|
Area legislators are invited to attend the December
HVCEO
meeting. Regional issue are discussed at that time
and the policies below are part of the dialogue.
TOP
THREE ISSUES:
---
STABILIZE THE REAL ESTATE CONVEYANCE TAX
---
DO NOT INCREASE HEART AND HYPERTENSION ENTITLEMENT
---
CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE FOR CONN DOT I-84 EIS
OTHER
2008 ISSUES:
---
SUPPORT HRRA POSITIONS ON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
---
REDUCE LYME DISEASE THRU COORDINATION OF DEP AND DPH
---
AVOID CUTS TO MUNICIPAL AID
---
EVOLVE LOCAL AND STATE PLANNING TOWARDS SMART GROWTH
---
MODIFICATIONS TO 8-30G AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONING OVERRIDE
---
UPGRADE DANBURY BRANCH RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE
---
OPEN SPACE PURCHASE PRIORITY FOR VAUGHN'S NECK AND BOGUS FARM
IN BETHEL
---
FEDERAL ISSUE: OPPOSE FAA AIRSPACE REDESIGN
---
FEDERAL ISSUE: OPPOSE CHANGES TO TRIBAL RECOGNITION CRITERIA
TOP
THREE ISSUES:
STABILIZE
THE
REAL ESTATE CONVEYANCE TAX
Concerning the real estate conveyance tax, the 2003 increase
in this tax for municipalities from 0.11% to 0.25% was scheduled
to revert back to 0.11% on 6/30/07. That deadline was extended
to 6/30/2008. Please make the 0.25% figure and the extension
permanent.
It
has been said that the conveyance tax is unfair because it
imposes costs on a small segment of the population, sellers
and buyers of real estate and homes, while the revenues are
used for government services for all citizens. But from the
local perspective, many of these municipal services are in
direct support of the real estate values being taxed.
The
Connecticut Real Estate industry has not been harmed by the
0.25% level. Specifically, that business is not being picked
upon. Rather, its sales commodity happens to be the primary
wealth of the state, the mainstay of local taxation, and as
such a conveyance tax is in fact broad based.
DO
NOT INCREASE HEART
AND HYPERTENSION ENTITLEMENT
HVCEO agrees with CCM that
increased participants and benefits under this law are not
affordable or warranted. HVCEO supports the following CCM
Policy:
"Oppose
a nation-wide campaign that seeks to disrupt the foundation
of the state workers’ compensation system and that would
(a) severely reverse a compromise reached in 1996 that maintained
the heart and hypertension entitlement for all employees as
of 7/1/96, but provided that new employees would not be eligible.
And/or
(b) provide special presumption benefits under workers compensation
to police officers and firefighters who contract certain infectious
& contagious diseases, and certain types of cancers, without
such employees ever having to prove the job-relatedness of
their illnesses."
CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE FOR CONN
DOT I-84 EIS
I-84 is the economic lifeline for western
Connecticut, connecting Greater Danbury to major market areas.
Its basic 1958 design has served our area well but must now
be modernized.
In 2000, Conn DOT completed a detailed technical study of
I-84's geometric deficiencies. The municipalities signed off
and are ready to go. (see overview of the Greater
Danbury I-84 Plan).
The next
planning step calls for Conn DOT to undertake an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for I-84 from Waterbury to Danbury,
in conformance with FHWA guidelines. This EIS is mandatory
in order to qualify this 32 mile segment of roadway for major
federal funding. HVCEO has been urging that the EIS get underway
since 2000.
After
a lengthy selection process meeting all federal standards,
an engineering consultant for the needed EIS work, Close,
Jensen and Miller, P.C. of Wethersfield, CT, was selected
by Conn DOT in December of 2003.
In October of 2004 HVCEO was informed that this consultant
would be authorized to proceed in February of 2005, and the
Final EIS would be published in November of 2006. Additional
delays followed as projected completion schedules were issued
and then again and again rescinded.
Push
planned I-84 upgrade out of
the study stage and into construction
Late in
2007 a scope of services for the I-84 EIS was finally negotiated.
Next the consultant's cost proposal must be evaluated.
The area needs to keep the pressure on the EIS process so
that we reach the construction phase. There is a lot of competition;
the longer we dawdle the further back in the line we go.
OTHER
2008 ISSUES:
SUPPORT
HRRA POSITIONS
ON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Please
support the Housatonic
Resources Recovery Authority in passing its 2008
Legislative Agenda:
1.
BOTTLE BILL: Oppose expansion
of the bottle bill to include plastic water bottles because:
• Consumers and grocery store
operators will be unnecessarily inconvenienced and will pay
more for beverages in plastic bottles.
• Curbside recycling of plastic water bottles results
in a smaller carbon footprint than recycling plastic bottles
through a deposit program.
• HRRA will lose revenue from the sale of plastic commodities
now collected curbside that provides funding for regional
public recycling education and services.
2.
LICENSING OF HAULERS: Oppose state licensing
of solid waste haulers through a New York/New Jersey type
system as proposed last year by the Governor’s Hauler
Licensing Task Force and the Attorney General because:
• Hauler licensing will create a financial
and bureaucratic burden for all haulers, especially those
with a smaller customer base over which to disperse their
overhead costs.
• The result will be increased costs for customers and
less, rather than more, competition among haulers.
• Hauler licensing will especially burden the many haulers
who operate within the law, while those who don’t will
find a way around the licensing requirement.
• Strict, costly and burdensome licensing requirements
in New York State have not prevented haulers operating there
from indictment on federal charges.
3.
TIP FEES UNDER DPUC: Oppose the agreement
between the Attorney General and seven Bridgeport area municipalities
in which the municipal CEOs agree to support the AG’s
hauler licensing proposal in exchange for his support of their
request to put MSW tip fees under the regulatory control of
the DPUC, including the fees at the WESI Bridgeport WTE plant.
• Hauler licensing should not be supported as a quid
pro quo for anything and has all the problems cited above.
• MSW tip fees should be determined by the market, not
government regulation.
• DPUC does not have the best track record in protecting
consumers and municipalities from utility increases through
regulatory fee setting.
• DPUC rate setting process would increase costs for
waste to energy and other final disposal companies as well
as for municipalities, regional resource recovery authorities
and ultimately for consumers.
• HRRA has a contracted tip fee with WESI through 2019.
Below market rates at the Bridgeport WTE plant set by State
regulators for non-HRRA municipalities would unfairly compete
with the contracted HRRA rate and cause disruptions in the
solid waste system in western Connecticut.
REDUCE LYME DISEASE THRU
COORDINATION OF DEP AND DPH
Legislators
are asked to consider the suggestions made by HVCEO members
in this September 21, 2007 (abridged) letter to Governor Rell:
We
are writing to you in our role as chief elected officials
of Connecticut municipalities that have been badly affected
by deer overpopulation. Many of us are struggling with the
issue of how best to alleviate the consequences of excess
deer and some of us are trying to implement deer population
control programs.
The
State has effectively promoted the aggressive control of mosquito
populations in order to combat West Nile Disease, but has
failed to exert an equivalent effort to control deer populations
in order to combat Lyme Disease.
The
fact that communities in Maine and Connecticut have been able
to dramatically reduce their tick populations and Lyme Disease
rates by reducing their deer populations would be a powerful
and yet straightforward fact to add to the state Department
of Public Health's Lyme prevention educational material.
The
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) statistics indicate approximately
56,000 new cases of physician confirmed Lyme Disease in Connecticut
in 2005. Public health is perhaps the most important reason
to want to get deer numbers under control but DEP feels they
are not qualified to take on the role of public health educators-
that should be the role of DPH.
So
here we have a dilemma: DPH regards deer as the province of
the DEP (despite the fact that deer are the critical animal
hosts to the tick vector that spreads the disease to humans)
and DEP regards health education as the province of DPH.
Map
of Lyme cases: Lyme Disease is our problem
However,
if your office would set a policy direction and recommend
that these two agencies work together on getting more information
out to the public and perhaps setting a tick borne disease
prevention goal to be implemented by DEP, then DEP could do
a much more effective job at helping our communities avoid
all the diseases spread by deer ticks.
The
environmental damage being wrought by deer is an ongoing tragedy
in our more rural towns where we have struggled for years
to preserve open space only to see its ecological value degraded
by deer over browsing and loss of native species while invasives
are given a leg up by the deer themselves.
We
recognize and appreciate your commitment to public health
as indicated by your recent letter of concern to us on West
Nile Virus and we respectfully ask that you now take a leadership
role with the appropriate state agencies to combat Lyme Disease
in the State of Connecticut.
Sincerely
yours, Individual
signatures of our ten mayors and first selectmen
See also
the web site of the Fairfield
County Municipal Deer Management Alliance.
AVOID
CUTS TO MUNICIPAL AID
Cutbacks to towns and cities are
a shift of burden from the state level to the local level.
Please don't pass legislation that forces up local property
taxes. That tax has enough pressures already.
Please
maintain Town Aid Road (TAR), Local Capital Improvement Program
(LOCIP), and Small Town Economic Assistance Program (STEAP)
funding, as these are very valuable resources for municipalities.
And as stated in earlier years, flaws in the binding arbitration
process have been a detriment to area municipalities for decades.
EVOLVE
LOCAL AND STATE
PLANNING TOWARDS SMART GROWTH
Smart
Growth can be a vague term, in that its definition varies
greatly around the country and by liberal or conservative
view. Therefore, HVCEO's draft
Regional Plan offers its own definition, drawing
on both modern and traditional elements, as follows:
---
INFILL WITHIN CENTRAL AREAS:
Assist in creating a relatively centralized development pattern.
Give priority for infill development when excess infrastructure
capacity to support it already exists and the density is compatible
with the neighborhood.
---
LIMIT UTILITIES ON OUTER EDGE:
Don't make it easy to extend sewer lines into outlying areas.
Incorporate the concept of "urban growth boundary"
by avoiding extension of development inducing infrastructure
beyond the outer edge of the Future
Growth Map's Primary
Growth Area
---
CAUTION WITH LOWER DENSITY AREAS:
These areas have the capability to absorb some growth, but
only at intensities that can be permanently served by on-lot
or near-lot well and septic systems. Use open
space subdivision design to conserve the countryside
here.
---
BALANCE HOUSING TYPES AND COSTS:
Promote a fuller range of housing price levels and unit types
to match the economic base.
Both housing opportunities and design choices should be expanded
in each municipality to accommodate a variety of household
types and needs.
Balance of housing and retail
in pedestrian environment
--- MORE CHOICE OF TRANSPORTATION MODE:
Build in such a way that alternatives to the automobile are
possible. Encourage much more emphasis in local planning on
mixed
use, pedestrian
friendly and transit
oriented environments.
--- PRESERVE WATER SUPPLY RESOURCES:
Limit development intensity and type on existing or potential
water
supply watersheds and major
aquifers. Ecologically fragile water supply watersheds should
be exempted from the provisions of the 8-30g affordable housing
zoning override.
---
REVERSE GLOBAL WARMING:
Greatly expand the use of renewable forms of energy and energy
conservation. As the design and operation of the built environment
has a huge impact on energy use, encourage
new energy saving ideas in local regulations.
MODIFICATIONS
TO 8-30G
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ZONING OVERRIDE
Connecticut’s
affordable housing land use appeals statute, Chapter 126a,
Section 8-30g, is a sprawl inducer and has a significant negative
impact upon a municipalities.
Rather than maintain a pattern of densities and uses arranged
according to the municipal plan of conservation and development,
under this law housing developments with affordable units
included are not required to be located where local planning
and zoning deems best. The
development pattern becomes jumbled.
There are four ways to reduce negative community impacts:
REDUCE MASSIVE DENSITY INCREASE.
At present the increase in
density is unplanned, and can be any multiple of what current
zoning laws allow. Chapter 126a, Section 8-30g should be amended
to moderate this impact to more intelligently tie affordable
housing proposals to the preexisting town planning and zoning.
This
can be accomplished by limiting the density increases to fifty
percent more units than the number that would be permitted
by the existing zoning district in which the project is located.
In addition, ecologically fragile water supply watersheds
should be exempted from the provisions of the 8-30g affordable
housing zoning override, just as industrially zoned land is
exempted because of its importance.
BETTER
MIXING OF MODERATE COST AND MARKET RATE UNITS. An
amendment to this statute is needed to ensure that the affordable
dwelling units and lots on which the dwelling units are to
be constructed are of comparable size and quality to other
dwelling units in the proposed development. Such mixing was
the intent of the original law, but is not followed in practice.
Make it a requirement that building permits for the affordable
dwelling units be issued in stages in proportion to building
permits for the other dwelling units in the proposed development.
IMPROVE THE ACCURACY OF THE STATISTICAL FORMULA. The
statistical formula for defining affordable housing In Chapter
126a, Section 8-30g determines which municipalities are exempt
from the override of local zoning by affordable housing proposals.
Unless 10% of a town’s housing is affordable, the town
cannot deny a developer’s proposal for affordable housing
without a very compelling reason.
But
the accounting system for determining the 10% needs to be
made more accurate, as follows:
First,
the formula has a major deficiency in quantifying the count
of presently affordable housing, resulting in the undercounting
of housing which qualifies as affordable by state definition.
Simply, the current method of counting inadvertently omits
all units of low cost privately owned housing.
The
State's definition of affordable housing, tied to “persons
and families paying thirty percent or less of income, where
such income is less than or equal to eighty percent of the
median income,” should apply to all local units, public
and private, as both really exist on the ground and should
be part of any objective count.
Please
note that a 1997 HVCEO 1997 planning study demonstrated that
objective criteria from the U.S. Census is available to fairly
add qualifying existing low cost private rental units to each
town’s total. The actual stock of municipal housing
can then more fairly be compared to the 10% goal.
0.00% Redding now by DECD formula, but 4.27%
if private affordable units added
0.06% Sherman now by DECD formula,
but 2.87% if private affordable units added
0.13% Bridgewater now by DECD
formula, but 4.07% if private affordable
units added
0.52% New Fairfield now by DECD
formula, but 3.38% if private affordable
units added
1.47% Brookfield now by DECD
formula, but 8.17% if private affordable
units added
1.80% Ridgefield now by DECD
formula, but 8.95% if private affordable
units added
1.91% Newtown now by DECD formula,
but 5.65% if private affordable units added
2.32% New Milford now by DECD
formula, but 17.72% if private affordable
units added
4.87% Bethel now by DECD formula,
but 18.80% if private affordable units added
10.10% Danbury now by DECD formula,
but 32.08% if private affordable units added
And
lastly, certain housing improvement grants assist homeowners
in mobile home parks to improve their dwellings. Deed restrictions
on sales price are then agreed to for periods for five years
or other intervals. During such periods, these units are valid
affordable housing and should be counted under the formula.
USE THIS LAW TO STIMULATE ACCESSORY APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT.
Chapter
126a, Section 8-30g was modified during the 2002 session to
allow a town to include “accessory apartments”
as part of its 10% affordable housing count. However, under
the amended act, accessory apartments must have a 10 year
deed restriction committing the owner to rent the apartment
at 30% or less of the tenant’s income, and to someone
whose income is less than or equal to 80% of the area, or
the state’s median income, whichever is less.
This
onerous ten year provision greatly reduces the number of homeowners
willing to have their accessory apartments used to help meet
their towns’ affordable housing obligations. HVCEO joins
the Council of Small Towns in supporting legislation to allow
homeowners to use the state formula certifying a unit’s
affordability on a much more practical annual basis.
As now defined in 8-30g, accessory apartments that "count"
must connect by an inside entrance to the main residence.
But this automatically excludes from official recognition
units in outbuildings like garages or renovated barns. This
should be corrected.
Dignified accessory apartment over
garage. Why not now allowed by 8-30g?
In addition, HVCEO supports authorizing any municipality to
offer initial and then continuing property tax credits to
any residential property owner who certifies the creation
of a new accessory apartment and maintains it thereafter,
the unit to meet state standards for affordable rent and maximum
tenant income.
UPGRADE DANBURY BRANCH
RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE
Continue Study of Branch Line. Conn DOT has
initiated a study of passenger service potential and upgrading
options on the Danbury Branch Rail Line from Norwalk through
Danbury to New Milford. This fine Conn DOT effort has its
own rail
study web site.
It will be important for elected leaders to take an interest
in this planning process if we are to get results. Please
be supportive at public
outreach meetings and thereafter.
Existing Danbury Branch Line stations
shown in red, proposed stations in blue.
Please
note that in 2006, the CT General Assembly passed a major
transportation funding bill entitled the "Roadmap for
Connecticut's Economic Future." That legislation included
"priority transportation strategy projects."
Special thanks to the Greater Danbury - New Milford Area's
legislative delegation for including on this important list
"#6 Expanding passenger rail service through Danbury
to New Milford to assist commuter movement on Routes 7 and
I-95."
Upgrade
Centralized Trail Control.
The
existing train control and signal system on the Danbury Branch
Line is an archaic manual system that requires train personnel
to throw rail switches by hand.
The object of the new Centralized Train Control (CTC) system
is to construct a signal system which is compatible with the
mainline system and is centrally controlled, which will allow
safer and closer spacing of trains.”
The
CTC System is the vital prerequisite to upgrading commuter
rail service on the Danbury Branch Line. Safe, high quality
commuter rail service is integral to the goal of building
a balanced transportation system, addressing traffic congestion
and improving air quality.
With the CTC the Danbury Branch will appear on the electronic
‘big board” in the control room at Grand Central
Terminal. The replacement of manual hand switches with electronic
switches will enable controllers to see the position of trains
along the Danbury Branch, the key to enabling denser passenger
rail traffic.
Move
the Danbury Branch into Metro North's
long established electronic train control system
For
twenty years this project has been continually delayed. The
bright spot was in
1999 when the late Senator Adela Eads as Republican Leader
in the Senate lobbied on behalf of this project. She obtained
a commitment from the Conn DOT Commissioner that construction
would commence in 2001.
OPEN
SPACE PURCHASE PRIORITY FOR
VAUGHN'S NECK AND BOGUS FARM IN BETHEL
The first priority is purchase of the Vaughn’s Neck
/ Candlewood Mountain area. This is 710 acres in
New Fairfield and New Milford and the largest contiguous track
of Northeast Utilities property on Candlewood Lake.
If the property were to be developed, then the recreational
and aesthetic quality of Candlewood Lake would be greatly
reduced, affecting property values as well as the enjoyment
of thousands throughout this Region and far beyond. Through
a voluntary agreement, CL&P will provide public agencies
and land trusts with the right of first refusal if this key
property is ever put up for sale. That helps, but the money
must be there.
Vaughn's Neck in Candlewood Lake
Also, water quality of one of Connecticut’s premier
inland water resources could be impaired. Important wildlife
habit would be threatened, as well as one of Connecticut’s
important fisheries. The state needs to fund a conservation
restriction for this key property.
The second priority is the Bogus Farm in Bethel.
This pristine 168 acre property would be added to adjacent
Huntington State Park, a regional park straddling the Bethel,
Redding and Newtown border area.
The
key 168 acre Bogus Farm property, shown in red,
is a proposed addition to adjacent Huntington State Park
The HVCEO Regional Plan includes the entirety of the Bogus
Farm within the limited Remote Area designation for southeastern
Bethel and the purchase is thus a defining policy to contain
sprawl in this part of the Greater Danbury metropolitan area.
FEDERAL ISSUE: OPPOSE
FAA AIRSPACE REDESIGN
On 9/5/2007 the Federal Aviation Administration issued a “Final
Decision and Order” for its plan to redesign airspace
in Greater New York, in their view to enhance efficiency for
the air traffic control system.
Impacts
will include increased jet noise as incoming flights to La
Guardia are rerouted from the Hudson Valley in New York State
to Fairfield and Litchfield Counties in Connecticut.
Details and an overview of the opposition strategy are at
the Alliance
for Sensible Airspace Planning web site.
Some background:
--- The greatest increase in noise in our area is forecast
to occur along a generally north – south band stretching
from Brookfield and Danbury through Redding and Ridgefield
to New Canaan and Stamford. Yet the new flight pattern over
Connecticut will enable air traffic controllers to legally
and quickly move the north – south flight path fifteen
miles east or west, so all of Fairfield County and southern
Litchfield County will be impacted.
--- The results of what is essentially a move towards higher
airline profits will be negative in terms of quality of community
life in western Connecticut. Southbound jets approaching La
Guardia will be at 8,000 feet over Ridgefield, 5,800 over
New Canaan and then 3,000 feet at the Long Island Sound coastline.
The FAA decision has not adequately considered noise, drop
in real estate values and other issues and is being aggressively
appealed.
Under
the proposed plan jets approaching La Guardia
will descend over Connecticut rather than New York State
--- As the minimum distance between jets is also to be reduced
and general aviation will also have a lesser ceiling to operate,
crash risks over Connecticut will likely escalate.
--- With effort the unfavorable FAA decision can be reversed.
A coalition of towns including New Canaan, Ridgefield and
Redding is fighting to win and has engaged legal and political
skills to participate effectively. The firm of McDermott Will
& Emery LLP has been engaged and other specialized services
groups are also being contracted.
This group of municipalities, formally known as the “Alliance
For Sensible Airspace Planning” currently includes the
Housatonic Valley Region’s Redding and Ridgefield, then
from the South Western Region Darien, Greenwich, New Canaan,
Norwalk, Stamford, Weston, Wilton and Westport (that entire
planning region) and also Pound Ridge, NY. A “win”
will be in the form of a circuit appellate court sending the
drat decision back for revision.
The Housatonic Valley’s remaining eight municipalities
are invited to join the current eleven to protect their interests.
FEDERAL ISSUE: OPPOSE CHANGES TO
FEDERAL TRIBAL RECOGNITION CRITERIA
On 10/18/2008 Danbury and HVCEO submitted
formal written testimony in Washington D.C. in
opposition to HR 2837. While first formulated back in June,
this draft legislation seemed dormant until it suddenly was
scheduled for a hearing, thus the need for this fast action.
The testimony identified four major concerns with the proposed
legislation; weakened criteria for tribal recognition, a pro-petitioner
bias in the composition of a new commission charged with the
recognition process, insufficient procedural rights for interested
parties, and the reopening of past final decisions.
Not yet an issue we can put behind
us?
The testimony conveyed the view that the solution to the Indian
tribal federal recognition process is not to create a new
federal bureaucracy that will negatively impact neighboring
communities’ participation in the process. Also, that
H. R. 2837 virtually shuts off participation from interested
parties like Danbury, HVCEO and the State of Connecticut.
The proposed legislation would likely allow groups such as
the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, who were denied acknowledgment
in the past, to reopen their rejected petitions. Local and
state leaders must remain vigilant on this issue.
|
