1. EMERGENCY PLANNING, SECURITY AND
COOPERATION IN AN ERA OF INTENTIONAL,
RATHER THAN ACCIDENTAL, EMERGENCIES:
Discussion of preparedness and security upgrades locally, state-local aspects of new security planning, special compensation to victims families, etc.
2. STATE BUDGET CUTS SHOULD NOT BE AT
THE EXPENSE OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES
AND HIGHER LOCAL PROPERTY TAX RATES:
State cutbacks to towns and cities are just a shift from the state level to the local level. Better strategies are to freeze all state tax cuts scheduled to take effect between 1/1/2002 and 7/1/2003 ($50 million). Also, consider raising some state taxes such as on cigarettes to be more in line with regional averages. An additional twenty five cents on a pack of cigarettes raises $58 million per year, still lower than MA, RI and NY. 3. IMPROVE THE EDUCATION
COST SHARING GRANT FORMULA:
No one is pleased with the ECS formula. Revise it to make it more acceptable to our area. 4. DEFLECT THE IMPACT OF A POSSIBLE CASINO
LOCATING HERE DUE TO TRIBAL RECOGNITION:
If local zoning is superseded at the north end of the Region by federal recognition of the Schaghticoke Tribe, homeowners in New Milford, Sherman and Kent could be adversely impacted. On a larger scale, if a casino is sited anywhere in the Region there would be large negative impacts on traffic capacity and upon quality of life.
Part of the solution may be federal legislation to prevent the "portability" of the reservations' exemption from local zoning.
What are strategies for the Housatonic Region's elected leaders to work together for common cause on this issue? 5. WORK TOGETHER TO
UPGRADE INTERSECTIONS ON I-84:
In October of 2000 Conn DOT completed a $750,000 study of I-84 deficiencies in Danbury, Bethel and Newtown. Such a blueprint is the required first step towards upgrading this vital roadway. The total cost by phase is as follows:
$ 10,875,000 for I-84 PHASE 1: HIGHEST PRIORITY SMALL SCALE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS.
$ 10,840,000 for I-84 PHASE 2: REMAINING SMALL SCALE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS.
$ 83,180,000 for I-84 PHASE 3: MAJOR CAPACITY ADDITIONS AT INTERCHANGES.
$163,190,000 for I-84 PHASE 4: ADDITION OF THRU LANES TO THE MAIN LINE.
$ 268,085,000
Phase 1 itself has sub-components and priorities. These details are necessary here as coordinated lobbying will be most effective if on a project by project basis:
I-84 PHASE 1 FIRST PRIORITY:
DANBURY EXIT 5: EXTEND WESTBOUND OFF RAMP, $1,000,000.
DANBURY EXIT 5: EXTEND EASTBOUND OFF RAMP, $1,500,000.
DANBURY EXIT 6: WIDEN WB OFF RAMP TO 2 LANES, WIDEN RT 37 TO 5 LANES, ADD SIGNAL, $300,000. FUNDED
DANBURY EXIT 6: EXTEND WESTBOUND OFF RAMP, $500,000. FUNDED
DANBURY EXIT 6: EXTEND EASTBOUND ON RAMP, $1,500,000. FUNDED TOTAL: $4,800,000.
I-84 PHASE 1 SECOND PRIORITY:
DANBURY EXIT 8: EXTEND EASTBOUND ON RAMP, $230,000.
NEWTOWN EXIT 9: REDESIGN ISLANDS AT RAMP TERMINI AND SIGNALIZE EASTBOUND, $100,000.
NEWTOWN EXIT 9: EXTEND WESTBOUND OFF RAMP $1,100,000.
NEWTOWN EXIT 9: EXTEND WESTBOUND ON RAMP, $1,000,000.
NEWTOWN EXIT 9: ADD EASTBOUND LEFT TURN LANE TO RTS 6 & 25 INTERSECTION, $225,000.
NEWTOWN EXIT 11: LIGHTED SPEED REDUCTION SIGNS BEFORE WASSERMAN WAY, $70,000.
NEWTOWN EXIT 11: NEW ON RAMP FROM TODDY HILL ROAD & RT 34 INTERSECTION, $1,500,000. TOTAL $4,225,000.
I-84 PHASE 1 THIRD PRIORITY:
DANBURY EXIT 2: EXTEND WESTBOUND ON RAMP, $500,000.
DANBURY EXIT 2: EASTBOUND SIGNAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO REST AREA AND LOCAL ROADS, $100,000.
DANBURY EXIT 2: EXTEND EASTBOUND OFF RAMP, $500,000.
DANBURY EXIT 4: EXTEND EASTBOUND ON RAMP, $750,000. TOTAL: $1,850,000.
The logical first legislative step, vigorous support for the Phase 1 package above by the legislative delegation, was rapid and well organized. In February of 2001 a joint letter to legislative leaders and Conn DOT urged attention to and priority for Phase 1 I-84 needs.
There were 16 separate signatories, our entire legislative delegation: Senators Cappiello, Freedman, McKinney, Roraback and DeLuca, Representatives Boughton, Carson, Chapin, Frey, Godfrey, OäNeill, Scribner, Shea, Stripp, Wallace and Wasserman.
This support has influenced the progress to date:
÷ In June of 2001 Conn DOT funded Project 34-H051 at $500,000 for an engineering consultant to complete the design for the small projects listed above in all three subsections of I-84 Phase 1. This officially "opens the door" to project funding.
÷ Congressman James Maloney of Danbury announced on 7/10/2001 that federal funding of $2.3 million has been secured from a House Transportation Appropriations bill for funding for all of the specific Danbury Exit 6 improvements listed above. But the state match of $575,000 (20% to this 80% of costs) is still needed.
÷ Transportation Investment Area Boardsâ reports to the new Transportation Strategy Board will not block the prioritized projects above. If the TSB agrees then these I-84 improvements have a policy clearance for funding.
Can legislators work to direct additional state funds towards the other I-84's needs listed above? While the new Transportation Strategy Board is now setting priorities, we still need to make strong legislative proposals for them to prioritize, not be silent and assume they are our champion.
6. ISSUES TO BE RAISED BY THE HOUSATONIC VALLEY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP (HVEDP)
The HVEDP is a public-private partnership established by the General Assembly to oversee development and implementation of a strategic economic development plan for the Housatonic Valley Region. HVEDP will present issues at the meeting with legislators. One of these is below:
The State of Connecticut provides manufacturers with a 100% exemption from local property tax on some machinery and equipment. CGS 12-94b then provides municipalities the reimbursement for the lost local tax revenue that results from this state tax break.
But in 2001 the State reduced the amount of reimbursement to municipalities from 100% to 80%. The reduction in the reimbursements applies to machinery and equipment first approved for exemption on or after 10/1/2001. This is not fair, as it places a burden on municipalities in the form of an unfunded mandate that requires towns to provide the exemption while absorbing shortfall in reimbursement revenue. 7. EXPAND DANBURY-BREWSTER COMMUTER
SHUTTLE BUS AND INITIATE RIDGEFIELD
TO KATONAH, NY SHUTTLE BUS:
Funding for this project was $500,000 in the draft Transportation Strategy Board bill. The Danbury- Brewster Shuttle would be expanded and the Ridgefield-Katonah Shuttle started. The final bill kept this project but dropped all funding earmarks. The TIA Plans submitted to the Strategy Board give priority to transit services. Legislative support is needed.
By way of background, the Danbury-Brewster Shuttle already accounts for 5% of inbound riders to Grand Central on some trains. There have been large ridership increases on the Danbury-Brewster interstate route, with an average of 63 riders per day in FY99, then 98 and 130 riders respectively in the following two years. This service is operated by the Housatonic Area Regional Transit district (HART).
The proposal is to expand peak periods and for the first time provide connectivity midday. To date, the New York State DOT has paid all costs, Conn DOT nothing, with Conn DOT proposed to fund the costs of expansion.
As for the proposed Ridgefield-Katonah service, HART buses from Ridgefield would meet four AM peak departures and one arrival, and in the PM meet six arrivals and one departure. Metro North would provide a guaranteed ride home program for Uniticket holders. The annual cost is $245,000. The New York State DOT has pledged $156,000, with Connecticut asked to fund the remainder, a fair deal.
The message thus far is that the viability of this transit link is recognized on the New York side of the border, how about here? 8. UPGRADE RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE TO
DANBURY AND EXTEND SERVICE TO NEW
"DANBURY NORTH" STATION AND NEW MILFORD:
The Branch Line is a great asset, but underutilized. Enhanced north-south commuter rail service must be a cornerstone of our transportation system to help assure future prosperity. In 2000 HVCEO, and its companion agency to the south SWRPA, completed a phased rail service expansion outlining technical details and feasibility. Now we must convince the Transportation Strategy Board to approve and fund the upgrade.
Early in 2001 area legislators took the lead by filing HB 6298, an Act Extending Rail Service on the Danbury Line. This legislation was introduced by Representatives Godfrey, Wallace, Boughton, OâNeill DeLuca and Frey, and by Senators Cappiello and Freedman. This was a great example of solidarity. HVCEO expressed its strong support in writing and at the hearing.
The Strategy Board is now to meter between competing transportation projects. Just because the Strategy Board is in place does not mean we should stop lobbying for our project. To be a player we must still be a vigorous ãcompeting interest.ä Please again submit this legislation.
Also during 2001, Congressman James Maloney secured a federal share of $2,000,000 for an in-depth study of the expansion potential of the Danbury Branch Line. To get a favorable study result it will be necessary for legislators to show interest at the public meetings that will be held for this process during 2002. 9. REPOSITION 1971-2001 CT OPM FUNDING TO
HVCEO AND THE OTHER 14 PLANNING REGIONS:
Connecticut's fifteen regional planning agencies started forming in 1947. All work hard for their municipalities. Their three continuing funding sources are their member municipalities themselves, CT OPM, and federal transportation planning grants thru Conn DOT.
CT OPM has funded HVCEO annually without a break since 1971. For FY2001 this was $624,240, apportioned by formula to the 15 regional planning organizations. This support for general planning and intergovernmental coordination is vital, as most of the funding of the regions is tied just to the issue of transportation.
But in the last hours of the June 2001 budget debate, this long time non-transportation CT OPM funding was transferred to Conn DOT. Conn DOT is now to forward the funds back to CT OPM to distribute as usual. The reason for the odd transfer was to allow Transportation Strategy Board funds from the surplus to pay this cost, although the work would not be transportation related.
Pardon the wording but this was a ãsmoke and mirrorä transfer to give the impression of reducing the overall budget. But in so doing it creates an administrative mess. More importantly, after 30 years of steady if modest state funding, the regions no longer have secure state funding.
The proper location for HVCEOâs annual funding in the state budget is under the line item for the Office of Policy and Management, subheading ãOther Than Payments to Local Governmentsä, the line entitled "Regional Planning Agencies."
Was it really the intent of the General Assembly to weaken the regional agencies? We doubt it. The HVCEO and its sister regions are important intergovernmental nerve centers. Please restore our regular funding. Need documentation of our value? View our impressive service record at www.hvceo.org/local_assistance.htm. 10. MAINTAIN TOWN AID ROAD (TAR) AND LOCAL
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (LOCIP) FUNDING:
These are absolutely vital resources for municipalities. Please insure their preservation and continuation. 11. CONTINUE FUNDING THE DEP
PROGRAM FOR OPEN SPACE PURCHASES:
Repeated annual authorizations are needed. For many years priorities were set by the DEPâs Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). The most recent DEP SCORP is dated 1993 and covers the years 1993-1998. According to the SCORP, due to a variety of growth and other factors "the acquisition of public open space in the Housatonic Valley Planning Region is this SCORP's highest priority among all of the stateâs planning regions."
However, DEP open space acquisition procedures have recently switch to statewide criterial rather than the more political touchy comparison of regions. But the last time they did compare regions, we had the most need. Please retain this funding. 12. ALLOW THE MERGER
OF THE NEW FAIRFIELD AND
SHERMAN PROBATE COURTS:
Rather than two courts and two judges, there would be one. This is an efficiency move by two municipalities closely linked geographically. The combined municipal populations exceed the necessary to sustain such a court.
13. THE REGIONAL BOUNDARY OF
THE HOUSATONIC VALLEY TOURISM
COMMISSION WORKS FINE AS IS:
During 2001 the HVCEO unanimously opposed Raised Bill 1302, entitled ãAn Act Concerning Tourism,ä that would have destroyed the current boundary of our efficient and respected Housatonic Valley Tourism Commission (HVTC). The HVTC is composed of local appointees, serves nine municipalities and is based in Danbury.
Fortunately Raised Bill 1302 did not pass. Thank you for working against passage.
In the failed 2001 effort, our regional tourism planning and promotion was to be managed from another city in a new mega-region of 44 municipalities, each with at least one representative on a huge new mega-board.
The mega-regions proposed had the same boundaries as CT DECDâs substate administrative districts. These districts are proper for efficiency of state agency administration, but were never intended to foster cooperative action by their grouped municipalities. Cooperation stems from common interest.
A revised anti-regional strategy may be attempted this year. Rather than stuff the current regional tourism variety into the DECD mega-districts, a broader if simpler strategy of a ãthere are too many regionsä policy may be attempted. Fortunately, as the Greater Danbury Area has many objective indicators of being a natural metropolitan region, that strategy is less threatening to us.
Our legislators are asked to please take account of these factors as the validity of Connecticutâs tourism boundaries are again discussed:
***** The current tourism district boundary around Greater Danbury nicely reflects the natural patterns of affiliation in Midwestern Connecticut. Our tourism needs are different from Fairfield, Waterbury and Litchfield, and the boundary reflects this.
***** A regional focus for tourism development was provided in the first place because it gave the tourism industry a more localized service entity than a state agency. Removal of staff and public access to another city, savings due to one copy machine rather than two, etc. is not an improvement strategy that will serve Greater Danbury more effectively.
***** There is a recurrent misunderstanding found in the state staffsâ consolidation efforts. When substate districting is proposed for functions that require coordination by the parties within the district, then the district boundaries should be fitted to natural service and interest areas as they exist. State oriented staff do not understand this.
***** Do encourage state agency staff to subdivide their service and administrative activities as they see fit, but not when the communities within the area designated are asked to coordinate with each other and plan common projects together. In these cases, use natural regional groupings, not artificial administrative ones, as well reflected in Greater Danburyâs current tourism boundary.
***** A more broadly bounded tourism district board would make some poor decisions, as members would not be familiar with the tourism issues of the many towns and cities they would now be voting upon. Unnecessary confusion and rivalry develops in an unnatural merger of regions.
***** The municipalities of the Housatonic Valley Region share the same media outlets, economic base, commuter patterns, major institutions, retail economy, council of elected officials, census metropolitan area designation, transit services, tourism and recreational facilities. The Greater Danbury Area is large enough, and important enough to Connecticut, to have its own regional tourism commission, charged with developing and promotion the areasâ unique tourism resources, and to give those resources locally based accountability.
***** There is a distinct difference between how Greater Danbury and neighboring Greater Waterbury, Litchfield Hills, etc. structure their major tourism projects. Rather than large fixed attractions, here much of the focus is on special events that we ourselves create, e.g. the Scrabble Tournament, Housatonic Valley Classic Bike Race, Foxwood Bass Tournament on Candlewood Lake, 9-Ball Pool Tournament, Housatonic Valley River Trail, etc. We have a uniform and unique product noted for its excellence as part of the Regionâs economic development strategy.
***** Does anyone really think that a new mega entity would have the motive to promote the Housatonic Valley as vigorously as we already do ourselves? We want our tourism issues managed from within our own area, with all necessary and appropriate state agency oversight. 14. CONTINUE COOPERATION DURING
UPCOMING FERC RELICENSING OF LAKES
CANDLEWOOD, LILLINONAH AND ZOAR:
Recent action on this issue by area legislators was outstanding. A conservation restriction for Candlewood Lake was negotiated and then signed during April 1999, then funding for its implementation was by DPUC permission distributed into utility bills statewide.
But there is a critical next step, which is to permanently preserve Northeast Utility lands around Lakes Candlewood, Lillinonah and Zoar. The municipalities to benefit are Bridgewater, Brookfield, Danbury, New Fairfield, New Milford, Newtown and Sherman.
This preservation could be partially or fully mandated by upcoming FERC permit conditions, in compensation for the right to use publically owned waters for private profit.
HVCEO testimony on this topic is available at www.hvceo.org/ferc.htm. Please attend upcoming FERC hearings and let HVCEO members and staff know how they may assist you. 15. PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR NU TO SELL
FOR PRESERVATION EXCESS LANDS AROUND
LAKES CANDLEWOOD LILLINONAH AND ZOAR:
NU should sell these lands for open space and not for development. Currently the DPUC requires that if they sell the funds received must be returned to the ratepayers in the form of reduced costs (stranded cost recovery). The alternative is to allow DPUC to allow funds to be used for corporate purposes. This is an incentive to lower the cost of the land when sold for open space. 16. COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS
DURING CONN DOT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY:
Conn DOT road repairs can leave a business without access to its customers for days at a time. How can compensation be created for this impact (Raised by Judy Novachek). 17. PROMOTE GOOD GOVERNMENT
AND INCREASE LOCAL AUTHORITY:
A. Do not shift tax burdens from the state to the municipal level. No new or expanded state mandates upon municipalities, either funded or unfunded. Keep formulas consistent for state funding to municipalities from year to year.
B. Reduce the number of instances in which state agency decisions supersede those of local government.
C. Do not mandate regionalism beyond efforts the municipalities themselves agree to.
D. Oppose state control of land use planning; the community that must live with these permanent decisions is, in a democracy, the natural seat of authority over them!
E. Section 8-30g of the CT General Statutes allows the local plan of development to be overridden for affordable housing. Repeal this law, as the plan of development already by statute must incorporate affordable housing. At a minimum, count as affordable any existing private housing so designated by the 2000 census, rather than just publicly subsidized housing.
F. Restore municipal immunity for injuries on recreational land. Municipalities were immune from such liability until the CT Supreme Court reinterpreted a state statute in 1996.