Thou Shalt Not Tax Us

Elder Willie Johnson had a theological question for the lawmakers who want neighborhood churches like his to start paying for the cost of removing stormwater from their property. ​“My only concern is that God sends the rain,” Johnson (pictured) remarked at a crowded public hearing. ​“And how can we be charged for what God does?”

Aldermen Stephanie Bauer and Matt Smith responded with similarly spiritual questions, with an environmentalist bent: What penalties must people pay for disrupting God’s natural order with pollution and asphalt?

The exchange came at Thursday evening’s meeting of the Board of Aldermen’s ​“committee of the whole.” Aldermen gathered for the second time in this special committee (which includes all 30 members) to discuss a proposal that would create a Stormwater Authority. The new entity would have the power to collect fees from all city property owners to pay for the labor and infrastructure that goes into the removal of stormwater from the city — a proposal aimed at getting revenue from large not-for-profits like Yale to help close the city’s multimillion-dollar budget gap.

The Aldermanic Chamber was flooded with clergy and over 100 parishioners who showed up to speak out strongly against the proposed fee, which would be applied to religious institutions. Pastors spoke of the vital services they provide to the city on tight budgets that, they said, cannot afford a new fee.

The discussion at times ran to metaphysical questions about weather and the will of God.

A number of environmentalists spoke in favor of the proposal. City officials also testified, and were lambasted by aldermen for not having all the answers they were looking for, like how much the average church would expect to pay in stormwater fees.

After four hours of testimony, aldermen voted to table the matter pending further details about the proposal. It’s the second time that’s happened. The committee will eventually vote on whether or not to recommend the proposal for a final vote by the full board.

The Stormwater Authority proposal has proved to be controversial. Proponents say it will be a more equitable way to pay for stormwater removal, which is now funded by property taxes, and will enable a cash-strapped city to derive more revenue from large tax-exempt not-for-profits. Environmentalists applauded the fact that it would create an incentive for property owners to mitigate runoff, which is often polluted. Opponents say that the authority will amount to nothing more than a new tax on homeowners.

Planners of the authority say the average homeowners annual fee would by $40 or $50. That fee could be reduced by property owners’ efforts to mitigate run-off. See background on the proposal here.

Aldermen have drafted a number of amendments to the proposal, none of which was introduced at Thursday’s meeting. West Rock Alderman Darnell Goldson, who led a failed charge to kill the plan last month, has seven amendments on tap. East Rock Alderman Justin Elicker has one.

Goldson’s amendments would require that a homeowner’s city property taxes decrease by an amount equivalent to the new fee, that mitigation efforts could reduce the fee to zero, that the Board of Aldermen appoint four of the seven members of the authority’s board, that an appeals board be established, that no property be exempt from fees, and that a two-thirds aldermanic majority vote be required for the raising of fees.

Click here to read those proposed amendments and a list of aldermanic questions.

Edgewood Alderman Marcus Paca has put forward a proposal that would create a program granting rebates to low-income homeowners and ​“organizations serving a public function,” like churches and charitable organizations. See details about that here. That plan was mentioned several times Thursday evening, but not voted on.

Stormwater Theology

Aldermen heard from a number of clergy members at Thursday’s meeting, all of whom spoke of how strapped they are for money, and what valuable service work they do with the neediest people. (See 6:09 p.m., for example, below.) Churches save the city money by performing needed social services, pastors argued.

Just past 7 p.m., Elder Willie Johnson testified on behalf of St. Matthew’s Church. He said the church is celebrating 93 years of helping people.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” he began. 

“If you have a no trespassing sign on your yard, can you control the wind?” he asked. You cannot, he answered.

Cities act in vain to try to predict the cost of acts of God, like snowfall, he said. Snow removal budgets are frequently exceeded by unforeseen snowfall, he said.

“How can something like this be passed for an act of God?” Johnson asked. ​“How can we be penalized as a people for what God does?”

Fair Haven Alderwoman Bauer offered a question in response: ​“What penalties do we face for what we’ve released on God’s earth?”

“The penalties we face are on our own conscience, but when the rain falls from the air, we don’t control that,” Johnson replied.

But people do control building and buying cars and working on those cars in the street, Bauer said. Oil and pollution in the street are swept into the Long Island Sound by stormwater.

“But it is God who is sending the rain. God does not send each of us to the Department of Motor Vehicles to buy a car,” Johnson persisted.

Board President Alderman Carl Goldfield cut off the conversation there, arguing that it was getting too ​“philosophical.” But East Rock Alderman Matt Smith picked up the thread.

God may have created the Earth, he said. But humans created the ​“impervious surface” that interrupts the ​“natural order” and causes stormwater run off to be a problem, he said. ​“How do we address that?”

“My only concern is for God sends the rain. And how can we be charged for what God does?” Johnson replied.

Alderman Goldson offered an answer to that question: You already are charged, through the property taxes that currently pay for stormwater removal.

The Independent reported live from City Hall as the meeting unfolded. Scroll down for the blow-by-blow.

Some discussion highlights from the live blog below:
• 6:32 p.m.: Bond analyst James Alexander speaks in favor of the proposal and elucidates the difference between a tax and a fee.
• 6:57: Yale student and environmentalist Brian Tang speaks about pollution in the Long Island Sound, which he says will be mitigated by an authority.
• 7:17: Gary Doyens counters that claim citing his experience living in a small community in Florida.
• 7:25: Water cleanliness expert Gaboury Benoit says stormwater costs will only increase. Paying those costs with a fee is more equitable than a tax, he says.
• 7:59: CAO Smuts and other city officials begin a lengthy discussion of the ongoing $500 million sewer separation project in the city, $94 million of which will be paid as part of stormwater costs over the next 15 or 20 years.
• 9:25: Alderman Blango says he needs more information so that he can avoid the label of ​“rubber stamp” to the mayor.

Live Blog

5:57 p.m.: There’s quite crowd here in the chamber. Most of the seats in the gallery are occupied, with probably over 100 people in attendance. Aldermen are around. Six of them are seated at the table at the front of the chamber.

6:00: Board President Alderman Carl Goldfield is calling the meeting to order by reading the notice for this meeting.

6:03: Goldfield: ​“Welcome to spring and Happy St. Patrick’s Day.” [Goldfield is wearing a green v‑neck sweater.] There are a lot of people here. Limit your testimony to three minutes, please. Public testimony will come first, then city testimony.

6:04: Aldermen introduce themselves. Eighteen of them are seated at the table, with more elsewhere the chamber.

6:05: The first to speak is Alan Felder, toting a sign that reads, ​“Slavery Is Not A Cost Saving Method.” He says: I can’t believe we are still here talking about this. ​“You guys are obsessed with the sport of politics.” ​“Tree huggers … are saying black men are sub-human.” ​“You need to stop playing with the lives of people.” ​“Why don’t you be the first to re-institute slavery?” The authority will have a bad effect on agencies working to help black men. We need to do away with the gasoline engine.

No questions for Mr. Felder.

6:09: Next up are ​“the concerned pastors,” according to Goldfield. Pastors Todd Foster and Joel Diaz.

Diaz says, through a translator: I’m the president of all the Spanish pastors of the association of Hispanic ministers in New Haven. [He asks people from churches to stand. Many do, and applaud.] We’re against this proposal. ​“This is a proposal that is completely unjust,” to impose taxes on non-profit and for-profit organizations. Members already pay plenty through taxes on their homes. You’re penalizing us. ​“We are contributing not only emotionally but we’re also contributing spiritually and financially to this city.” That’s through shelters, rehabilitation programs, services for inmates, young people, children, and food and clothing assistance, transportation, medical help, conferences, support for marriages and victims of domestic violence. This proposal will limit our resources. To put more charges on organizations trying to help, ​“we see that it’s unjust. And we’re asking respectfully … that you would reconsider the analysis of this project.” ​“It’s not favorable.” ​“Thank you, good evening, and God bless.”

Foster, from Church on the Rock: I represent the other pastors here. I’m paying taxes both as a church and as a property owner. ​“We are not against efforts to enhance the economic viability of the city.” But against the stormwater proposal. [Presents a letter signed by several pastors.]

Downtown Alderwoman Bitsie Clark: What if we could exempt small non-profits?

Foster: We’re not a small non-profit. We have over a $250,000 budget. So I would have a problem with that.

Clark: My concern is all of us are paying for the huge amounts of stormwater coming off all school parking lots, city lots, Yale lots, hospital lots. I’m terribly upset for paying for those gallons of water.

Foster: I agree that all costs need to be paid for. But charging people who provide social services, who do good in the city, prohibits us from doing that good. [Applause.]

Goldson: Your church pays property taxes?

Foster: Yes, because we have rental property.

Goldson: Do other churches pay taxes?

Foster: If they have rental property.

Goldson: So that undercuts the argument that churches are not paying their share.

Foster: It does. … We have boys and girls mentoring programs. We house the homeless, not to mention the myriad needs that come through my door. … Last year we stripped our budget to the bone, cut salaries, including mine. [Applause.]

Goldson: Thank you very much.

Goldfield: Please, no more applause. It’s slowing us down.

Elicker: Pastor Foster, I’m a big fan of the work that you do. Two years ago, I sat down with you and talked about what your church could do environmentally. You came up with putting a garden on the roof, to teach parishioners how to be green. Stick around tonight; there are a lot of environmental benefits to this bill. Listen in.

Foster: Thank you.

6:28:Even more people have arrived. It’s standing room only in here, with people lining the walls.

Rev. Bonita Grubbs is next, represented by Lillian Marquez. She submits written testimony on behalf of Rev. Grubbs and Christian Community Action. The letter: ​“Simply, I am not in favor of it.” Times are financially challenging, yes. CCA has helped families move into housing and provide food to hundreds of hungry families. It’s a challenge to meet payroll and cover expenses. Paying a stormwater fee would compromise our efforts to help families. CCA ​“does not have the funds in any amount to pay for that which amounts to a tax.” Reconsider this proposal.

6:32: James Alexander of Edgehill Road is next. He says: I’m a bond analyst. I’m in favor of this. The costs of removing stormwater will increase significantly in the future given federal and state requirements. User fees are more equitable than taxes. They can also be adjusted for people with lower incomes. Creating a full authority and not just an enterprise fund [as the current proposal states] would be better. … Pension costs will only increase. ​“User fees are a useful way to keep the government going.”

Goldson: How do you define a user fee as opposed to a tax?

Alexander: This is very close to a tax. A user fee corresponds to your plausible use of the service. A tax has no such correspondence.

Goldson: The Supreme Court said a fee ​“is incident to a voluntary act.” ​“Are we volunteering to use rainwater?”

Alexander: I would respectfully differ with that court.

Goldson: Fees could go up. They have gone up 22 percent in another state. Would that bother you?

Alexander: I wouldn’t mind. I assume that aldermen would have a say in raising fees. If not, they should.

Goldson: Not if it’s a regional authority.

Alexander: It all depends if the aldermen have voting power. Total loss of control would be a real issue.

Alderman Jorge Perez: I agree with your logic when it’s truly a user fee. The water authority: I drink water. The sewer: I use the bathroom. ​“God produces rainwater.”

Alexander: The actual fees are not related to inches of rainfall. The fees are related to how much impermeable surface you have, which is in control.

Perez: But we also pay for city streets.

Alexander: But it’s a ratio …

Perez: But you’ll still pay a flat fee for the common areas.

Alexander: You’re saying an individual should pay for the total of their actual use. … But it’s all part of a system. … Costs are aising because of pensions; something will have to give.

Alderman Greg Morehead: ​“I’m just a little upset at something that you said.” You said that you have a little bit more money than other people. Most of our constituency is made up of Latinos and African Americans.

Alexander: I understand. If it were 50 bucks, then a 220 percent increase, that wouldn’t bother me. If I thought the money was going to a good cause, like to help the environment, I would say geez, OK, and pay the money. But keep an eye to see that there is not a big ​“superstructure” being built. To maintain the level of government we have had is going to require sacrifices. User fees are in general better and represent a closer correlation of the costs which places like Yale and Yale-New Haven force on the rest of us. … I wouldn’t be upset as long as it’s real costs and not politics.

Morehead: Are we federally mandated now to do this?

Alexander: Others can give a much better history of the application of the Clean Water Act. As opposed to environmentalists, I wouldn’t go beyond what we’re required to do. But if we’re forced to do things, we need to respond.

Goldson: Not to belabor a point, I want to disagree. In terms of building a superstructure, this always happens. It’s not going to stop with a $50 fee. … We just laid off 83 employees; the salary earners at the top weren’t touched!

Alexander: As to your first point, my assumption is that the Board of Aldermen would be ​“able to arrest this snowball.” You would have control. … I’m counting on you, the board, to keep an eye on all this. … The problem is a lack of growth in the grand list.

6:55: Goldfield: Assuming we have these stormwater costs, with no user fee, how do we pay?

Alexander: Through taxes. If huge consent decrees come down, and I hope they won’t, costs will go up.

6:57: Brian Tang is next up. He says: I would like to see a reasonably clean Long Island Sound some time in my lifetime. The Sound is polluted. In 2009 81 percent of Connecticut beach closing were the result of stormwater runoff. The vast majority of pollution in the Sound is from runoff. We need to do something about the pollution that’s being picked up by run off. It happens as a result of very large parking lots. I come from the Pacific Northwest, where it’s inconceivable to put in a big lot without mitigating infrastructure. I think it’s appalling that this has come down to social services or the church versus the environment. The whole city needs to be involved in this effort.

Goldson: We all want a clean Long Island Sound. How many towns abut the Sound?

Tang: I don’t know. Two dozen?

Goldson: How many states?

Tang: New York. Maybe Rhode Island. We certainly need to do our part.

Goldson: But we shouldn’t be the only ones. … How much would authority reduce pollution?

Tang: It would reduce our share.

Goldson: How low would beach closings drop with an authority?

Tang: What’s really going to reduce pollution is environmental regulations.

Goldson: So authority won’t save the Sound, will it?

Tang: It will, because it will help us to meet regulations.

Alderwoman Migdalia Castro: You said it’s between social and environmental. The previous speaker mentioned sacrifice. With the information being put out here, it’s about survival. … Don’t you think that we have to look at those being affected directly. It’s not sacrifice for them; it’s survival. They don’t have the money to pay. People won’t be healthy if they have less food on tables.

Tang: My opinion is that the proposed system, paying for you contribution, is a lot fairer than the alternatives. … Putting it all on property taxes would create even more of an impact on people. It’s more fair to pay based on your contribution to the problem. ​“We do need to consider what is in the best interests of the worst off.”

Elicker: I want to thank you and everyone else for coming.

Alderman Greg Dildine: Where did you find all your information about the proposal?

Tang: I read about it in the New Haven Independent.

Alderman Claudette Robinson Thorpe: Will this affect you personally?

Tang: I may stick around New Haven. I hope for a clean Long Island Sound sometime in my lifetime.

7:09: Next up is Elder Willie Johnson. He says: I represent St. Mathew’s Church. We’re celebrating our 93rd year; 93 years of volunteering and sacrificing. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. If you have a no trespassing sign on your yard, can you control the wind? The wing will go any direction. We all make budgets, like for snow removal. But how often do we exceed the budget. My question: How can something like this be passed for an act of God against the people of God, the non-profits? ​“How can we be penalized as a people for what God does?”

Alderwoman Stephanie Bauer: What penalties do we face for what we’ve released on God’s earth?

Johnson: The penalties we face are on our own conscience, but when the rain falls from the air, we don’t control that.

Bauer: But we are in control of building cars and working on cars in the street. Part of our responsibility to take care of earth.

Johnson: ​“But it is God who is sending the rain. God does not send each of us to the Department of Motor Vehicles to buy a car.”

Goldfield: I don’t want a philosophical discussion.

Alderman Matt Smith: God created the earth, but we created the impervious surface that interrupts the natural order. How do we address that?

Johnson: My only concern is for God sends the rain. And how can we be charged for what God does.

Smith: God sends the snow, but we pay for its removal.

Johnson: And you set a budget, and how often do you exceed the dollar amount? ​“How can you budget what God does? You cannot.”

Goldson: I’ll tell you the answer. We already pay with our taxes.

7:17: Gary Doyens is up. He says: With deference to environmental concerns, this bill will not clean any catchbasins or pipes or treat one more gallon of water. What it will do is set up a new authority [applause interrupts testimony]. ​“It’s really a financial maneuver. … The whole environmental issue is really a red herring.” One of the ideas is that it will force conversations about mitigating runoff. We ought to be having those conversations now without the cudgel of fees. But, more importantly, ​“I just don’t need another bill.” … I used to live in a town in North Florida, population 7,000. When it rained it would close the bay. That was 25 years ago. It was mostly dirt roads. The problem was the runoff from the swamps. It closed the beaches and shutdown the seafood industry. This idea that this proposal will affect Long Island Sound is incorrect. Runoff happens all over the country and you still have beach closings in rural communities.

Dildine: Are you for paying a disproportionate part of whatever the costs are? I agree that we should try to mitigate the costs, but if there are costs, are you willing to pay a disproportionate burden?

Doyens: I’m not sure I buy the city’s calculations on this. You have to add back in the Pequot money and payments in lieu of taxes.

7:25: Gaboury Benoit is next. He says: I’m here as a water quality professional and a homeowner. I am an expert but not an environmentalist. … Most water pollution today comes from stormwater. It needs to be dealt with to protect local streams and beaches. It’s not something we have choice about. Protecting the environment and people are not separate. People die from poor air and water quality. New Haven does well to treat stormwater, spending in the millions of dollars. This need will increase with time. We’re already paying, the real question is how we want to pay and who should pay. Either through taxes, or with a fee. … We can control the quantity and quality of water that leaves our property. I wrote a book about it. Those are facts. The following are opinions. When it’s paid with taxes, homeowners pay disproportionately. Linking a service to a fee is more equitable than a tax. We can improve things by reducing impervious surface. … ​“The way I see it is to have control over the amount we pay or to leave it to someone else.”

Dildine: Can you compare stormwater management to fire protections services?

Benoit: No.

Goldfield: You are a taxpayer. You would rather pay cost of stormwater disposal through a fee than through taxes?

Benoit: Correct. It’s a matter of proportion. Stormwater is about 1 percent of my taxes. A small shift in that is not significant. … I’m a professor at Yale’s environmental school. I’ve been working in water quality for 20 years.

Goldson: We respect your expertise and that you’re willing to pay a fee. But you said you expect also that the tax will shift to fee.

Benoit: Yes. … I may get a tax bill the same plus a fee the first year, but I expect it will decrease in the future.

7:35: Next, Alberto Salas: I work with a ministry with people with drug problems. I work in the financial end. I know how much just $20 can affect us. Somebody will be out on the street waiting for help, using drugs, doing a crime.

7:37: Next, Patrick Winston: On Chapel Street, there’s no stormdrain ever put in. So why would this stormdrain be part of me?

Clark: When we have a serious rain, do you have gigantic puddles on every corner?

Winston: Yes. Where I live, the whole side of the street floods.

7:38: Pastor Walter William III of Walk of Faith Church: I’m concerned about this additional ​“fee” as it is being called being imposed on non-profit organizations. This is the opening of a door for tax-exempt organizations to now be taxed for other things.

7:40: No further public testimony. A short recess is called.

7:59: Back in session. Administration staffers now to testify. Chief Administrative Officer Rob Smuts, Corporation Counsel Victor Bolden, and Assistant City Engineer Larry Smith take seats, along with three consultants, some from New Jersey.

Smuts: I’m glad we’ve moved away from a property requirement for voting. I think there are some questions about what is federally mandated. We are mandated on many costs but not how we pay for them. We are partnered currently on a consent decree for sewer separation. The city’s share is over $94 million, 20 percent of the total cost. The city is mandated to pay that, over 15 or 20 years. The city has to pay that money one way or the other. It’s our option how we raise it. We also have to pay for stormwater monitoring and street sweeping twice a year for stormwater reasons, plus other potential costs. You’ve heard testimony about environmental impact. We are not currently on a consent decree regarding that. … This proposal is to change how we raise the money we must pay, to switch from something indirect to something explicit. The user fee is for what happens when the water hits our property. There is no fee on undeveloped, natural land. The fee is for properties that have been modified. If it has been modified and still has use even if mitigated, you would still pay some for the use of the roads that comes with a developed parcel. … A fee is more equitable way of doing it. Looking at the simple math, we’re staring down the barrel of $94 million in known costs, a half million in street sweeping annually. We have a way in which residential properties pay 23 percent or 59 percent of the total cost, under fees or a tax, respectively. … There are other things against the proposal. There are pros and cons. Again, these costs will exist. The only change in costs will be the $250,000 in billing and processing. That’s the only additional expenditure. People will be incentivized to mitigate runoff, an environmental benefit.

Bolden: There have been concerns about the impact of an authority on the city’s neediest residents and on the non-profit community, including churches. Could there be some structure to ameliorate that impact? I’ve been working on that. We could have relief for organizations with a public function. The concept now would be focused on low-income people and for certain organizations with budgets smaller than $2 million. We could devise a rebate program to subsidize cost of stormwater fees for these institutions.

Smuts: This is not just about this year but future years. There is justified skepticism about that. But government is a human function and it also gives us a lot of pluses. The Water Pollution Control Authority, for instance, serves the public as best as possible. … And the Board of Aldermen has oversight.

8:12: Morehead: We’re paying 59 percent now, but we’ll be paying another fee, paying an even greater percentage of the cost.

Smuts: No. Residents would go from paying 59 percent to 23 percent.

Morehead: And this will remove the WPCA?

Smuts: No effect on the WPCA.

Goldson: We have consent decree for how much?

Smuts: The city’s share is $94.3 million. It was signed in 2009.

Goldson: It was before the Board of Aldermen.

Smuts: No, it’s an agreement with the WPCA; we’re linked to it because of decisions made 25 years ago to continue to pay 40 percent of the cost of combined sewer operation.

Goldson: How does the WPCA make an agreement for the city?

Robinson Cole consultant: The arrangement had always been for the establishment of a regional authority; 40 percent was to be paid by taxes and 60 percent by sewer use charges. That split continued. … The consent decree came down from the EPA (federal Environmental Protection Agency).

Goldson: We didn’t see it or approve it.

Smuts: Of the total cost of the operation, half is covered by federal funds. Of the remaining half, the city pays 40 percent, which is $94 million. The WPCA pays the 60 percent.

Goldson: When were we told about that? The Board of Aldermen?

Smuts: Those of us at this table or our predecessors knew about it years ago. … Tonight I’m saying we will have additional costs in relation to stormwater…

Goldson: The question is how much was it in 2006? How much is it now? When were we going to be told?

Isabella Schroeder, second consultant: The sewer operation, there was a long term plan created by the city and the WPCA back in the ​‘90s. … The cost of the plan today is total about $500 million. … This has always been out there.

Goldson: We were falling behind so we developed WPCA to catch up…?

Schroeder: No, that was a benefit of the authority.

Goldson: So we’ll do another authority to catch up.

Schroeder: No, you have to pay for the new costs anyway.

Goldson: Was the board ever informed of this sewer plan?

Smith: In 1999. DEP approved it in 2001.

Goldson: So what did we approve in 2006?

Smuts: The regionalization of the WPCA.

Goldson: … There is no runoff from undeveloped properties? I live in West Rock. Many of my residents on Rock Creek Road are continually flooded from runoff from the mountain. How am I supposed to tell them they will pay for runoff from their properties?

Smuts: The city has worked on that runoff. As said before, it’s falling on land as God left it, not modified land.

Goldson: Are you saying that this fee will now and in the future be approved by the Board of Aldermen?

Smuts: Yes.

Goldson: This consulting company you hired had a report. … Is the environment still an important issue? Because the consultant report says the environmental benefits are predicated on regional cooperation.

Smuts: Ultimately, yes, as you said earlier, it will take cooperation to clean up the Sound. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do our part.

8:31: Goldfield: Alderman Al Paolillo, do you want to speak on this? [He’s a WPCA board member.]

Paolillo: It’s always been part of capital projects at WPCA.

Goldfield: So the WPCA passed this consent decree?

Paolillo: Yes.

8:33: Clark: We heard tonight that some streets have no storm drains. Is that correct?

Smith: We have 212 miles of stormdrains. Some isolated spots may not have a catch basin, but every street has some means of drainage.

8:34: Paca: I’d like to talk about the rebate initiative that I asked the administration to look at several months ago during a leadership meeting. … If we do this then I think everybody should pay. However, if we are going to allow exemptions, then we should have some clear guidelines and a framework … to keep this under control. I’ve been in Washington D.C. lobbying for CDBG (Community Development Block Grants) and I met a man with expertise who said stormwater authorities are a good way to stabilize revenue. … Has the human side of this been fully considered? Would you have a viable rebate program for fixed income, elderly? ​“For our most vulnerable citizens, are you willing and would you help draft something that would help those constituents?”

Smuts: The points that you raised are very important to consider, and we’ve worked with you to draw up points that ​“add to the social justice of this proposal.”

Bolden: I’m happy to draft a legally viable rebate program at the wishes of the board.

8:39: Alderman Sergio Rodriguez: I have several people in my road who have had severe flooding in their basements. Will the authority help mitigate that flooding?

Smuts: That is something eligible to spend money on. It would be up to the authority board. This structure would help more easily address those costs.

Rodriguez: It’s 14 homes in my ward.

Smuts: Our proposal does not contemplate that.

Rodriguez: There’s an additional expense with the rebate program.

Smuts: It’s a reduction of revenue, yes.

Rebecca Bombero, from the budget office: We estimate __[I missed it]__ properties eligible for rebates.

Rodriguez: Estimates of bill?

Smuts: $2.9 million in total stormwater costs.

Rodriguez: We’re going to continue to pay the 59 percent… It’s a wash basically.

Smuts: $2.9 million, minus $250,000 would be spent by the authority. Of that $2.6 million, 23 percent would be paid by homeowners.

Rodriguez: Is there an easier way to explain this?

Smuts: Everything else held equal, this results in a mill rate 0.54 higher.

8:46: Dildine: … You said we approved the $94 million project, but did we have any choice?

Smuts: If we hadn’t, feds could have imposed costs and fines.

Dildine and Smuts discuss costs and debt service and projections of future costs.

8:54: Schroeder: State property is almost equal to Yale property in New Haven. State is not exempt from fees.

8:55: Paca: Point of clarification I got from my colleagues down in DC — The state has to pay municipal fees.

8:56: Alderwoman Arlene DePino: Does the federal government help us with no interest loans on big projects like the combined sewer separation?

Schroeder: Yes, 50 percent paid for by a state grant program.

8:57: Elicker: Can you give us an estimate of how much churches would pay if there are no rebates or exemptions? Per institution?

Smuts: We believe of the $2.92 million, 3.5 percent would be from religious institutions. We also calculated an average, but don’t have it with us.

Schroeder: Most of the small non-profits would pay around $50. There’s a very large difference in the size of churches. Some of the larger ones will be several hundred dollars year by year. We can get that information to you.

Elicker: I think there’s a lot of fear because it feels like there are a lot of unknowns. These people come here, they don’t know if it’s $1,000, or $10,000, or what. It would be better to have some sample properties. … If we were to improve an amendment to allow exemptions, would we have to change language of the bill?

Bolden: You should have the rebate program be a separate thing from the authority. It would be better as a separate city-run program.

9:01: Castro: ​“I’m feeling so many different things. Let me just try to use my head.” … I spoke before about the importance of the process. I’m disappointed that a lot of the information is not here. I don’t feel right now that I’m ready for this. A lot of questions are coming in my head. … We don’t have the numbers. I just learned that Hispanics now represent a larger percentage of New Haven’s population. The white population has decreased. … We need to know exactly what we are paying for.

Smuts: More information. This is a two-step process. … This board could pass the creation of the authority and then have nothing for it in the budget. We are nearing the point where we can give specific information for most parcels.

9:09: Perez: Can you give us a number that tells us whatever other costs we’ve already consented to? … I believe in a clean environment. Are we doing anything different with the stormwater authority or not?

Smuts: There would be a direct financial incentive—

Perez: But strictly, will anything that we do change?

Smuts: The incentive would create change.

Perez: And what will happen to the budget if we don’t pass this?

Smuts: We would need to find the $2.68 million we’re now counting on from this authority.

Perez and Smuts discuss details of the consent decree and what it has locked the city into in terms of liability if costs escalate: Will the city be on the hook for its 40 percent?

Gabriel Mark [?], director of finance and administration for the WPCA, steps up. He came from home to testify. He says: We’ve been implementing for 20 years the city’s long term control plan. The consent order is part of that. Three years ago we negotiated a consent order with the EPA and the WPCA. The city is named as a partner but does not have its own consent order.

Perez: I understand we had a plan and made a commitment. Right or wrong, we have approved it. But where do you go from approving a plan to us being committed to paying costs as the project changes.

Mark: The plan has not changed. Everybody agreed to the plan. … The city is not committed to the consent order.

Perez: Is there a legal opinion saying that we the city will have to pay…?

Mark: I’m not aware of one. The city’s obligation has not changed at all.

9:27: Alderwoman Andrea Jackson-Brooks: I just want to remind people when you tax the church you’re taxing the taxpayers that tithe there. Churches have no money on their own.

9:28: Alderman Charles Blango: I don’t know what I’m voting against now. If this is a mandate, why does the board need to approve it? I thought the sewer was going to separate? If people don’t come with paperwork, we should start firing people. You need to bring paperwork.

Smuts: Hold me accountable on not having information on average per church. That was a mistake. I apologize.

Blango: I am not just talking about you.We have to deal with constituents. … It’s not just this. I can’t carry the label of a rubber stamp anymore. It needs to stop. It’s been going on for years.

Smuts: I think that’s a fair point. I am the top official here from the city and that means I own this mistake. I try to bring a lot of information to this board and to be completely transparent. … On the other questions: We are mandated on the costs, not on how we pay it. When we created the WPCA, 60 percent of the costs went with them, leaving us with 40 percent of the costs that we’re still dealing with today. … I take great pride in being absolutely transparent in my answers.

9:36: Alderwoman Maureen O’Sullivan-Best: I asked at the last meeting for figures separating out the data and it hasn’t been done. … To whom will the assets belong?

Smuts: The city. … That’s different than the WPCA.

O’Sullivan-Best: When will the study of the properties be complete?

Schroeder: We’re about 85 percent done. There are still about 100 field visits. We’ll probably be done in three weeks.

O’Sullivan-Best: How long will it take to complete the inspection of all parcels?

Schroeder: Approximately three weeks. Quite a few properties are under construction.

Smuts: Adequate to sending out bills will be three weeks. There could be corrections after that.

O’Sullivan-Best: How many of the uninspected properties are churches?

Schroeder: Very few.

O’Sullivan-Best: So how long until we can give them accurate information? My calculations say churches would pay, according to their 3 percent, $90,000.

Schroeder: Three weeks. We have to complete inspections of all impervious area to calculate the bills.

Smuts: We can give you information that’s within a percent of the final by next Friday.

9:43: Alderwoman Dolores Colon asks about the $94 million for the sewer separation project.

9:44: Castro: I’d like to have examples of the costs of properties in each ward.

Smuts: We’ll get the average amount churches are likely to pay and have examples of businesses, non-profits, and houses.

9:47: Goldfield: I just want to clarify this. If we have a stormwater authority, we’ll be able to charge federal and state properties? Including Southern University?

Smuts: Yes.

Goldfield: Question about the consent order. Did that add any costs?

Mark: No.

Goldfield: So it’s the exact same costs we would have had anyway?

Mark: Yes. We were the only one in the state meeting our obligations. Every combined sewer community in Connecticut has a consent order with the feds.

Goldfield: Are we spending anything on stormwater disposal that we aren’t required to spend?

Smith: Right now we clean catch basins, that’s it. They clog up, you’ve got to clean them.

Goldfield: Are we doing any Cadillac stormwater treatment? Like platinum-lined pipes?

Smuts: The only thing we do that’s not federally mandated is catchbasin cleaning and a couple thousand dollars on flooding repair around Morris Creek.

9:53: The administration is done. Now, one last piece of public testimony. Ken Joyner: One of the obligations of the formation of authority is to inform the public. The city has done a poor job of that so far. … There were three cities involved in the state’s study of authority creation. Norwalk and New London, unlike New Haven, decided not go forward with authority because they didn’t have the money. In creating the WPCA, it was said that it would be more efficient. That’s proven to be true. The WPCA should really be the authority to pursue this matter and not New Haven, because it’s so politicized. I believe we should put this in the hands of the WPCA. We’re already paying fees to that body.

9:57: And one more. Harold Brooks: I’m a resident of Westville and reverend at the Beulah Heights Church. Churches have no other source of revenue other than residents in your wards. This would be a further burden on the churches, especially in the inner city, where income is not that high to begin with.

9:58: Yet one more. Marisol Morales [?]: I do believe this will be a detriment to the economy. Taxpayers are already paying this. You don’t have to do this, you just want to, to create more revenues. I truly believe the church is saving the city millions an millions of dollars by what they do. We’re providing not only emotional well-being for the city, but the moneys that we use is coming out of our pockets. We’re already paying for this. I just don’t think we should have to pay double.

10:02: And yet even one more. Abraham Hernandez: I ask that you not even consider having this bill make it to the board. We’re getting the money from the same pants, just a different pocket. The WPCA was praised for doing a great job. They can assume this responsibility. Why create another agency?

10:04: No further public testimony. That portion of the meeting is closed. 29 alders are here. Alex Rhodeen is absent.

Clark: We need a lot more information now. This suggestion about the WPCA doing it, we need more information about that. It’s after 10 o’clock, let’s adjourn to another time. I make a motion that we adjourn this to another time.

Seconded.

Goldson: Let’s not delay this anymore. I oppose that motion.

Castro: Roll call!

Goldfield: Can we do hands? We don’t normally take hands at committee meetings.

15 hands go up for adjourning. 13 hands go up to oppose.

Goldfield: The motion carries. We are adjourned.