Allan Appel Photo
How does a satellite photo of a permeable brick paver look different from an impermeable one? Members of the City Plan Commission considered that question, then recommended a proposed Stormwater Authority ordinance to the Board of Aldermen. But they attached a condition: Show us the details.
At a sparsely attended City Hall meeting – due to considerable storm runoff and resultant icy walking conditions – commissioners praised the ordinance Wednesday night and sent it by unanimous vote to the Board of Aldermen for consideration. (The aldermen have scheduled a separate public hearing on the controversial matter Thursday night.)
The proposed ordinance would change the way taxpayers foot the bill for managing the water that runs off their buildings during storms. Right now that bill is part of the larger annual real estate tax bill people pay. Under the plan, a new authority would be created to handle the job for the city, and people would pay a separate fee every year — enabling not just homeowners, but large not-for-profits like Yale to share the cost.
New Haven is one of a number of cities across the country considering this idea in a year of widespread municipal budget crises. Spread runoff costs to not-for-profits helps avoid more tax increases or budget cuts, but in some communities has angered the not-for-profits.
By terms of the proposal, most homeowners will pay a small amount, estimated at $50. Owners of large public lots, like universities, would bear a larger burden of what’s estimated to be a $3 to $5 million operation.
Click here for a previous article with questions and answers about the evolving authority .
How much and by what means of inspection will these matters be determined? How will the authority collect And is there an appeals process?
Such devil-in-the detailsness of the matter was illustrated in a brief exchange Wednesday night between CPC chairman Ed Mattison (center) and non-voting commission member and City Engineer Dick Miller (right):
Mattison: “Can we make Southern [Connecticut State University] pay?”
Miller: “We certainly can bill them.”
City Plan Director Karyn Gilvarg cautioned commissioners about another thorny question:
“A brick paver in sand is permeable. A brick paver in concrete is impermeable,” and therefore causes more runoff, said Gilvarg.
Could a satellite picture convey the difference? she asked.
Would an onsite inspection as a follow-up be required?
Aldermanic representative Justin Elicker said, “I think this [the ordinance] is fundamentally a great idea.”
Miller concurred: “From an environmental standpoint this is a very strong ordinance in a city environment.”
But they and City Plan staff expressed concern with the details of implementation and regulation.
In addition to the balance of aerial map and onsite inspection, other questions raised Wednesday night included: How will fees be collected from recalcitrant parties? How will changes on a site be acknowledged?
When Elicker asked if the regulations, as they are worked out by a nascent authority, will come before City Plan for approval. The answer from Gilvarg: no.
Elicker (far left in photo) therefore motioned that the recommendation to the aldermen be conditioned on City Plan being allowed to review regulations developed as they pertain to land use.
In the hallway after the amended approval passed, Elicker said City Plan would not review the financial side of the new authority, which is the purview of the Board of Aldermen.
Gilvarg reported that city Chief Administrative Officer Rob Smuts assured her no additional staff is going to be required to operate the proposed authority. She also said that the sewers, pipes, and water infrastructure will remain owned by the city, not the authority.
The city itself would not be exempt from the new levy. It would pay charges based on the impervious surface area of its properties. That does not include streets and rights of way.
“This ordinance does not create a fully separate corporate entity, but rather an authority to manage an enterprise fund. The BOA will retain full control over budget appropriations for both operations and capital improvements.” Smuts wrote in his letter to the Board of Aldermen, which accompanied the City Plan report.
If the entity is successful, Smuts added, the aldermen would have to take separate action to create a distinct authority with its own bonding and other powers.