2009
SESSION ISSUES SUMMARY
--- SUPPORT
HRRA ON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
---
STABILIZE REAL ESTATE CONVEYANCE TAX RECEIPTS
---
AVOID CUTS TO MUNICIPAL AID
---
REGIONAL TRAINING FOR FIRE PREPAREDNESS
---
LIMIT THE SPREAD OF TICK BORNE DISEASES
---
UPGRADE RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE
---
PURCHASE VAUGHN'S NECK IN CALDLEWOOD LAKE
---
OPPOSE FAA AIRSPACE REDESIGN
--- STOP DETRIMENTAL CT DPH MASS DISPENSING AREA RECONFIGURATION
---
MODIFY 8-30G AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONING OVERRIDE
SUPPORT
HRRA ON
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Please
support the Housatonic
Resources Recovery Authority in passing its 2009
Legislative Agenda:
1.
Automatic Renewal Contracts – HRRA supports improved
consumer protection for automatically renewing MSW collection
contract if recommended in the 2009 legislative session.
--- Most customers are still not aware of the auto renewal
clauses in their contracts.
--- Auto renewing contracts limit competition in MSW collection,
increasing costs for customers.
2.
Resource Recovery Facility Ownership – HRRA will closely
follow and provide input to the Program Review and Investigation
Committee’s study of Resource Recovery Facility ownership.
The key issue for HRRA is competition.
--- All aspects of the solid waste system in the State for
which there is little or no competition should be under public
ownership, including transfer stations.
3.
Funding for White Street Transfer Station Bid and Purchase
Process – The estimated cost to prepare a bid to compete
with the private sector in the federal government’s
auction of the White Street transfer station is $500,000 or
more for legal, solid waste consultant, financial advisor,
and appraisal services.
HRRA requests state funding to at least partially cover the
cost of these services for the bid preparation.
--- Since there is no or little competition for solid waste
transfer services in the region, it is crucial that the White
Street transfer station be publicly owned and operated in
the public interest.
--- The federal government has determined that HRRA or other
public entities wishing to purchase the transfer station will
have to compete in the auction process in the spring of 2009
with all other private sector bidders.
4.
MSW Tip Fees Set by DPUC – HRRA opposes any proposal
that would require municipal solid waste (MSW) tip fees to
be set by the DPUC.
--- MSW tip fees should be determined by the market, not government
regulation.
--- HRRA has a contracted tip fee with Wheelabrator Connecticut,
Inc. through 2019 with which the State should not interfere.
--- HRRA would be unable to afford representation in the DPUC
rate setting process.
--- DPUC is already overburdened and does not have the best
track record for protecting consumers and municipalities from
utility increases through regulatory fee setting.
5.
Licensing of Solid Waste Haulers – HRRA opposes all
prior proposals from the Governor and the Attorney General
to license solid waste haulers through a New York/New Jersey
type system.
--- 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.
6.
Improvements and Funding for Recycling– HRRA supports
proposals that would improve recycling and providing funding
to municipalities and/or regions to improve recycling.
--- State support for reaching the 58% SW diversion goal is
woefully lacking.
7.
Bottle Bill – HRRA opposes the expansion of the bottle
bill.
--- Curbside recycling of plastic water bottles and other
recyclables beverage containers results in a smaller carbon
footprint than recycling those containers through a deposit
program.
--- Unclaimed bottle deposits (escheats) are not returned
to the State to support local recycling programs.
--- Revenue from the sale of plastic, aluminum and other recyclable
bottles is needed to support the development of improved curbside
recycling infrastructure.
--- Consumers and grocery store operators will be unnecessarily
inconvenienced and will pay more for beverages in return bottles.
STABILIZE
REAL ESTATE
CONVEYANCE TAX
RECEIPTS
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 then to 7/1/2010.
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 most 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 is the primary wealth of
the state, the mainstay of local taxation, and as such a conveyance
tax is in fact broad based.
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.
REGIONAL
TRAINING
FOR FIRE PREPAREDNESS
There
are nine designated “State Regional Fire School”
training facilities in Connecticut, but none near our area
(Torrington, Waterbury, Fairfield).
The City of Danbury is seeking such a designation for its
Plumtrees Road training facility from the Legislature. Surrounding
municipalities are already using the Danbury training facility.
There is an obvious mutual advantage for area fire departments
to work together. Danbury’s policy is to expand such
regional cooperation after the state designation of regional
training facility is obtained.
HVCEO is in full support of the state designation and supports
enhanced cooperation between fire departments.
Danbury Airport hanger fire in 2007
News Times photo
A regional
training facility would allow all the fire departments in
the area to have a better working relationship. Danbury Fire
Chief Geoff Herald has stated that this on-going cooperation
will save each municipality both time and money.
Some practical advantages of the state designation are that
state grants for capital improvements and training programs
may be received, and state training teams are more available
for visits to our area.
LIMIT THE SPREAD OF TICK BORNE DISEASES
During
the 2008 session HVCEO supported Bill No. 5852, An Act Concerning
the Control of Lyme Disease, the text of which reads:
The
Commissioner of Environmental Protection, in consultation
with the Commissioner of Public Health, shall develop a comprehensive
program to reduce the incidence of Lyme Disease in the state.
The program shall include, but not be limited to, maintaining
deer populations at manageable levels, increasing public awareness
o the causes and prevention of Lyme Disease, and assistance
to municipalities in high Lyme Disease incidence areas.
A key
dilemma is that 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), while
DEP regards health education as the province of DPH.
Given the severe public health challenge of Lyme and other
tick borne diseases a well coordinated state strategy is needed.
Incidence
of Lyme cases: its our problem
HVCEO
is serving as the fiduciary for the Fairfield
County Municipal Deer Management Alliance. It
is also administering a regional Tick Borne Disease
Prevention Task Force.
UPGRADE RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE
Continue Study of Branch Line. Conn DOT has
initiated Phase II of a study of passenger service potential
on the Danbury Branch Rail Line from Norwalk through Danbury
to New Milford. This 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.
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." Included on this key
list is "#6 Expanding passenger rail service through
Danbury to New Milford to assist commuter movement on Routes
7 and I-95."
Upgrade
Centralized Train Control.
The
existing train control and signal system on the Danbury Branch
Line is an archaic manual system that requires train crews
to throw track switches by hand.
A planned Centralized Train Control (CTC) system will switch
to an electronic signal system compatible with the mainline
system and be centrally controlled, allowing for safer and
closer spacing of trains.”
Move
the Danbury Branch into Metro North's
long established centralized train control system
For
twenty years design of this project has been continually postponed.
At present Conn DOT is awaiting approval by the Bond Commission
of the $2.5 million for starting the design. Please advocate
for this.
PURCHASE
VAUGHN'S NECK IN CANDLEWOOD LAKE
This 710 acres in New Fairfield and New Milford is
the largest contiguous tract 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 beyond.
Vaughn's Neck in Candlewood Lake
Through a voluntary agreement NU will provide public agencies
and land trusts with the right of first refusal if this key
property is ever up for sale. State funding for a conservation
restriction may be the answer for the Region.
OPPOSE FAA AIRSPACE REDESIGN
The Federal Aviation Administration is attempting to redesign
airspace usage in Greater New York, in their view to enhance
efficiency of 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
key concerns:
--- 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.
--- 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 CT Attorney General has
determined that the FAA violated federal law by not fully
considering effects of proposed changes on noise levels, air
quality and the environment. Impacts have been considered
separately rather than cumulatively.
--- The FAA airspace redesign
does not address the most significant root causes of flight
delays. Air traffic control is responsible for only a small
fraction of delays; a more significant contributor is inadequate
runway capacity. Exploration of efforts to reduce flight delays
that does not also explore ways increases in runway runway
capacities is inadequate.
--- Alternative routes over water
and military air space have not been properly considered.
The federal government has no trouble opening such areas for
NYC air traffic on high traffic holiday weekends; use for
more flights should be considered first.
Under
the FAA proposal plan jets approaching
La Guardia will descend over Connecticut's Housatonic
Valley Planning Region rather than adjacent New York State
STOP
DETRIMENTAL CT DPH MASS
DISPENSING AREA RECONFIGURATION
Reconfiguration will diminish voluntary base, level
of commitment and community resilience and is not warranted.
HVCEO mayors and first selectmen support the following 11/4/2008
statement of objection from area health directors to CT DPH
Commissioner Galvin:
Dear Commissioner Galvin:
Since
2004, the Directors of Health in the Housatonic Valley Region
(HVR) have been working with emergency response partners in
our region to advance public health emergency preparedness
and response capacity. HVR jurisdictions include: Bethel,
Bridgewater, Brookfield, Danbury, New Fairfield, New Milford,
Newtown, Redding, Ridgefield and Sherman. This
region was originally designated by CT DPH as Bioterrorism
Planning Region #4.
Over the past 4 years, the HVR Public Health Emergency Planning
Committee (HVR PHEP Committee) has been a leader in developing
plans, policies, and tools for emergency response in such
areas as Resource Typing, Mutual Aid, and Alternative Care
Facilities. These resources have been disseminated as models
for replication both within DEMHS Region 5 and the entire
state.
In
DEMHS Region 5, HVR representatives provide leadership in
the ESF8 Subcommittee and its workgroups. The commitment of
local health departments within the HVR to emergency planning
and response and the results of our efforts warrant an open
dialogue with DPH as we cooperatively discuss the options
and strategies for mass dispensing area (MDA) reconfiguration,
from both DPH's perspective and our own.
The
HVR Directors of Health have significant concerns about the
preliminary MDA configuration presented to date in meetings
with CT DPH. It is important to note that within Region 5,
only the MDAs in the HVR are impacted by the proposed reconfiguration
- all others within Region 5 have remained intact. Our well
developed infrastructure for mass dispensing operations at
the local level will be compromised with the proposed changes.
The major reason for our success in building public health
emergency response teams within our communities is the development
of a broad and committed volunteer base. This has been fostered
and fully supported by the fact that emergency response begins
(and ends) 'locally".
Key
alliances have been formed across response disciplines in
our communities, often without any financial incentive. In
large part this is due to the support of the chief elected
officials in the HVR, who remain vested in the MDA configuration
that is in place.
We are convinced that changing the current MDA configuration
will diminish our volunteer base, level of commitment, and
ultimately community resilience - the cornerstone of effective
emergency preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery.
The
projected reductions in public health preparedness funding
should not drive the reconfiguration, but rather any changes
should be based on needs identified at the local level
to improve the effectiveness of delivery of countermeasures
in a public health event.
Emergency mass dispensing event
Within
the HVR, we believe the proposed reconfiguration will in fact
impede and complicate mass dispensing efforts due to factors
such as our congested roadways, strong local vs. regional
affiliations, and lack of regional agreements for use of volunteer
personnel and POD facilities. We cannot envision the benefits
of the proposed realignment of MDAs in the HVR.
The reconfiguration also excludes Danbury as a major city
in the state of Connecticut requiring its own MDA. It is important
to us, as a cohesive regional planning committee, to support
the recognition of Danbury as a city with population estimated
to be over 100,000 persons when its undocumented residents
are included.
In
addition, nearly a third of Danbury's population speaks a
language other than English at home. From 1990 to 2000, Danbury's
Hispanic/Latino population increased by 145% and the Asian
population increased by 72%. The minority population in the
Danbury Public Schools is nearly 47%. Danbury is also home
to (2) residential campuses of Western Connecticut State University
with over 6,000 students and to the U.S. Federal Correctional
Institution with over 1,000 inmates.
Due
to these unique socioeconomic characteristics, we feel strongly
that the City of Danbury must maintain its status as a distinct
MDA to best serve the mass dispensing needs of its residents
in an emergency.
The
directors of health in the HVR appreciate the opportunity
for additional dialogue on this issue. We are optimistic that
we will reach agreement on a MDA configuration that meets
the needs of DPH as well as our planning region.
If
you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (203)
270-4291.
Sincerely,
- Donna M. Culbert, MPH, PE, RS
Director of Health, Newtown Health District
Chairperson,
Housatonic Valley Region Public Health Emergency Planning
Committee
MODIFY
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 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 local 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
EXEMPT
STATE DEFINED EXISTING AND
POTENTIAL WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS
Concerning
the ability of 8-30g to induce increased density in the Housatonic
Valley Region’s existing and potential water supply
watersheds, CT DEP has long supported a maximum density of
one dwelling unit per two acres in such areas to provide adequate
protection of water quality.
The Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut
also recommends a low density role for such sensitive watersheds.
Just as a municipality’s
industrially zoned land is exempt from 8-30g
override, its state-defined water supply watershed land should
also be exempted. For appeals filed within Connecticut's CT
DEP recognized water supply watersheds, allows state courts
to take into consideration for their rulings density recommendations
for watersheds found in the
Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut.
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. We need
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.
This dignified accessory apartment over a
garage meets all codes. Why not counted 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.
|
