Milford City Council discussed possible charter changes at a recent workshop
At a recent workshop, Milford City Council discussed potential changes to the city charter. Since October 1, the Charter Review Committee met to discuss adjustments to the charter that included property owners who live outside city limits having voting rights within the city, terms for Mayor and council along with other changes that will need to be approved by the General Assembly.
“We had a discussion about changing the charter in reference to elections, considering a change to limit voting to only those who live within city limits voting in city elections, changing it from allowing those who own property within city limits but live outside of Milford to have a vote in city elections,” Chairperson Katrina Wilson said.
The current language reads that persons who reside within City of Milford boundaries for at least 30 days prior to the registration deadline and are over the age of 18 may be entitled to one vote in city elections. The charter continues, reading “a corporation, partnership, limited partnership or other legally created entity is prohibited from registering and voting as a non-resident property owner unless property within the City is titled in an individual name.”
“I just found out the referendum just passed in Georgetown that LLCs, regardless of property ownership can vote as many LLCs as they own,” Councilwoman Madula Kalesis said.
Councilwoman Nadia Zychal felt that was a terrible idea.
“It’s a horrendous complication, because if you can register multiple LLCs, that dilutes the vote,” Zychal said. “
Kalesis disagreed, stating that if someone opened a business within the city, their livelihood was dependent on city elections and it was unfair to say that because they happened to live outside city limits, they should have no say.”
Zychal stated that it was she who brought the suggestion to limit voting rights to only property owners who live within the city as it was a matter of concern and principle to her during her campaign. In her eyes, it diluted the “one man, one vote” principle.
“It is unique only to Delaware and Connecticut and it’s a very strange way to give outsiders a voice in government,” Zychal said.
Kalesis stated that she knew a business owner in Milford who does not live in city limits but owns at least 10 businesses in the city.
“They live and breathe Milford. They spend their whole day here,” Kalesis said. “They spend their money here. Their children are going to grow up right here, and now we are saying they should not have a vote?”
Zychal stated that they had a vote in the municipality where they lived.
“They don’t live in Milford. Owning a business and is different than living in a place,” Zychal said. “If somebody has ten businesses throughout the state, should they have ten votes in different municipalities?”
Mayor Todd Culotta reminded council that even if someone owned 50 businesses in Milford, they were still only given one vote.
“But that’s what I’m saying though, people that live outside of city limits, but they own multiple businesses, which means they live and breathe Milford, There’s also people that live right outside of the city limits, and they feel very strongly about the fact that they cannot vote,” Kalesis said. “Even though they shop in here, their kids go to school here, we’re telling them, ‘No, you can’t vote.’ But if your own property in the city of Milford, you should definitely have a voice no matter where you live.”
Zychal commented that choosing where you live is different kind of vote and if someone who owned property in Milford chose to live elsewhere, they made the conscious decision to live outside of city limits.
“I can understand how you feel, Madula, but they do have a voice,” Councilman Dan Marabello said. “They choose to open businesses because they think they can make money here and they can make money because they like the way the city is being run. It is an investment for them. They are paying taxes into the city but they still chose to open a business here for a reason.”
Kalesis stated that if council wanted to tell those property owners, they no longer had to pay taxes to the city, she would agree they had no vote. Even if they lived outside the city, they only get one vote in the city.
“I’m not thinking about it not necessarily from a business perspective, a retail business, but more like a landlord. If I own a property in Milford and there are referendums where you’re going to raise my taxes because I own that property, my tenant is not paying that,” Councilwoman Lori Connor said. “And then we have the other argument, affordable housing, so not allowing those people to have a say on the property that they own and the money that they have to pay out of their pocket, while also telling them to keep their expenses low to the renter seems unfair. I would feel frustrated if I was a landlord, and you were telling me I didn’t get a say in any of the decisions you were going to make that affected my wallet.”
Zychal pointed out that landlords pass the added costs to tenants in their rent which meant that renters did pay for any increased taxes that were approved by voters.
“Respectfully, I disagree with you, because I own multiple rentals in Milford and throughout COVID, inflation, my tenant’s rent never went up. I eat it. So not everyone passes it off to the tenant. I want my tenants to be able to live,” Councilman Michael Stewart said. “They have children. I don’t want them to worry about how to afford school supplies. want them to tell their kids let’s go shopping. We got the extra money. I do not pass that on to them. I’m changing their life. So not everyone does that.”
City Solicitor David Rutt reminded council that any change to the charter would need to be a super majority vote. This meant that any change would need six of eight council people voting for the change before it went to the state for approval.
“It would be introduced by a representative and a senator in respective chambers. Then it goes to a committee, and the committee will hold a committee hearing with someone from the city there to present the charter change and explain why,” Rutt said. “The committee then will vote to either recommended or, not typically, recommended approval, then it goes to the full chamber. They’ll debate it, vote on it. It’s highly unusual that they will not pass a charter change. Then it goes to the governor, and he signs it.”
Another change proposed in the charter is to limit the powers of the city regarding eminent domain. The new language would prohibit the city from using eminent domain outside of city limits for recreational purposes. Kalesis thought the change would allow for eminent domain outside of city limits for things other than recreation like sewer easements and other infrastructure needs.
“I think since Milford was singled out on this particular issue, it’s best to be extremely surgical with the precision of the language,” Zychal said, referencing legislation proposed by Senator Dave Wilson that would restrict only the City of Milford from using eminent domain outside of city limits for any purpose. “We need to be very clear what we are able to do.”
The next change proposed was to change the term of the mayor from two years to three years starting January 2026 and terms of council members to three years starting in January 2027.
“This came up a lot in the last election, a whole lot of people were bringing this up,” Wilson said. “There were even council members bringing this up.”
Culotta saw a value in a three year term, pointing out that when he ran for mayor this year, he was in the middle of his term, so he had the luxury of returning to his seat if he lost. Kalesis pointed out that the first year is a learning curve.
“We’re all not Katrina’s,” Kalesis said, referencing long-serving councilwoman Katrina Wilson. “That’s always been the complaint because people feel like they are learning the job and about the time they think they know it, they have to run again.”
Culotta reminded council that there are municipalities that have elections for council and then council chooses the mayor, something he is glad Milford does not do. Another change to the charter would be that anyone who is delinquent In payment to the city, whether that be property taxes or utility bills, could not run for or remain on council.
“This came about because many, many years ago, we had someone on council who was in serious arrears to the city,” Wilson said. “Since delinquency is there in black and white, we can address it easily.”
Culotta was concerned about removing someone from council due to arrears with the city, but did feel an individual should not be able to run for office if they were behind in payments to the city.
Council also reviewed changes that would require department heads to be reviewed by council rather than allowing the city manager sole responsibility for hiring those positions. Kalesis felt that change would show a lack of trust in the city manager.
“I kind of concur that I feel like when we hire a city manager, we are trusting them to make those good decisions related to their staff, I think it also kind of can create an issue where those employees may not understand who they actually work for if we are inserting ourselves in that process,” Connor said. “That can make it difficult for the city manager down the road when they need to make decisions that we may not be a part of and I just think about like the military, we’re hiring the city manager, and then those people fall under him, and there should be very clear lines of command. I don’t think that it’s smart for us to insert ourselves in that, and I also don’t think that we’re qualified to hire any of the people that work for him.”
The final discussion was about rules of procedure at the request of the solicitor.
“I just inserted approval of the agenda, because sometimes the agenda has something removed, or you may want to rearrange the agenda. For an example, let’s say you have three public hearings. One’s going to be very contentious, but it’s first on the list. You may decide to amend the agenda to move that one to the last of the public hearings,” Rutt said. “It just gives you some flexibility. The other changes are just dates when financial repots and directors would be presented.’
Culotta stated that as the charter currently reads, he has the ability to put items on the agenda and any council person who wanted something added could come to him to request that.
“One of the issues is I work for city council, so I get input from city council, and we’ll put items on the agenda as they request it,” City Manager Mark Whitfield said. “No one else should have the ability to take something off the agenda if only myself, the clerk or the mayor puts items on the agenda.”
Kalesis agreed, stating that she did not feel she should have the right to remove an agenda item without the approval of the mayor or city manager.
Since this was a workshop, no decisions were made. When the charter changes are finalized, they will be presented to council for further discussion. The tentative date for the changes to come before council is January 13 and there will be a public hearing before those changes are approved. Approval is tentatively scheduled for January 17, 2025 with the resolution submitted to local legislators Bryan Shupe, Eric Buckson, Charles Postles and David Wilson on January 28, 2025.
Share this Post