic Development Commission
o Keep the EDC in the Charter
 Public Building Committee
o Keep members as appointed
Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C.
Goodwin Square ● 225 Asylum Street 20th Floor ● Hartford, CT 06103 (t) 860.548.2600 (f) 860.548.2680
www.uks.com
5375826
July 17, 2025
Kristen Barnett
Chair
Charter Revision Commission
Town of Simsbury
933 Hopmeadow Street
Simsbury, CT 06070
Re: Charter Revision Commission: Required Boards and Commissions
Dear Kristen:
The Charter Revision Commission has requested an outline of the membership and terms of all
boards and commissions required by State law. The following is the outline of each required
board and commission.
 Board of Assessment Appeals – The statute establishing the BAA requires 3 members
minimum with four-year terms, alternates not required. Simsbury complies.
 Board of Education –State law allows a board of education of three, six, nine or twelve
residents of such town, except as provided in section 9-205. That section allows any town
to make the number of its board of education five, seven or eight. Simsbury complies.
 Library Board of Trustees – The statute requires a Library Board consisting of a number
divisible by three to be elected in the manner provided in section 9-207. The current 6-
year terms are staggered. Simsbury complies.
 Zoning Board of Appeals – The statute requires that zoning boards of appeals consist of
five regular members and three alternate members, unless otherwise provided by special
act. Simsbury has six members as authorized by a Special Act of the State Legislature.
 Building Code Board of Appeals – A board of appeals shall be appointed by each
municipality. Such board shall consist of five members. No mention of alternates.
Simsbury complies.
Robert M. DeCrescenzo
(t) 860.548.2625
(f) 860.548.2680
rdecrescenzo@uks.com
Kristen Barnett
Chair
Charter Revision Commission
Page 2
July 17, 2025
5375826
 Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency – The IWWA is created by Section 605 of the
Town Charter. That section establishes the number of regular members and alternate
members and the length of their terms.
 Fair Rent Commission – Any town, city or borough may, and any town, city or borough
with a population of twenty-five thousand or more, as determined by the most recent
decennial census, shall, through its legislative body, adopt an ordinance that creates a fair
rent commission. Simsbury adopted the required ordinance.
 Historic District Commission – According to the state statute, once an historic district has
been established, an historic district commission be established and shall perform all the
functions authorized by state statute relative to the district and to administering the
provisions of the statute. The Simsbury Commission consists of five regular and three
alternate members. Simsbury complies.
 Housing Authority – The statute requires that the Authority consist of five members with
five-year terms. The commissioners who are first so appointed shall be designated to
serve for a term of either one, two, three, four or five years, except that if the authority
has five members, the terms of not more than one member shall expire in the same year.
Commissioners shall be appointed to serve for five years except that any vacancy which
may occur because of a change of residence by a commissioner, removal of a
commissioner, resignation or death shall be filled for the unexpired portion of the term.
Simsbury complies.
 Aquifer Protection Agency - The ordinance authorizing the agency shall determine the
number of members and alternate members, the length of their terms, the method of
selection and removal and the manner for filling vacancies. Simsbury has the required
ordinance.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Robert M. DeCrescenzo, Esq.
Town Attorney
RMDe/psm
0523TiT MERITAS LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE
Robert M. DeCrescenzo
(t) 860.548.2625
(f) 860.548.2680
rdecrescenzo@uks.com
May 20, 2025
Via Email
fbarrueco@simsbury-ct.gov
Franklyn Barrueco
Administrative Liaison
Simsbury Charter Revision Commission
933 Hopmeadow Street
Simsbury, CT 06070
Re: Charter Revision: The Home Rule Act Court Decisions
Dear Franklyn:
The Charter Revision Commission has requested an overview of the major Connecticut
Supreme court caselaw that defines the meaning and scope of the Home Rule Act.
The Home Rule Act permits municipalities wide latitude in organizing local bodies:
Every municipality shall have all municipal officers, departments, boards,
commissions and agencies which are required by the general statutes or by
the charter. Each municipality may have any municipal officers,
departments, boards, commissions and agencies which are specifically
allowed by the general statutes or which are necessary to carry out any
municipal powers, duties or responsibilities under the general statutes. All
such officers, departments, boards, commissions and agencies shall be
elected, appointed and organized in the manner provided by the general
statutes, except as otherwise provided by the charter or by ordinances or
resolutions adopted pursuant to such charter. Any municipality may, by
charter or by ordinances or resolutions adopted pursuant to such charter,
alter the method of election, appointment or organization of any or all of
such officers, departments, boards, commissions or agencies, including
combining or separating the duties of each, unless specifically prohibited
from making such alteration by the Constitution or the general statutes.
General Statutes §7-193(b).
The seminal court case interpreting the scope of the Connecticut Home Rule Act is
Caulfield v. Noble, 178 Conn. 81 (1979). In that decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court
articulated the scope of municipal powers under the Home Rule Act:
Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C.
Goodwin Square • 225 Asylum Street 20th Floor • Hartford, CT 06103 (t) 860.548.2600 (f) 860.548.2680
www.uks.com
Simsbury Charter Revision Commission
Page 2
May 20, 2025
The purpose, however, of Connecticut's Home Rule Act is clearly twofold:
to relieve the General Assembly of the burdensome task of handling and
enacting special legislation of local municipal concern and to enable a
municipality to draft and adopt a home rule charter or ordinance which shall
constitute the organic law of the city, superseding its existing charter and
any inconsistent special acts... The rationale of the act, simply stated, is that
issues of local concern are most logically answered locally, pursuant to a
home rule charter, exclusive of the provisions of the General Statutes...
Moreover, home rule legislation was enacted “to enable municipalities to
conduct their own business and control their own affairs to the fullest
possible extent, in their own way ... upon the principle that the municipality
itself knew better what it wanted and needed than did the state at large, and
to give that municipality the exclusive privilege and right to enact direct
legislation which would carry out and satisfy its wants and needs.” Fragley
v. Phelan, 126 Cal. 383, 387, 58 P. 923, 925 (1899)...
In furtherance of this stated goal of home rule legislation, it has been held
that a general law, in order to prevail over a conflicting charter provision of
a city having a home rule charter, must pertain to those things of general
concern to the people of the state, and it cannot deprive cities of the right to
legislate on purely local affairs germane to city purposes.
(citations omitted)
This distinction between local and statewide concerns has been given considerable
discussion in a number of Connecticut Court decisions. In each case, the court has examined the
specific language of the General Statute at issue, compared to the Charter provision under
challenge and analyzed the nature of the governmental activity and its state-wide implications
“it is an established principle that local charter powers must yield to the superior power of the
state when the two enter the field of statewide concern.” Wallingford v. Board of Education. 152
Conn. 568, 574 (1965).
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
RMDe/psm
Robert M. DeCrescenzo, Esq.
Town Attorney
5299727
Caulfield v. Noble, 178 Conn. 81 (1979)
420 A.2d 1160
178 Conn. 81
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Robert L. CAULFIELD
v.
Henry S. NOBLE et al.
Argued Dec. 5, 1978.
I
Decided June 26, 1979.
Synopsis
A taxpayer sought mandamus to compel defendant town selectmen as tax collectors and members of town board of finance to
fix a new mill rate for the town for the fiscal year 1977. The application was denied by the Superior Court, Fairfield County
at Stamford, Tierney, J., and the taxpayer appealed. The Supreme Court, Longo, J., held that: (1) any judicial presumption in
favor of taxpayer is limited to cases of clear statutory ambiguity, and thus where there was no clear ambiguity in either charter
provision or general statute and only question was whether charter provision or general statute controlled activities of town
board of finance in setting mill rate, no judicial presumption of validity attached to taxpayer's claims, and (2) town of New
Canaan was authorized by virtue of charter provision to withhold general fund surplus in surplus account and was not obliged
to apply surplus in reducing amount of estimated expenditures for ensuing year in order to reduce levy.
No error.
Loiselle, dissented and filed opinion in which Cotter, C. J., concurred.
Attorneys and Law Firms
**1161 *81 Robert L. Caulfield, pro se, appellant (plaintiff).
George C. Hastings, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Ira Hicks, New Canaan, for appellees (defendants).
Before COTTER, C. J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and PETERS, JJ.
Opinion
*82 LONGO, Associate Justice.
The plaintiff, a resident and taxpayer of the town of New Canaan, appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court denying his
application for a writ of mandamus in which he sought, inter alia, to compel the defendant selectmen, tax collector and members
of the New Canaan board of finance to fix a new mill rate for the town for the fiscal year 1977, which began September 1, 1976.
The essential facts, as stipulated by the parties in the trial court and disclosed in the court's finding, reveal the following: On
October 19,1976, the board of finance of New Canaan met in official session and fixed the mill rate to be applied to the grand list
for the town for fiscal 1977 at 46.3 mills. In December, 1976, the audit of the fiscal year ending August 31,1976 was completed
and showed a general fund surplus amount available for appropriation ultimately tabulated to be $639,467.66. In setting the
mill rate at 46.3 for fiscal 1977, the board of finance did not apply any of the general fund surplus available for appropriation
toward the amount to be raised by taxation for fiscal 1977, under the authority of s C5-28 of the New Canaan charter, which
reads in pertinent part as follows: “(u)nexpended cash balances remaining at the end of any fiscal year may, by resolution of the
WESTLAW © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
Caulfield v. Noble, 178 Conn. 81 (1979)
420 A.2d 1160
Board of Finance, be either transferred to a surplus account or subtracted from the amount the Town Council has authorized to
be raised by taxation for the ensuing fiscal year.” The town selectmen later imposed a tax based on the 46.3 mill rate.
The plaintiff filed suit in January, 1977, claiming that the defendants had wrongfully set the mill rate and corresponding real
property tax for fiscal 1977, and sought relief by way of a judgment of *83 mandamus, basing his contentions on s 7-344
1 **1162 of the General Statutes as interpreted by the Superior Court in Holmes v. Beckwith, 11 Conn.Sup. 215 (1942), in
which the court interpreted s 7-344 to mean that a cash surplus in the general fund at the end of the fiscal year should be applied
in reducing the amount of the estimated expenditures for the ensuing year in order to determine the rate of tax to be layed upon
the taxable property for such year.
The trial court disagreed, finding that the board of finance had properly acted in accordance with its charter, s C5-28, in setting
the mill rate for fiscal 1977 and in not applying the general fund surplus in reduction of the amount to be raised by taxation in
fiscal 1977; that neither General Statutes s 7-344 nor the decision in Holmes v. Beckwith, supra, controlled over the specific
authority of s C5-28 of the charter; that since s C5-28 of the charter was enacted after the predecessor of s 7-344 of the General
Statutes the former provision was controlling; and that there was no judicial presumption in favor of the plaintiffs claim that
s C5-28 was preempted by s 7-344 of the General Statutes. From the rendition of judgment in favor of the defendants, the
plaintiff has appealed to this court.
*84 I
The plaintiff first assigns error in the failure of the trial court to take account of the claimed “judicial presumption” in favor of
taxpayers set forth in this court's decision in Levin-Townsend Computer Corporation v. Hartford, 166 Conn. 405,409,349 A.2d
853, 855 (1974), in which it was stated that “(d) oubts as to the taxing authority of the municipality must be resolved in favor
of the taxpayer.” It appears that the plaintiff argues that a presumption of validity attaches to his claim that s C5-28 of the New
Canaan charter is preempted by s 7-344 of the General Statutes. The answer to the plaintiffs argument in this respect may be
found by referring to the source of the above quotation; Curtis v. Corbin, 93 Conn. 648, 657, 107 A. 506, 509 (1919); in which
this court stated that any judicial presumption in favor of a taxpayer's suit is limited to cases of clear statutory ambiguity: “The
mere fact that there may be differences of opinion so that a judicial determination has to be obtained, or that one construction
may lead to a heavier tax than another, is not enough. We think this doctrine applies only in case of a clear ambiguity in language
which substantially leaves the statute equally open to different interpretations ....” In the present case there is “clear ambiguity”
in neither s C5-28 of the charter nor s 7-344 of the General Statutes. Cf. Hartford Electric Light Co. v. Wethersfield, 165 Conn.
211,219,332 A.2d 83 (1973); F-Consolidated Diesel Electric Corporation v. Stamford, 156 Conn. 33,36,238 A.2d 410 (1968).
In contrast, the plaintiff merely seeks a judicial determination as to which law controls the activities of the New Canaan board
of *85 finance in connection with the disposition of the cash surplus and the setting of a corresponding mill rate for fiscal
1977. If the result of that determination disfavors the plaintiff, a heavier tax may follow. In such circumstances, no judicial
presumption of validity attaches to the plaintiffs claims. Curtis v. Corbin, supra, 93 Conn. 657, 107 A. 506.
II
The plaintiff next claims that the town is required under General Statutes s 7-344 and the decision in Holmes v. Beckwith,
11 Conn.Sup. 215 (1942), to apply a cash surplus accumulated at the end of any fiscal year in reduction of the rate of tax to
be levied for the following year. The defendants respond that s C5-28 of the town charter authorizes them, under a proper
interpretation of municipal authority under the Home Rule Act, **1163 General Statutes ss 7-187-7-201, and as a matter of
statutory construction, either to retain a year end surplus in a surplus account or to apply the surplus to reduce the amount of
revenue to be raised by taxes in the ensuing fiscal year.
WESTLAW © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2
Caulfield v. Noble, 178 Conn. 81 (1979)
420 A.2d 1160
A
We appear not to have addressed the precise issue whether the local autonomy conferred upon municipalities by the Home
Rule Act to govern, inter alia, matters of real property taxation and the fixing of a corresponding mill rate ought to supersede
p
the provisions of a related section of the General Statutes dealing with the scope of municipal authority to tax. The purpose,
however, of Connecticut's *86 Home Rule Act is clearly twofold: to relieve the General Assembly of the burdensome task
of handling and enacting special legislation of local municipal concern and to enable a municipality to draft and adopt a home
rule charter or ordinance which shall constitute the organic law of the city, superseding its existing charter and any inconsistent
special acts. General Statutes s 7-188; Sloane v. Waterbury, 150 Conn. 24, 26-27, 183 A.2d 839 (1962); State ex rel. Sloane
v. Reidy, 152 Conn. 419, 209 A.2d 674 (1965); Shalvoy v. Curran, 393 F.2d 55, 59 (2d Cir. 1968); see Littlefield, “Municipal
Home Rule-Connecticut's Mature Approach,” 37 Conn.B.J. 390,402 (1963); 56 Am.Jur.2d, Municipal Corporations, s 126; 62
C.J.S. Municipal Corporations, s 124. The rationale of the act, simply stated, is that issues of local concern are most logically
3
answered locally, pursuant to a home rule charter, exclusive of the provisions of the General Statutes. See Lockard, *87
“Home Rule for Connecticut's Municipalities,” 29 Conn.B.J. 51, 54 (1955). Moreover, home rule legislation was enacted “to
enable municipalities to conduct their own business and control their own affairs to the fullest possible extent, in their own
way ... upon the principle that the municipality itself knew better what it wanted and needed than did the state at large, and to
give that municipality the exclusive privilege and right to enact direct legislation which would carry out and satisfy its wants
and needs.” Fragley v. Phelan, 126 Cal. 383, 387, 58 P. 923, 925 (1899); accord 1 Antieau, Municipal Corporation Law, s 3.03;
1 McQuillan, Municipal Corporations (2d Ed.) s 93.
In furtherance of this stated goal of home rule legislation, it has been held that a general law, in order to prevail over a conflicting
charter provision of a city having a home rule charter, must pertain to those things of general concern to the people of the state,
and it cannot deprive cities of the right to legislate on purely local affairs germane to city purposes. Portland v. Welch, 154 Or.
286, 59 P.2d 228 (1936); see 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations s 125; 5 McQuillan, Municipal Corporations (3d Ed. **1164
1969 Rev.), s 15.20 (issues relating strictly to municipal affairs are within the exclusive delegated power of municipalities
coming under home rule). In the numerous jurisdictions having either constitutional or legislative municipal home rule, the
overwhelming view accords to the municipality the fullest extent of home rule authority, consistent with law, in matters of local
concern. See, e. g., Littlefield, “Municipal *88 Home Rule-Connecticut's Mature Approach,” supra; Klemme, “The Powers
4
of Home Rule Cities in Colorado,” 36 Colorado L.Rev. 321 (1964).
B
Against this background, we must decide whether the town was authorized to withhold the general fund surplus available for
appropriation for fiscal 1977, pursuant to s C5-28 of the town charter, and to impose a corresponding mill rate, notwithstanding
the provisions of s 7-344 of the General Statutes, and its interpretive decision, Holmes v. Beckwith, 11 Conn.Sup. 215 (1942).
We have determined that the town was authorized, pursuant to its charter, to withhold the general fund surplus, and to set a
corresponding mill rate.
It is axiomatic that, in Connecticut, the power to levy taxes is vested in the General Assembly; I -Kellems v. Brown, 163 Conn.
478,487, 313 A.2d 53 (1972), appeal dismissed, 409 U.S. 1099, 93 S.Ct. 911,34 L.Ed.2d 678 (1973); that a municipality has
no inherent powers of taxation except those expressly granted by the legislature; — Pepin v. Danbury, 171 Conn. 74, 83, 368
A.2d 88 (1976); that the General Assembly is empowered to authorize municipalities to collect taxes, for example, by granting
Fthem a charter; *89 State ex rel. Brush v. Sixth Taxing District, 104 Conn. 192, 198-99, 132 A. 561 (1926); and that a
municipality's powers of taxation can be lawfully exercised only in strict conformity to the terms by which they are given.
WESTLAW © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3
Caulfield v. Noble, 178 Conn. 81 (1979)
420 A.2d 1160
H-Low Stamford Corporation v. Stamford, 164 Conn. 178, 182, 319 A.2d 369 (1972). Whether a charter provision, however,
relating to taxation and the appropriation or withholding of a general fund surplus prevails over a general statute on the subject
depends upon a construction of applicable laws and the policy of the state relating to the matter. 16 McQuillan, Municipal
Corporations (3d Ed.) s 44.06; 56 Am.Jur.2d, Municipal Corporations, s 129.
When the applicable laws are construed, it is apparent that the predecessor of the present New Canaan charter, “An Act
Consolidating the Town and Borough of New Canaan” was enacted by special act of the legislature on June 4, 1935. 22
Spec.Laws 229, No. 389. Section 37 of this act, the predecessor of s C5-28 of the present charter, authorized the board of
finance either to transfer unexpended cash balances (surpluses) remaining at the end of a fiscal year to a surplus account, or
to deduct the surplus from the amount to be raised by taxation for the ensuing fiscal year. This special act was enacted after
the predecessor of s 7-344 of the General Statutes, which was originally passed as 1931 Public Acts, No. 268, amending s 418
of the 1930 Revision of the General Statutes. Thereafter, on November 5, 1974, pursuant to the home rule legislation, General
Statutes s 7-188, 5 **1165 a codification of the *90 existing charter was approved by the town, incorporating the former s
37 of the special act as s C5-28 of the new charter.
From a reading of the provisions of the Home Rule Act, General Statutes ss 7-187-7-201, it is evident that the legislature
intended to give “home rule towns” the freedom to retain aspects of special acts and charters suited to particular local needs and
practices. This court has stated, moreover, that, consistent with home rule legislation, the policy of this state has been “to place
in the hands of its local governments a large authority in the regulation of their local affairs.” Jennings v. Connecticut Light &
Power Co., 140 Conn. 650, 663, 103 A.2d 535, 543 (1954); F-Central Railway & Electric Co.’s Appeal, 67 Conn. 197, 219,
6
35 A. 32 (1896); cf. State v. Cederaski, 80 Conn. 478, 480, 69 A. 19 (1908).
The courts that have considered the issue have almost uniformly held that the imposition of real property taxes, a matter
concerning the ordinary town corporate budget, incidental to the existence of the organized municipal corporation, is a local
matter, concerning which home rule charter provisions are controlling. See *91 West Coast Advertising Co. v. San
Francisco, 14 Cal.2d 516, 95 P.2d 138 (1939); State v. Erickson, 157 Minn. 200, 195 N.W. 919 (1923); People v. Village of
Pelham, 215 N.Y. 374, 109 N.E. 513 (1915); F-Portland v. Welch, 154 Or. 286, 59 P.2d 288 (1936); 16 McQuillan, Municipal
Corporations (3d Ed. 1972 Rev.) s 44.06a; 56 Am.Jur.2d, Municipal Corporations, s 129. As a corollary to this rule, the great
majority of home rule states have accepted the principle that general laws pertaining to municipal affairs, such as decisions
with respect to the appropriation of surplus revenues, as distinguished from state affairs-those in which the interests of the state
dominate-do not supersede the provisions of home rule charters or ordinances on the same subject. See 6 McQuillan, Municipal
Corporations (3d Ed. 1969 Rev.) s 21.33; 5 McQuillan, Municipal Corporations (3d Ed. 1969 Rev.) s 15.20; annot., 106 A.L.R.
1202, 1205. 7
These authorities, and the following considerations, dictate that New Canaan, under the authority of s C5-28 of its charter, is
empowered to withhold a general fund surplus in a surplus account and that its authority in this regard is not limited by the
decision in Holmes v. Beckwith, 11 Conn.Sup. 215 (1942), interpreting s 7-344 of the General Statutes. First, the decision in
Holmes, cannot be construed as binding upon the issues in this case. In Holmes, interpreting General Statutes s 7-344, the court
held that, “in the absence of statutory authority,” a cash *92 surplus in the general fund at the end of the fiscal year should be
applied in reducing the amount of the estimated expenditures for the ensuing year in order to reduce the levy upon the taxpayer's
property. The court was not confronted, as we are in the present case, with a local home rule charter, i. e., statutory authority,
expressly authorizing the retention of surplus revenues in a surplus account. The Holmes case simply did not address the issues
presented where a conflict exists between a general statute and a town charter both dealing with the subject of appropriating
**1166 revenue surpluses; it is thus not controlling. 8
Second, the allocation of power between legislature and municipality must be made in accordance with the purpose of the home
rule legislation which vested in the cities a part, and an exclusive part, of the power to legislate free from the control of the
WESTLAW © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4
Caulfield v. Noble, 178 Conn. 81 (1979)
420 A.2d 1160
General Assembly. That purpose, as we pointed out initially, was to make operative the concept that the closer those who make
and execute the laws are to the citizens they represent, the better are those citizens governed in accordance with democratic
ideals. That objective would be disserved if we should decide that the General Assembly preempts the field each time it makes
a statute of general *93 application. The legislative recognition that municipalities have autonomy to govern local matters,
such as the raising of revenue by real property taxation, counsels that the specific and express provisions of s C5-28 of the town
charter control the present controversy.
Finally, as a pure matter of statutory construction, “(t)here is a presumption that the legislature, in enacting a law, did so in
view of existing relevant statutes and intended it to be read with them so as to make one consistent body of law.” Hurlbut v.
Lemelin, 155 Conn. 68, 74,230 A.2d 36, 38 (1967); H-Cicald v. Administrator, 161 Conn. 362, 365,288 A.2d 66 (1971). Here,
the predecessor of s 7-344 of the General Statutes was enacted prior to the predecessor of s C5-28 of the town charter, and
there is no indication that the legislature intended the statute to prevail in the face of the specific provisions of the local charter.
Thus, in accordance with accepted principles of statutory construction, the provisions of the charter must prevail. 82 C.J.S.
Statutes s 369; 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations s 198; State ex rel. Wallen v. Hatch, 82 Conn. 122, 124, 72 A. 575 (1909);
see F-Waterbury Teachers Ass'n v. Furlong, 162 Conn. 390, 4094, 294 A.2d 546 (1972); F-Meriden v. Board of Tax Review,
161 Conn. 396, 402, 288 A.2d 435 (1971). Even in the absence of the persuasive conception ofhome rule municipal authority
we have adverted to above, we must conclude as a matter of statutory construction that the specific language of s C5-28 of the
charter prevails over the provisions of s 7-344 of the General Statutes.
*94 In sum, we hold that the defendant board of finance acted properly pursuant to s C5-28 of the town charter in withholding
9
the fiscal 1976 revenue surplus and in not applying it to reduce the amount of estimated expenditures for fiscal 1977.
Ill
The plaintiff next makes a number of interrelated claims focusing upon the town's retention of its year end surplus. They will
be discussed seriatim.
A
The plaintiff first asserts that General Statutes ss 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 s C5-28 of the town charter contains no express grant of
taxing power, and if so interpreted, directly conflicts with that section of s 7-192 which provides: “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
plaintiffs 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 s 7-192. We disagree. A levying body has
considerable discretion in the composition of the municipal budget; 72 Am.Jur.2d, State and Local Taxation, s 714; 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. 16 McQuillan, Municipal Corporations (3d Ed. 1972 Rev.) s 44.25. In view of the specific authority
of s 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. See 16 McQuillan, supra; Rancho Santa Anita, Inc. v. City of Arcadia, 20 Cal.2d 319, 125 P.2d 475
(1942); State v. Powers, 24 N.J.L. 406 (1854); People ex rel. Stevenson v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 261 Ill. 33,
103 N.E. 614 (1913); People ex rel. Browne v. Chicago & E.l. Ry. Co., 306 Ill. 402, 138 N.E. 127 (1923); annot., 126 A.L.R.
891, 892. 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.
WESTLAW © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5
Caulfield v. Noble, 178 Conn. 81 (1979)
420 A.2d 1160
It is thus apparent that the town, by retaining a cash surplus, did not authorize a tax in conflict with s 7-192 of the General
Statutes. Many actions that a municipality may take, short of taxation, such as applying for a federal grant or not, affect the
amount of money to be raised by taxation. This alone, however, does not make those actions the exercise of a taxing power. A
multitude of factors influence the amount of revenues a town raises by taxation. The charter merely authorizes the retention of a
cash surplus, having an incidental effect on the mill rate. We do not believe that such a retention is the exercise of a taxing power.
*96 The plaintiff finally argues that whatever authority is granted by s C5-28 of the town charter is limited to “unexpended
cash balances, remaining at the end of any fiscal year” and can include neither a surplus created in prior years and carried over,
nor the excess of actual revenues over budgeted revenues. 10 We cannot agree with the plaintiffs interpretation that the term
“unexpended cash balances remaining” does not include the surplus from prior years, and the excess of revenue on hand over
that budgeted. The plaintiff has cited no authority for his interpretation of the term “unexpended cash balances remaining”;
neither did he offer evidence, expert or otherwise, on the meaning of this term in the trial court. Nonetheless, it would appear that
both items are within the fair intendment of s C5-28 of the charter. It has, moreover, been held that an available surplus means
any cash surplus remaining in the current expense fund at the beginning of the fiscal year. Weyerhaeuser Timber Company v.
Roessler, 2 Wash.2d 304, 97 R2d 1070 (1940). We find no error in the decision of the trial court including these two items in
the town's “unexpended cash balances remaining” at the end of fiscal 1976.
1. Prior years surplus 5134,512.95
2. Excess of actual revenues over
budgeted 342,304.65
3. Unencumbered appropriation
balances 119,772.06
4. Unencumbered prior years'
appropriation balances 42,928.00
There is no error.
In this opinion BOGDANSKI and PETERS, JJ., concurred.
*97 LOISELLE, Associate Justice (dissenting).
The issue which threads through this case transcends that discussed in the majority **1168 opinion. Although not pinpointed
in the complaint, it is implicit as the basis of the plaintiffs action. This issue is whether a town has the right to accumulate tax
revenues when it is not shown that such accumulation is for a public purpose even though there is charter authority to do so.
It is unquestioned that the $639,467.66 surplus was not earmarked for any current or future expenditure and was available for
appropriation as of the close of the fiscal year ending August 31, 1976. The town refused to put this general fund amount for
appropriation on hand as of August 31,1976, toward the amount to be raised by taxation for the fiscal year beginning September
1, 1976. Their action, as stated in the majority opinion, was to transfer this sum to a “surplus account” as authorized by the
town's charter. The finding is explicit that this sum “available for appropriation was and is separate and distinct from the Reserve
Fund for Capital and Non-Recurring Expenditures” maintained by the town. The finding that the amount of money in question
was not for capital or nonrecurring expenditures that might occur in the future and the further fact found that it was transferred
to a surplus account certainly is sufficient proof that the amount of money in question was put aside with no purpose other than
WESTLAW © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6
Caulfield v. Noble, 178 Conn. 81 (1979)
420 A.2d 1160
accumulation. This conclusion is further fortified by the fact that the case was submitted on a stipulation of facts and that neither
the stipulation nor the finding made by the court could reasonably support a contrary conclusion, except by guess or speculation.
The power to tax is an incident of the sovereignty of the state. F *98 International Harvester Co. v. Wisconsin Dept, of
Taxation, 322 U.S. 435, 444, 64 S.Ct. 1060, 88 L.Ed. 1373 (1944); F-M'Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 429, 4
L.Ed. 579 (1819); 71 Am.Jur.2d, State and Local Taxation, s 71. “(T)he two elements upon which the power of taxation must
rest (are) a public purpose and a public exigency ...” 71 Am.Jur.2d, State and Local Taxation, s 77. As to the latter basis, the
legislative determination is broad indeed. See FKellems v. Brown, 163 Conn. 478, 313 A.2d 53 (1972), appeal dismissed,
409 U.S. 1099, 93 S.Ct. 911, 34 L.Ed.2d 678 (1973). As to the first basis, the determination of a public purpose is subject to
judicial review. People ex rel. McDavid v. Barrett, 370 111. 478, 19 N.E.2d 356 (1939). The tests for determining whether a
public purpose is present stem from —-Loan Association v. Topeka, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 655, 663, 22 L.Ed. 455 (1874), and
this court has used these tests in its own determination of this issue. See Baker v. West Hartford, 89 Conn. 394, 399, 94 A. 283
(1915); — Walsh v. Jenks, 135 Conn. 210. 223, 62 A.2d 773 (1948).
“Every definition of‘taxation’ expressly or impliedly asserts that it is to be imposed only for public purposes. This is a foundation
principle of all constitutional government. ... A republican form of government forbids the raising of taxes for any but public
purposes, and under Article Four, Section 4, of the Constitution of the United States, Connecticut is forever bound to maintain
such form of government and cannot exercise legislative power inconsistent with it.” FBeach v. Bradstreet, 85 Conn. 344, 348,
349, 82 A. 1030, 1032 (1912). “A tax is a public burden imposed by law upon the individual for a public purpose.” Cromwell v.
Savage, 85 Conn. 376, 377, 82 A. 972, 973 (1912); *99 Hartford v. Connecticut Co., 107 Conn. 312, 332, 140 A. 734 (1928).
It is unquestioned that in this state, taxation may only be imposed for a public purpose and that a cardinal principle of taxation is
that taxes may not be levied beyond the needs of government. See Moore v. Langton, 92 R.I. 141, 151-52,167 A.2d 558 (1961).
Accumulation of tax funds where the only apparent purpose is to accumulate is taxation without a public purpose. “Taxes
are levied because they are necessary to defray the expenses of government and not for the purpose of enriching the public
treasury. Taxing authorities, therefore, will not be permitted to levy taxes faster than they are likely to be needed. An unnecessary
accumulation of money in the public treasury is unjust, impolitic and against the policy of the law.” **1169 Cities Service Oil
Co. v. Carter, 247 La. 974, 984, 175 So.2d 288, 291 (1965); FPeople ex rel. Brenza v. Morrison Hotel Corporation, 4 Ill.2d
542, 547, 123 N.E.2d 488 (1954); FPeople ex rel. Kramer v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co., 8 Ill.2d 382, 387, 134
N.E.2d 335 (1956); 84 C.J.S. Taxation s 352 c(3).
Although not specifically or expressly stated, the stipulation of facts and finding indicate that the $639,467.66 was transferred
to a surplus account and the defendant builds its whole defense on the basis of the charter right to transfer such monies to a
“surplus” account. As this amount was purely an accumulation for no public purpose, it was invalid and beyond the power of
the town to do despite charter authorization.
This dissenting opinion is not to be construed as stating that there can be no accumulation of tax monies by a municipality where
there is statutory authority to do so for a public purpose that is reasonably *100 anticipated or for sinking funds, or payments
of public purpose debts that are to accrue in the future. See General Statutes s 7-389, where specific authority is granted for
accumulation of funds to ease the transition of towns to a fiscal year. Such accumulations are for public purposes and would
be a valid exercise of the sovereign power to tax. In the instant case, there is no evidence of this. Reduced to the essentials,
the town accumulated monies not earmarked for any purpose and put them aside for some undefined future use. I maintain that
that is illegal and an abuse by the town of its taxing power.
I respectfully dissent.
WESTLAW © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7
Caulfield v. Noble, 178 Conn. 81 (1979)
420 A.2d 1160
In this opinion COTTER, C. J., concurred.
All Citations
178 Conn. 81,420 A.2d 1160
Footnotes
1 General Statutes s 7-344 provides, in pertinent part: "... Immediately after the board of tax review has finished its duties
and the grand list has been completed, the board of finance shall meet and, with due provision for estimated uncollectible
taxes, abatements and corrections, shall lay such tax on such list as shall be sufficient, in addition to the other estimated
yearly income of such town and in addition to such revenue surplus, if any, as may be appropriated, not only to pay the
expenses of the town for such current year, but also to absorb the revenue deficit of such town, if any, at the beginning
of such current year....”
2 Home rule legislation in Connecticut was first enacted in 1915. Public Acts 1915, No. 319, entitled “An Act providing
for Home Rule in Towns, Cities and Boroughs.” This first enactment was, however, short lived; the original act was
repealed in 1929, by Public Acts 1929, No. 247. The legislation was revived in 1951; Public Acts 1951, No. 338; and
redrafted in 1957; Public Acts 1957, No. 465; into its present form, General Statutes ss 7-187-7-201. Little, however,
has been written in our cases concerning the scope of municipal power under the Home Rule Act. Compare Rothkopf
v. Danbury, 156 Conn. 347, 242 A.2d 771 (1968), with State ex rel. Barnard v. Ambrogio, 162 Conn. 491, 294 A.2d
529 (1972) (the former case involving a constitutional attack on the organization of Danbury as a municipal corporation
under the Home Rule Act; the latter holding that the Home Rule Act did not empower a municipality to establish or
amend a civil service commission); see Sloane v. Waterbury, 150 Conn. 24, 183 A.2d 839 (1962) (procedure for local
amendment of city charters contained exclusively in the Home Rule Act); State ex rel. Sloane v. Reidy, 152 Conn. 419,
209 A.2d 674 (1965); Dugas v. Beauregard, 155 Conn. 573, 236 A.2d 87 (1967).
3 In contrast, it has been held that when a charter provision and a statute of general application both enter a field of
statewide concern, the local charter power must yield to the superior power of the state. See Larke v. Morrissey, 155
Conn. 163, 174,230 A.2d 562 (1967); F_ Wallingford v. Board of Education, 152 Conn. 568, 574,210 A.2d 446 (1965);
Delinks v. McGowan, 148 Conn. 614,623,173 A.2d 488 (1961); Jennings v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 140 Conn.
650, 664, 103 A.2d 535 (1954).
4 Commentators in the majority of jurisdictions we have examined share the same view. See, e. g., Sentell, “Home Rule
Benefits or Homemade Problems for Georgia Local Government?” 4 Ga.S.B.J. 317 (1968); note, “Municipal Home
Rule in Iowa: House File 380,” 49 Iowa L.Rev. 826 (1964); Martin, “Home Rule for Kansas Cities,” 10 Kan.L.Rev. 501
(1962); note, “Municipal Home Rule for Kentucky?” 54 Ky.L.J. 757 (1966); note, “Home Rule and Special Legislation
in Minnesota,” 47 Minn.L.Rev. 621 (1963); note, “Home Rule and the New York Constitution,” 66 Columbia L.Rev.
1145 (1966); Westbrook, “Municipal Home Rule: An evaluation of the Missouri Experience,” 33 Mo.L.Rev. 45 (1968).
5 General Statutes s 7-188 provides, in part: “INITIATION OF ACTION FOR ADOPTION OR AMENDMENT OF
CHARTER OR HOME RULE ORDINANCE. Any town, city or borough, in addition to such powers as it has under
the provisions of the general statutes or any special act, shall have the power to draft, adopt and amend a charter which
shall be its organic law and shall supersede any existing charter, including amendments thereto, and all special acts
inconsistent therewith, and to adopt a home rule ordinance in substitution for a special act relating to its government....”
WESTLAW © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8
Caulfield v. Noble, 178 Conn. 81 (1979)
420 A.2d 1160
6 This policy, as it relates to home rule legislation, has been specifically identified, in one commentator's view, as indicating
that home rule charters may provide for the government of a municipality, irrespective of patterns established by general
or special acts. Littlefield, “Municipal Home Rule-Connecticut’s Mature Approach,” 37 Conn.B. J. 390, 400-401 (1968).
This view seems appropriate as to matters of municipal authority over purely local issues.
7 Once again, the authorities we have examined support this view. See, e. g., McDonald, American City Government and
Administration, p. 79 (3d Ed. 1941); Cohn, “Municipal Revenue Powers in the Context of Constitutional Home Rule,”
51 Nw.U.L.Rev. 27 (1956); Mott, “Strengthening Home Rule,” 39 Natl.Mun.Rev. 172 (1950); note, “Conflicts between
State Statutes and Municipal Ordinances,” 72 Harv.L.Rev. 737 (1959); Fordham, “Decision-Making in Expanding
American Urban Life,” 21 Ohio St.L.J. 274 (1960).
8 We note that s 7-344 provides, in pertinent part, that a board of finance must lay a tax “in addition to such revenue
surplus, if any, as may be appropriated ....” The court in Holmes evidently interpreted this language as imposing a
mandatory duty on a board of finance to appropriate a revenue surplus. The statute, however, by its use of the word
“may” appears to impose only a discretionary duty upon a board to appropriate a surplus of revenue. In view of our
decision deeming the statutory interpretation of Holmes inapplicable to the present case, we, of course, take no position
as to the correctness of the Holmes decision.
9 As we have indicated above, the state, as the source of taxing authority, has the power expressly to limit the scope of
the taxing power conferred upon municipalities under the Home Rule Act. Such a statute, if enacted to apply generally
to home rule towns, would, of course, prevail over inconsistent provisions in a municipality's charter.
10 The sources of the surplus of §639,467.66 available for appropriation in fiscal 1977 were as follows:
End of Document © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
WESTLAW © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9
Marc S. Nelson, MPA Wendy Mackstutis, MPA
Town Manager First Selectman
www.simsbury-ct.gov Mon. (8:30 AM - 7:00 PM) Tel. (860) 658-3230
933 Hopmeadow Street Tue. Wed. Thu. (8:30 AM - 4:30 PM) Fax. (860) 658-9467
Simsbury, CT 06070 Fri. (8:30 AM - 1:00 PM) townmanager@simsbury-ct.gov
MEMORANDUM
To: Robert M. DeCrescenzo, Esq., Town Attorney
From: Franklyn Barrueco, Management Specialist/Charter Revision Commission
Administrative Liaison
cc: Kris Barnett, Charter Revision Commission Chair
Charter Revision Commissioners
Date: September 10, 2025
Subject: Town of Simsbury Board of Selectmen Party Affiliation Research
At the July 21, 2025 Charter Revision Commission Regular Meeting, you informed the Commission
that we will provide them with the history of the party affiliations of the former Boards of Selectmen.
The years signify the election year; Selectmen serve two (2) year terms.
Please see below:
 1993 – Four (4) Democrats / Two (2) Republicans
 1995 – Four (4) Democrats / Two (2) Republicans
 1997 – Four (4) Democrats / Two (2) Republicans
 1999 – Two (2) Democrats / Four (4) Republicans
 2001 – Two (2) Democrats / Four (4) Republicans
 2003 – Two (2) Democrats / Four (4) Republicans
 2005 – Two (2) Democrats / Four (4) Republicans
 2007 – Three (3) Democrats / Three (3) Republicans
 2009 – Three (3) Democrats / Three (3) Republicans
 2011 – Three (3) Democrats / Three (3) Republicans
 2013 – Four (4) Republicans / Two (2) Democrats
 2015 – Three (3) Democrats / Three (3) Republicans
 2017 – Three (3) Democrats / Three (3) Republicans
 2019 – Three (3) Democrats / Three (3) Republicans
 2021 – Four (4) Democrats / Two (2) Republicans
 2023 – Four (4) Democrats / Two (2) Republicans

Marc S. Nelson, MPA Wendy Mackstutis, MPA
Town Manager First Selectman
www.simsbury-ct.gov Mon. (8:30 AM - 7:00 PM) Tel. (860) 658-3230
933 Hopmeadow Street Tue. Wed. Thu. (8:30 AM - 4:30 PM) Fax. (860) 658-9467
Simsbury, CT 06070 Fri. (8:30 AM - 1:00 PM) townmanager@simsbury-ct.gov
MEMORANDUM
To: Kris Barnett, Charter Revision Commission Chair
From: Franklyn Barrueco, Management Specialist/Charter Revision Commission
Administrative Liaison
cc: Robert M. DeCrescenzo, Esq., Town Attorney
Charter Revision Commissioners
Date: September 10, 2025
Subject: Connecticut Municipal Research on Elector Power of Initiative Thresholds
At your July 21, 2025 Regular Meeting, you tasked me with researching the thresholds that other
municipalities (namely; Ridgefield, Glastonbury, Avon, and Canton) have in their Charter regarding
the percentage of qualified Electors needed to petition a proposed ordinance or propose the repeal of
an existing ordinance, as well as, the percentage of Electors necessary to vote on the proposal. Below
is a summary of my findings. Please let me know if you require further research regarding this topic.
Municipality & Thresholds To Propose/To Propose to Repeal Electors Voting
Simsbury 5% 10%
Ridgefield 2% n/a
Glastonbury 5% 5% in the majority
Avon 10% n/a
Canton
5% (for a new item for a Special
Town Meeting) / 50 persons (for an
item for an Annual Town Meeting)
At least 200 affirmative
votes
OFFICE OF THE Marc S. Nelson, MPA
TOWN MANAGER
www.simsbury-ct.gov Mon. (8:30 AM - 7:00 PM) Tel. (860) 658-3229
933 Hopmeadow Street Tue. Wed. Thu. (8:30 AM - 4:30 PM) Fax. (860) 658-9467
Simsbury, CT 06070 Fri. (8:30 AM - 1:00 PM) fbarrueco@simsbury-ct.gov
MEMORANDUM
To: Kris Barnett, Charter Revision Commission Chair
Charter Revision Commissioners
From: Franklyn Barrueco, Management Specialist/Charter Revision Commission
Administrative Liaison
cc: Town Attorney Robert M. DeCrescenzo, Esq.
Date: November 10, 2025
Subject: Municipal Police Commission & Town Officer Research
At the most recent special meeting (November 3rd) of the Commission, you tasked me with
researching the powers and duties of municipal Police Commissions, within Town Manager forms of
government, and other examples of Town/Administrative Officers (Section 704). Please see below
for a summary of my findings.
Please let me know if you require further research regarding this matter.
Police Commissions
The authority for municipalities to establish police commissions by ordinance is set forth in Connecticut
General Statutes (C.G.S.) Sec. 7-274 and their powers are detailed in Sec. 7-276. The Simsbury Police
Commission is established in Charter (Section 614) and Code Chapter 52: Police Commission.
State law (C.G.S. Sec. 7-276) mandates that municipal police commissions:
 “have general management and supervision of the police department...”;
 “make all needful regulations... and may prescribe penalties for the violation of any such
regulation, including suspension or removal from office of any officer or member of such
police department...”; and
 “have the sole power of appointment, promotion, and removal of the officers...under such
regulations as it adopts...”.1
Below is a comparison table of Police Commission duties in Simsbury, Berlin, and Watertown. The
hyperlinked municipality’s name brings you to their respective Charter.
1 State of Connecticut Office of Legislative Research (OLR) Report 2000-R-1048: Powers of Police
Commissions and Police Review Boards
Municipal Police Commission & Town Officer Research Memorandum
November 10, 2025
Page Two
Municipality &
Charter Duties Simsbury Berlin Watertown
Membership and term
language.
Responsible for
investigating citizen
complaints against the
Police Department and for
maintaining good relations
between the Police
Department and the
Simsbury community.
Responsible for establishing
Police Department
policies…and for preparing
a proposed budget for the
Police Department to be
submitted to the Board of
Selectmen.
Responsible for personnel
matters within the Police
Department, including but
not limited to, the
appointment and removal,
after receiving and
considering comments from
the Chief of Police and
subject to such rules and
regulations…
Responsible for establishing
procedures (mutually agreed
to by the Board of
Selectmen) that police union
contract negotiations must
be conducted pursuant to…
Membership and term
language.
Maintains Police
Department.
Shall have jurisdiction of
the parking of motor
vehicles upon town
streets and highways
and make regulations
concerning traffic.
Has general
management and
control of the
Department, shall make
necessary rules and
regulations, may appoint
officers and members,
may remove, suspend,
or otherwise penalize
officers and members…
Responsible for the
good order, conduct,
and discipline of officers
and members, and the
preservation of the
property used by the
Department.
Prepares itemized
budget.
Shall cause to be
faithfully enforced all
the laws of the state and
ordinances and bylaws
of the town.
Membership and term
language.
Shall be the traffic
authority and may
adopt rules and
regulations for the
control of traffic and
parking…
Review and make
recommendations
concerning the annual
budget for the Police
Department…
Serves as appeal board
for civilian complaints
not resolved to the
satisfaction of the
complainant.
Commission has
power to hold
hearings on such
complaints, together
with the power of
subpoena. The
Commission shall
report its
recommendations, if
any to the Town
Manager…
Municipal Police Commission & Town Officer Research Memorandum
November 10, 2025
Page Three
Town Officers2
Please refer to the Town Officer Matrix. The bullet points below provide additional information:
 Avon - Town Council appoints Treasurer; the Town Manager appoints a Town Clerk and
Tax Collector;
 Bloomfield - Town Officers are elected; Town Council appoints Treasurer; Town Manager
appoints Town Clerk; Town Manager appoints Directors: Finance, Public Safety (Police, Fire,
and Division of Civil Defense), and Public Works;
 Farmington - Town officers are elected: Town Clerk; Town Council appoints Treasurer;
 Newington - Positions appointed by Town Manager;
 South Windsor - Town Officers are elected; Treasurer and Town Clerk are elected; Town
Manager can appoint Department Heads: Building Inspector, Town Engineer, Sanitary Office,
Assessor, Director of Health, Director of Civil Preparedness, Director of Public Works, Chief
of Police, Purchasing Agent, Director of Social Services, Director of Finance, Director of
Recreation;
 Wethersfield - Town Officers are elected; Town Council appoints Treasurer; Administrative
Departments: Finance, Public Safety (Police, Fire, and Building Inspection), Public Works,
Parks and Recreation, and Social and Youth Services;
 Windsor - Town Officers are elected; Town Council appoints Treasurer; Town Manager
appoints Town Classified Service Officers: Collector of Revenue, Assessor, Finance Director,
Building Inspector, Health Director, Public Works Director, and Chief of Police;
 Cheshire - Municipal Officers are elected: Town Clerk; Town Manager appoints all
Department Heads and other Town Officers; Town Manager appoints Administrative
Officers: Building Official, Economic Development Coordinator, Town Engineer, Director
of Finance (acts as Treasurer), Fire Chief, Fire Marshal, Director of Health, Director of
Human Services, Director of the Library, Director of Recreation, Chief of Police, and Director
of Public Works;
 Rocky Hill - Town Officers are elected; Town Manager appoints Department Heads,
Administrative Officers: Director of Finance, Treasurer, Chief of Police, Fire Chief, Fire
Marshal, Director of Emergency Management, Director of Community Development,
Director of Public Works, and Library Director; and other Town Officers: Town Clerk,
Director of Health, and Director of Human Services; Town Council appoints Director of
Parks and Recreation;
 Enfield – Municipal Officers are elected; Town Manager appoints all Department Heads and
other Town Officers: Town Clerk; Director of Finance, Public Works Director, Director of
Public Safety (Divisions of Police, Fire, Emergency Medical Services, and Emergency
Management), Social Services Director, and Library Director.
2 Charter Section 701(b) establishes the same positions as administrative officers for the Town.
Administrative Officers who are not Town Officers: Welfare Officer (Town Manager), Chief of Police, and
Town Attorney.
Municipality &
Officers (Union
Affiliation)
Town Clerk
(CSEA-
Supervisors)
Director of
Finance-
Treasurer*
(Unaffiliated)
Director of
Culture, Parks
& Recreation
(Unaffiliated)
Director of Civil
Preparedness
(n/a)**
Director of
Public Works
(Unaffiliated)
***
Building
Official
(CSEA-
Supervisors)
Town
Engineer
(Unaffiliated)
***
Director of
Community
Planning &
Development
/Town Planner
(Unaffiliated)
Conservation,
Inland Wetlands
and Zoning
Compliance
Officer (CSEA-
Admin &
Professional)
Tax Collector
(CSEA-Admin
&
Professional)
Tax Assessor
(CSEA-
Supervisors)
Social Services
Director (CSEA-
Supervisors)
Simsbury x x x x x x x x x x x x
Avon x x (Treasurer) x
Bloomfield x x x x (Building
Inspector) x x
Farmington x x (Treasurer) x (Collector
of Revenue)
Newington x x (DoF) x x x x (Town Planner) x (Revenue
Collector) x x (Director of
Human Services)
South Windsor x x x x x (could be
TM)
x (Building
Inspector) x x x x
Wethersfield x x x x (could be
TM) x x x
Windsor x x x x (Building
Inspector)
x (Collector
of Revenue) x
Cheshire x x x
x (Emergency
Management
Director [Fire
Chief])
x x x x (Town Planner) x (Collector
of Revenue) x x (Director of
Human Services)
Rocky Hill x x x
x (Director of
Emergency
Management)
x
x (Director of
Community
Development)
x x x (Director of
Human Services)
Enfield x x x (Director of
Public Safety) x x x x
Town of Simsbury 2025 Charter Revision Commission Chartered Municipal Town Officers-Equivalent Positions (in Town Manager forms of Govt.) Research Matrix
*Director of Finance & Treasurer can be separate positions, or combined; an (x) denotes municipality has both officers mentioned*
**Emergency Management Director works for the Fire District**
***Director of Public Works & Town Engineer are the same individual***




“Climate-resilient lands not only protect wildlife but also provide natural defenses against flood, drought and
other risks to people.” Open Space Institute1
The state of Connecticut is rich in natural resources and diverse wildlife, plants, and landscapes make the state
an attractive place to live, work, and play. Climate change poses a threat to Connecticut, but through protection
of natural areas, municipalities can enhance climate resilience. Conservation Commissions share the
responsibility of guiding their municipalities in meeting open space goals as a resilient strategy. Conservation
Commissions should consider the effect of climate change on natural resources and the solutions these
resources provide when undertaking their duties of protecting and preserving biological diversity and natural
resources.
Natural Resource Conservation and Climate Resilience
Natural resource conservation can be used as an adaptation strategy to slow the rate of climate change and its
damaging effects by working to protect vulnerable areas that serve as natural buffers to climate impacts.2
Conservation is the protection of natural resources for future generations. Conservation can include wildlife
habitat restoration, deterring species extinction, enhancing resilient ecosystem services, and protecting
biological diversity. Conservation Commissions can influence nature-based solutions and conservation methods
to reinforce climate resilience. Blending natural features with built infrastructure through environmental
management, planning, and design can foster climate change adaptation and resilience.3
What is a Conservation Commission?
Conservation Commissions are volunteer municipal government bodies that are authorized by Connecticut
Statute to “conserve, develop, supervise and regulate natural resources (C.G.S. Ch. 97. Sec. 7-131a).” However,
the charge of a Commission may vary by municipal ordinance. Commissions may manage open space, land and
water resources within their jurisdictional limits. Commissions have the authority to advise other boards and
agencies about conservation concerns within municipal projects and development. Conservation Commissions
have a role in increasing resiliency by suggesting how climate change may further impact natural resources due
to specific land management in vulnerable locations. Commissions can represent the significance of how natural
features could be part of nature-based solutions to climate impacts such as flooding, excessive heat, erosion,
shoreline stabilization, or poor water quality.
Coordination between municipal boards and commissions, non-governmental organizations, and even adjacent
towns is imperative when addressing climate resiliency. Municipalities should utilize a Conservation Commission
in finding solutions to site-specific concerns. For example, when considering flood solutions, combining best
practice stormwater management with a conservation easement that protects open space and allows for natural
stormwater infiltration, would be an effective use of a Conservation Commission authority and allow another
level of monitoring and enforcement.
Conservation Commissions and Natural Resource Resilience
Authority and Duties of a Conservation Commission
Establishment & Legal Authority
The statutory authority of a Conservation Commission derives from Chapter 97, Section 7-131a of the Connecticut
General Statutes. Commissions are established by vote of the municipal legislature.
Membership
It is important to consider members with diverse interests and knowledge in resource conservation. Commission
members serve in part to educate local citizens and officials on conservation issues and present practical and
effective recommendations to land use boards and other commissions.
• Minimum of 3 members; 11 members maximum.
• Maximum 3 alternate members; when seated, have all the powers and duties of a member of the commission.
• Members appointed, removed for cause, and vacancies filled by the Chief Executive of a given municipality.
• Terms served by members are designated by the legislative body establishing commission.
Powers and Duties
Must do “Shall’s”:
ü Conduct research into the possible utilization of land areas within its municipality.
ü Keep index of all open areas, publicly and privately owned, including open marshlands, swamps and other
wetlands to obtain information on proper use of such land.
o It may, from time to time, recommend to the planning commission or, if none, to the chief executive
officer or the legislative body, plans and programs for the development and use of such areas.
ü Keep records of its meetings and activities and shall make an annual report to the municipality.
ü Administer gifts the same for such purposes subject to the terms of the gift.
Permissible “May’s”:
ü Coordinate activities of unofficial bodies organized for similar purposes.
ü Advertise, prepare and distribute books, maps, charts, plans, and pamphlets necessary for its purposes.
ü Propose a Greenway plan for inclusion in conservation plan and development per Section 8-23.
ü Inventory natural resources and formulate watershed/drought management plans.
o Plans shall be consistent with water supply management plans per Section 25-32d.
ü Make recommendations to planning, zoning, inland wetlands or other municipal commissions and agencies
on proposed land use changes.
ü With approval of municipal legislative body acquire land and easements in name of municipality and
promulgate rules and regulations including but not limited to the establishment of reasonable charges for the
use of land and easements for any of its purposes.
ü Supervise/manage municipal owned open space or parks if authority delegated by entity responsible for such
management
ü Receive gifts in the name of the municipality for its purposes.
ü Exchange information with the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP).
o Commissioner of DEEP may assign technical personnel to a commission, per request, for assistance in
planning its overall program and for coordinating state and local conservation activities.
Natural Resources and Climate Change Impacts
Natural resources refer to living and non-living elements of the Earth system that humans rely on to survive and
evolve.4 Climate change threatens our natural resources, affects global food security and water supplies, and
jeopardizes the livelihood of our public, local and national economies.5 Local action by Conservation
Commissions and their communities can enhance municipal resilience by preserving present and future natural
resources and the ecosystem services they provide.
Increased Heat
• Migration of invasive pests and diseases harmful to
the health of humans and the built environment
• Declined cold-water fish diversity I.e., bass and trout
• Transition of tree species from Maple/Birch to
Oak/Hickory; affecting maple sap economies
• Increased toxic blue-green algae blooms in water
bodies that affect public health, the environment and
economies
• Shifted correlation between pollinator activity and
honey production
Increased Precipitation & Flooding
• Destroyed crops by silt and sediment threatening
food supply
• Uprooted trees/Vegetation due to high-velocity water
flow; negatively impacting the benefits of trees
• Contaminated runoff (pesticides, chemicals, sewer
and debris) lead to poor water quality and
endangered ecosystems
• Increased erosion and flood risks
• Altered landscape and collapsed riverbanks
• Damaged wildlife habitat
Increased Drought Periods
• Failed food & crop yields; threatening food supplies
and economies
• Declined drinking water resources
• Dropped wetlands; resulting in loss of habitat and
carbon sequestration capabilities
• Increased freshwater salinity resulting in toxic marine
algae environments for fish and ecosystems
• Adverse forest and agriculture conditions
Picture used with permission ©Guarantee Pest Elimination
Climate Change Impacts on Natural Resources6
Resilient Environmental Conservation
Connecticut is abundant in forest, water and wildlife resources that are in need of preservation. Conservation
Commissions can provide leadership on climate resiliency projects by utilizing science-based research in
outreach to educate the public and planning officials. Conservation Commissions can advocate resilient
measures in areas more susceptible to climate change impacts by identifying risks and recommending land use
changes and nature-based solutions as mitigation strategies. When reviewing land use applications,
Conservation Commissions can advocate for mitigation by use of strategies pertaining to the climate impact and
site. For example, additional bioswales or limiting impervious pavement design may be an appropriate
recommendation for site-specific flooding that brings risk to nearby crops.
Resilient actions such as land conservation allow ecosystems to naturally sequester carbon, reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, increase plant and animal diversity and protect against climate change impacts that negatively
affect our public health and infrastructure.7 Conservation Commissions can advocate for the benefits of
clustered development to protect open space and preserve crucial ecosystems and wildlife habitat.
Commissions must first understand how climate change will affect the natural resources of their present and
future communities and act accordingly within their authority. Below are conservation strategies that
Commissions can use to improve the climate resilience of their community.
Land Conservation: Open Space Management
Conservation Easements
With approval of a legislative body, Conservation Commissions
may acquire land and easements in the name of the
municipality. A conservation easement is a voluntary legal
agreement between a landowner and a land trust or
government agency restricting the use of land to retain the
“natural, scenic or open condition or in agricultural, farming,
forest or open space” (C.G.S 47-42a). The landowner cedes the
right to develop on a parcel yet retains ownership and the right
to sell or pass property on to heirs. While some conservation
easements may prohibit any land use to protect the benefits of
the natural space, some may include the right to limited
agricultural development depending on the agreement.8
Conservation easements can be a tool to expand municipal
resilience through natural resource protection, but because
conservation easements are permanent, special care should be
taken to understand the effects of climate change on the
protected parcel. The legal language creating the easement
should include monitoring provisions and not preclude actions
needed to adapt to an unpredictable climate. If appliable,
easement amendments should incorporate changing land
restrictions as climate change alters risks to land and its natural
resources. For example, easements could include provisions for
addressing future increased flood risk from sea level rise.
Additionally, other strategies such as rolling, term-terminal and
tradable easements may allow for flexibility within boundaries as
climate change shifts the vulnerability and levels of resilience
needed.9
Invasive plant species removal
Native plant conservation is imperative to the sustainability of our
ecosystems and climate resilience. Invasive plant species are nonnative
species that may cause harm to the environment, human health and
economies by displacing native species. As climate change influences
higher average temperatures for Connecticut10, it enables invasive plant
and insect pest species to move in. Conservation Commissions can
implement the protection and restoration of native plant populations
with outreach materials on invasive species specific to their territory, best
practices for removal and resources to assist with management within
their communities. Commissions can host volunteer invasive species
removal events to incorporate and educate their communities about
ecology and the importance of invasives management.
Commissions may inventory natural resources and screen landscapes for
invasive species and guide municipal management plans. Management
of invasive species is community-based and relies on town wide
acknowledgment and removal participation. Developing charts of native
vegetation to restore will allow landowners to immediately support
ecosystems and build climate resilient properties. Commissions in need
of plant information of invasives found in Connecticut can visit the
Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Field Guide. For more
information on invasive species and statutes, visit The Department of
Energy and Environmental Protection.
Commission Outreach
Ø Develop flyers, pamphlets,
charts and books for public
awareness of locally
endangered natural
resources with resilient
conservation strategies that
can provide hazard
mitigation
Ø Organize seminars to
educate municipal
residents and other
planning officials on up-to-
date climate science and
vulnerability assessments
Ø Educate on invasive plant
species and the
importance of town wide
participation to remove
them and restore native
plants and trees
Text and photos used by permission from Pollinator-Pathway.org and CT Invasive Plant Working Group (CIPWG). Connecticut Invasive Plants
Council’s List of 12 Invasive Plants that threaten our Environment, Economy, and Human Health. 2023. https://www.pollinator-pathway.org/invasives
Water Conservation
Section 8-23 of the CT General Statutes, amended by PA 15-95, requires each municipality to prepare or
amend and adopt a Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD). Local Land Use Boards should be sure to
include water resource planning in their municipal POCD. Conservation Commissions can suggest the:11
• Influence of amendments to include source water protection as climate change impacts water resources
• Inclusion of drought management in Hazard Mitigation Planning in regions that may experience more
frequent periods of drought due to climate change
• Incorporation of source water protection into watershed management and open space plans
• Adoption of water ordinances for water conservation and drought planning
• Recommendation of the creation of a “Water Supply Chief/Team” to manage water resources
• Municipalities are following Emergency Supply Plans
Conservation commissions may inventory water resources and advise
zoning boards to maintain critical water supply source areas as open
space.12 Commissions can advocate to homeowners the importance of
water conservation in their bathrooms, kitchens and landscaping. For
water efficiency ideas, visit Tips for Conserving Water.
Rainwater Harvesting
The state of Connecticut does not regulate the collection of rainwater and
encourages homeowners to use rainwater for non-potable water needs.
Rainwater harvesting is a great way to conserve natural resources, save
money on utility bills, reduce energy used to pump water, and reduce
stormwater runoff. Rainwater can be used to irrigate plants and
landscapes, wash cars or home windows, but should never be used for
human consumption. Conserving water resources by rainwater collection
can be useful during drought periods to reduce pressure on potable water
resources.13 To learn more about the benefits and installation of rain
barrels, visit A Resident’s Guide to Rain Barrels in Connecticut.
Healthy Soil Practices/Soil Conservation
Water conservation can begin with healthy soil practices. Healthy soils can act as a sponge with the ability
to absorb and hold its volume in water when it rains. Nature-based solutions can influence water conservation
by healthy soils and its ability to capture and store much more water. Regions that experience periods of
drought should seek healthy soil as it can deliver water to plants and crops in the most needed times. Organic
matter and living organisms improve soil health and hydrologic function.14 With a focus on healthy soils, less
water can be irrigated for agricultural purposes which enhances the conservation and resiliency of water
resources.
Conservation Commissions can provide resources about the negatives of tillage and plowing within applicable
municipal agricultural lands and influence best practices such as growing cover crops and diversifying crop and
animal rotations. Organic matter is then naturally created and will better harness and distribute water for
increased crop yields. Healthy soil practices have the resilient benefits of carbon sequestration and decreasing
drought risks to crops.15
Forest and Tree Conservation
Trees are renewable resources that add to the quality of life by filtering
pollutants from the air, boosting mental health, moderating temperatures and
reducing urban heat, providing habitats for wildlife, providing shade, conserving
heating and cooling energy, preventing soil erosion, slowing stormwater runoff,
filtering drinking water and serving as carbon sinks by sequestering atmospheric
carbon dioxide. The many benefits of trees allow ecosystems to be more resilient
to climate change effects. The conservation and restoration of trees allows present
and future generations to enjoy the benefits that trees bring to communities.
Conservation Commissions can encourage landowners to plant native trees and
perform tree maintenance on existing trees. Commissions may suggest to
municipal Planning and Zoning boards to implement Tree Protection ordinances
or other Street Tree Requirements to influence tree planting. Conservation
Commissions may act as a Tree Commission if granted authority by the local
legislative body and can develop action plans to protect the tree canopy. An
example of a large city Tree Action Plan is the City of Hartford's plan to protect
and expand their tree canopy with coinciding resilient benefits.
Tree Warden
When considering tree maintenance, Conservation Commissions may assist the
municipal tree warden by bringing attention to damaged trees or trees that are
hosts to invasive species, and regulate and enact tree maintenance. In
collaboration with the tree warden, Commissions can further assist by removal or
planting of trees and making recommendations for the preservation of trees
within their jurisdictional limits. Per Connecticut Statute Chapter 451 Section
23-59, “...care and control shall extend to such limbs, roots or parts of trees and
shrubs as extend or overhang the limits of any such public road or grounds.”
Although a base of a tree may lie on privately owned land, the “care and control”
of a tree that “extends into public road or grounds” belongs to a municipal tree
warden. Conservation Commissions can work with the tree warden to educate the
public about the benefits of trees, and how to choose climate resilient and
ecologically appropriate species for specific sites.
Forest Protection
Forests are natural landscapes that reduce and store carbon that lessen the effects
of climate change. Conservation Commissions are integral in protecting local
forests by advising on municipal policy for open space and park acquisition and
management. Town Plans of Conservation and Development serve as a guide to
town goals for forest and tree protections. In particular, core forests, those more
than 300 feet from the forest boundary, are in acute need of protection
statewide.16 Additionally, if delegated by the body having such authority,
Conservation Commissions can supervise or manage municipally owned parks or
open space and promulgate rules and regulations for those properties, including
setting specific time frames and reasonable fees for public use.
Wildlife Conservation
Wildlife conservation stimulates ecological stability, secures the food chain, and strengthens our food security.
Working alongside local environmental non-governmental organizations like the Connecticut Audubon
Society, Commissions can gain conservation knowledge on project initiatives concerning birds, wildlife and
their habitats. With diverse expertise, Audubon staff can examine and assess wildlife habitats in specific
locations and create plans to enhance conservation and resilience while considering ecology, wetlands
management, soil science and more.17 Commissions can create outreach materials for the public to recognize
the importance of wildlife and provide ways to protect their diversity.
Pollinator Gardens
Human food supplies rely on the resilience of pollinator species, making their conservation, biodiversity and
protection crucial. “Pollinators are responsible for 1 out of 3 bites of food we take each day,”18 yet pollinator
populations have declined drastically. Commissions can influence the creation of pollinator gardens within
their communities. These gardens can generate or enlarge habitats benefiting bees, butterflies, birds and
bats. Native trees and shrubs such as Flowering Dogwood, may be used to define the boundaries of a larger
garden to provide nectar, pollen, fruit and host habitat.19 Allocating ample nectar and pollen sources through
pollinator gardens can enhance pollinator populations and provide resilience to human food supplies and
other ecosystem services as climate change and development impacts our resources.
Nest boxes and Bat houses
Birds and Bats are crucial to climate resilience because they eat insects, pollinate flowers and are naturally
responsible for growing plants and trees by spreading seeds. Bats consume a large volume of insects nightly,
many that can cause harm to people, crops and forests. Encouraging bird and bat conservation and increasing
their habitats can lower pest control costs.20 As climate change brings warmer climates for Connecticut, more
pests can affect crop yields. Birds and bats can help mitigate those effects by pest consumption and seed
spreading. Conservation Commissions can educate about the use of nest boxes and bat houses to help protect
bird and bat species and preserve their ecological role.
Environmental Management: Influence Nature-based solutions
“Lands managed with the climate in mind also filter and protect water supplies, increase soil fertility and forest
productivity, foster biodiversity and strengthen ecosystems’ capacity to withstand drought and extreme
weather — reducing flooding, runoff, and erosion.”21 The Federal Emergency Management Agency defines
nature-based solutions as, “sustainable planning, design, environmental management and engineering
practices that weave natural features or processes into the built environment to promote adaptation and
resilience.”22 Nature-based solutions can be used to combat climate change, restore wetlands, reduce flood
risks, reduce urban heat, add recreational opportunities and more.23 Conservation Commissions can
incorporate nature-based solutions into conservation strategies to further increase natural resource resilience
and store carbon within landscapes such as forests and wetlands without intervention.
Conservation Commissions must “keep index of all open
areas, publicly and privately owned, including open
marshlands, swamps and other wetlands to obtain
information on proper use of such land.” (C.G.S Chapter
97, Section 7-131a). They may recommend plans and
programs for the development and use of such areas to
municipal Planning and Zoning commissions and consult
on development applications near or within wetlands that
can alter the state of the natural resource. Wetlands are
crucial natural resources because they provide habitat for
diverse animal and plant species, buffer against natural
flooding and storm surge, provide recreation, naturally
filter water, and act as a carbon sink. Conservation and
restoration of wetlands are imperative to coastal and
inland wetlands in providing climate resilience to flood,
drought, storm and erosion risks.
Wetland Conservation and Restoration
Green Infrastructure
Green roofs, rain gardens or engineered bioswales can influence climate resilience by absorbing
stormwater, reducing the risks of infrastructure flooding and protecting rivers and streams from harmful
pollutants and sediment. These nature-based solutions offer additional ecological benefits such as wildlife
habitat that support biodiversity for birds and pollinators, promote stronger mental health24, reduce urban heat,
and reduce energy use and associated costs.25 Conservation Commissions can investigate green
infrastructure alternatives and make suggestions to zoning boards and landowners on resilient
implementation.
Reforestation
Reforestation can mitigate the negative impacts of climate change. Commissions can seek to conserve
and develop resources for their municipality. They can assist municipalities in applying for forestry grants such as
CT DEEP's America the Beautiful and use funds to plant trees to advance urban forestry in collaboration

This record is longer than the page shows. The original file above is complete.