You asked if the Clinton Beach Association’s proposed charter changes are consistent with the statutes. The Office of Legislative Research cannot give legal opinions and you should not regard this memo as one.

CONSISTENCY REQUIREMENT

The Clinton Beach Association’s (CBA) proposed charter amendments cannot give CBA more authority than the statutes give to the districts they govern. This limitation stems from the different ways special taxing districts can be created. Many districts, such as CBA, were created by a special act, which serve as their charter and whose provisions may vary from district to district. Other districts were created by their residents according to a statutory procedure. Those districts must comply with the special district statutes, which serve as their charter.

Districts created by special act have two options for changing the rules under which they operate. They can ask the legislature to amend the special act or they can convert it into a home rule charter, which they can then amend by following the statutory procedure for amending town charters. A district that chooses the latter cannot adopt an amendment that would give it more authority than the statutes give to a district that operates under them (CGS § 7-328a). We used this standard to determine if CBA’s amendments are consistent with the special district statutes.

CBA PROPOSED SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS

The proposed amendments make substantive and technical changes, most of which meet the standard. We limited our analysis to the former.

Voting (§ 1)

The amendment allowing landowning entities to vote in district elections appears to exceed the authority granted by the special district statutes. It extends membership with voting rights to corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships, trusts, and other entities that, by law, can own land in Connecticut. The amendment also allows individuals and entities to designate a representative (i. e. , designee) to vote on their behalf for a fixed, renewable period. They must receive the association’s permission before they may do so.

Under the special district statutes only individuals may vote on district matters (CGS § 7-325). Under that statute, a person may vote if he:

These restrictions apply unless the district’s special act imposes others. The statute neither allows an elector to designate someone to vote for him or districts (or towns) to allow this proxy voting on their own accord.

Penalty Increase (CGS § 12)

The amendment increasing the penalty for violating the district’s bylaws, ordinances, and regulations from $ 25 to $ 500 appears to meet the standard. While the special district statutes do not explicitly authorize districts to impose such penalties, the power to do so may be implied in the statute that makes them a “body corporate and politic. ” That statute gives a district “the powers, not inconsistent with the general statutes, in relation to the objects for which it was established, that are necessary for the accomplishment of such objects, including the power to lay and collect taxes (CGS § 7-325(a), emphasis added).

Contracting Limits (§ 15)

The amendment raising the ceiling, from $ 500 to $ 5,000 on the contracts the CBA’s board of directors can approve above appropriated amounts without the association’s approval appears to meet the standard. In fact, the charter appears to be stricter than the special district statute regarding the board’s power to spend money without the district’s approval. It allows the board to exercise this power only if the expense exceeds the appropriated amount. Boards operating under the special district statutes can spend up to $ 10,000 or $ 20,000, depending on the district’s grand list, without the district voters’ approval regardless of whether the budget appropriates money for the expense.

JR: ro