Tramontano v. Dilieto

• Decision Date: 13 March 1984
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Raffaela TRAMONTANO et al. v. Biagio DILIETO et al. Maria J. IZZO et al. v. Biagio DILIETO et al.

Page 768

472 A.2d 768

192 Conn. 426

Raffaela TRAMONTANO et al. v. Biagio DILIETO et al.

Maria J. IZZO et al. v. Biagio DILIETO et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Jan. 10, 1984.

Decided March 13, 1984.

Victor P. Fasano and Jonathan J. Einhorn, with whom, on brief, was Earl I. Williams, New Haven, for appellants (plaintiffs in each case).

Charles G. Albom, Corp. Counsel, with whom, on brief, was Karen Nash, Deputy Corp. Counsel, New Haven, for appellees (defendants in both cases).

Before PETERS, PARSKEY, SHEA, GRILLO and SPONZO, JJ. SHEA, Associate Justice.

In these actions the plaintiffs as taxpayers of the city of New Haven sought a declaratory judgment that the tax rate of 74.29 mills for the fiscal year July 1, 1982, through June 30, 1983, voted by the board of aldermen was illegal and that the lawful rate was 73.30 mills as originally recommended by the board of finance. An injunction against collection of taxes at the higher rate and a writ of mandamus to implement the lower rate was also claimed, as well as general equitable relief. The court rendered judgment for the defendants, the city of New Haven and various city officials, and the plaintiffs have appealed.

The principal issue presented by the appeal is whether certain provisions of the charter of the city of New Haven relating to the date when the budget estimates and tax rate recommendation of the board of finance are to be submitted to the board of aldermen are mandatory, so that any revision thereof made after such date, for whatever reason, becomes a nullity. We conclude that, where there is sufficient justification, the board of finance may modify its submission to the board of aldermen even after expiration of the time prescribed by the charter. Accordingly, we find no error.

The controlling provision of the New Haven charter is § 58, ¹ which establishes the procedure and timetable for the adoption of the city's annual budget and rate of taxation. In March and April of each year the board of finance is required to estimate the amount of money necessary for the expenses of the city for the fiscal year beginning in July as well as the rate of taxation needed to meet such expenses. The estimated expenditures and the recommended tax rate "shall be published" once in the newspapers by the first Monday of April. Within seven days after this publication, a duly noticed public hearing must be held on the budget and tax rate proposed by the board of finance. Thereafter, the board's proposal, "including all revisions made by said board of finance after said public hearing, shall be submitted to the board of aldermen on or before the third Monday of April...." A public hearing on the recommended budget and tax rate must be held by the board of aldermen, which must act thereon no later than the first Monday of June. The aldermen are empowered to decrease the total of the appropriations recommended by the board of finance, as well as the corresponding tax rate, but may not increase them. The total amount of appropriations must not exceed the estimated income for the fiscal year. Upon failure of the aldermen to act by the first Monday of June, "the estimates, appropriations and rate of taxation reported by the board of finance shall be final."

As the trial court found, the original budget of the board of finance with total appropriations of $134,306,502 and a tax rate of 73.30 mills for the July 1, 1982 through June 30, 1983 fiscal year, following the necessary publication and public hearing, was submitted to the board of aldermen on April 6, 1982, three days before "the third Monday of April" as provided by the charter. Public hearings on this budget were held by the aldermen between April 21, 1982, and May 12, 1982.

On May 18, 1982, the board of finance learned that its budget estimate of $19,572,539 to be received from the state during the fiscal year was $510,539 too high and that a utility bill of $244,310.04 for electric service to the New Haven Coliseum had to be paid in order to avoid cessation of electricity supplied to the Coliseum. The board also had become aware that because of the action of the board of aldermen on April 19, 1982, the program of services to the elderly was underfunded in the budget which it had submitted before that date by $214,000. On May 20, 1982, the board of finance amended its estimated budget to reflect the reduction in anticipated revenues and the two additional expenditures, resulting in a revised total outlay and a new tax rate of 74.30 mills. The board of aldermen held a public hearing on the amended budget on May 27, 1982, and approved it on June 7, 1982, the first Monday of that month, as prescribed by the charter. On June 15, 1982, the mayor signed the budget voted by the aldermen.

The only significant challenge made by the plaintiffs to the facts as found by the trial court concerns whether the board of finance discovered or reasonably should have discovered the items omitted or incorrectly stated in the budget proposal before it was submitted. Our review of the evidence relating to these matters indicates sufficient support for the finding of the court that a unique problem confronted the board of finance because of the information they received after the date specified by the charter for submission of the budget, which had already been transmitted to the board of aldermen. The trier was not bound to credit the testimony of the plaintiffs' witnesses to the effect that the board should have been aware of the deficiencies in its original proposal at some earlier time. In our view, even if greater prescience was called for, the board remained under a continuing duty to submit a balanced budget and to that end had authority to make the necessary revisions.

In this appeal the plaintiffs focus ² upon the failure of the defendants in adopting the 1982-1983 budget to comply with the charter provision specifying that the "estimates and the rate of taxation recommended, including all revisions made by said board of finance after said public hearing, shall be submitted to the board of aldermen on or before the third Monday of April," which was April 19, 1982. It cannot be disputed that the amendment to the original budget made by the board of finance on May 20, 1982, deviated from this charter provision, as the trial court found. As a consequence, the plaintiffs contend, the only lawful budget and tax rate was that originally submitted by the board of finance. That budget became effective automatically, they argue, because of the lack of any action upon it in its unrevised form pursuant to the charter provision that failure of the aldermen "to consider and act upon such estimates and such appropriations and rate of taxation reported by the board of finance," by the first Monday of June makes the budget submitted by the board of finance final.

The trial court, recognizing that the budget revisions made by the board of finance did not meet the time schedule prescribed by the charter, held that the provisions involved were not mandatory but merely directory. We agree.

"For the reason that individuals or the public should not be made to suffer for the dereliction of public officers, provisions regulating the duties of public officers and specifying the time for their performance are in that regard generally...