YourCT.com header image 2
← Senate Dems Plan To Vote on Tax Increase Transportation Forum Revealed People Like Cars →

CT House Passes Storm Water Authority Bill


by turfgrrl


May 29th, 2007 · 10 Comments

Otherwise known as House Bill No. 6856, or in that ever bureaucratese “An Act Establishing A Municipal Stormwater Authority Pilot Program.” today. This was the bill that was co-sponsored by State Rep. Chris Perone. According to his press release;

“The city of Norwalk has suffered for more than 20 years due to an antiquated, crumbling storm drain system. It is time that Norwalk have the tools it needs to repair, improve and maintain our city’s inadequate storm drain infrastructure.”

“Hundreds of people throughout Norwalk were hit hard in the heavy rainstorms that that have occurred over the last several years,” Rep. Perone explained. “These citizens have lost personal possessions, family heirlooms, furniture and suffered serious property damage.”

According to the language in the bill, the city of Norwalk will be included as one of the four charter towns to receive state funds from the newly-created committee. This bill will also give municipalities the right to apply to the state Department of Public Works for clean water funds.

The bill passed the house 141-8. What 8 managed to vote against this? The bill will move on to the senate for a vote.

Tags: CT House · In the News · Norwalk

10 Responses so far ↓ “CT House Passes Storm Water Authority Bill”



  • 1 itsridiculous // May 29, 2007 at 10:11 pm

    Don’t even THINK of blaming the flood victims when almost everyone in this city gets hit with a “stormwater management fee” much like the “sewer fee” you get hit with now. Read these portions of the bill:
    The stormwater authority of a municipality participating in the pilot program established pursuant to section 1 of this act may (1) levy and collect assessments upon the lands and buildings within its jurisdiction in the same manner as property taxes are levied and collected, and (2)
    establish, revise and collect rates, fees, charges, penalties and assessments to provide for municipal stormwater management controls and stormwater management education and research.
    Sec. 4. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) The authority in a municipality participating in the pilot program established pursuant to section 1 of this act may elect to defray the cost thereof by issuing bonds or other evidences of debt, or from general taxation, special assessment or any combination thereof. If it elects to defray any part of such cost from special assessment, it may apportion and assess such part upon the lands and buildings in the municipality which, in its
    judgment, are especially benefited thereby, whether they abut on such stormwater systems or not, and upon the owners of such lands and buildings, subject to the right of appeal as provided in section 7-142 of the general statutes. Such assessment may include a proportionate share of any expenses incidental to the completion of such stormwater system, such as fees and expenses of attorneys, engineers, surveyors, superintendents or inspectors, the cost of any property purchased or acquired for such work, interest on securities, the cost of preparing maps, plans and specifications, and the cost of printing, publishing or serving advertisements or notices incidental thereto. The authority may divide the total territory to be benefited by any stormwater control system into sections and may levy assessments against the property benefited in each section separately. In assessing benefits against the property in any section, the authority may add to the cost of the part of the stormwater control system located in such section a proportionate share of the cost of any part of such system located outside the section which is useful for the operation or effectiveness of that part of such system within the section and of any of the other items of cost or expense enumerated in this section.A special services district shall constitute a body politic and corporate and the ordinance establishing such a district shall confer upon such district such of the following powers as are provided in the ordinance: (a) To sue and be sued; (b) to acquire, hold and convey any estate, real or personal; (c) to contract; (d) to borrow money, provided any obligation incurred for this purpose shall be discharged in accordance with the provisions of the ordinance establishing such district not more than [one year] seven years after it was incurred, and such district may pledge any revenues to be received pursuant to section 7-339r against any such obligation; (e) to recommend to the legislative body of the municipality in which such district is located the imposition of a levy upon the taxable interests in real property within
    such district, the revenues from which may be used in carrying out any of the powers of such district; (f) to construct, own, operate and maintain public improvements; and (g) to provide, within such district, some or all of the other services which such municipality is authorized to provide therein, except that no such ordinance may confer upon any such district the power to provide elementary or secondary public education services, and provided further no such ordinance may confer upon any such district the power to provide services which are then being provided within any portion of the area included in such district by any multitown body or authority.

  • 2 turfgrrl // May 29, 2007 at 10:23 pm

    I’ve been talking to Chris about this bill. While I’m not exactly fond of the move towards user fees (because somehow taxes never go down, they still go up and these fees just get added on top; see parking, authority, 2005), in this case I’d like to think this is not such a bad thing.

    For one, its only recently that new hookups to the sewer system had fees commensurate with the usage. We in effect have been subsidizing new developments, commercial or otherwise, while older parts of Norwalk have not been maintained.

    Two, you have to have a funding mechanism to have a body devoted to draingage infrastructure. In the absence you get DPW. And we see how that’s worked out, pick your time period, over the years.

    Three, the big plus of the bill is that it streamlines the access to clean water funds. Currently you have to go through the DEP, get a study, jump through hoops, do the hokey pokey, er … you know what I mean.

    As with most legislation, its not perfectly suited to please everyone. But I think its the right direction. And I’ll have more on the subject too.

    Meanwhile, isn’t it about time that our flood board get set up here in Norwalk? Will someone on the Common Council put it on the agenda?

  • 3 itsridiculous // May 29, 2007 at 10:42 pm

    Here we go again looking for a bailout from the state for our own years of neglect and lack of maintenance.
    In fact, if you believe Hal Alvord, there IS no money in the Clean Water Fund, so what could we possibly apply for? The bill only sanctions the collections of fees and taxes for the purpose of stormwater management- DUH!!! We kinda already have that - it’s called the City Budget - you request the money - you get the money - you borrow the money or collect the taxes- you allocate it to the stormwater management line item. Once allocated, it cannot be “un-allocated” without going thru hoops- So someone explain how this bill can possibly help in Norwalk. Chris Perone himself told flood victims even HE was opposed to any bill that authorizes fees, taxes and assessments against property owners. We asked him to remove all references to such fees, etc. Yet this is the bill that passed. Which 8 voted against it you ask? Probably the courageous and independent thinkers. And Chris Perone himself - absent from the May 15th Finance Committee vote on this bill. I”m trying to find today’s House vote tally on the cga site. Can you provide a link, Turfie? Thanks.

  • 4 turfgrrl // May 29, 2007 at 10:53 pm

    itsridiculous: Hold on there. There are many flooding issues going on in town, so its not a one size fits all solution, or in this case soley due to Norwalk neglect. In addition to the storm water pipes, which unlike sewer pipes don’t break all that often, if ever, there’s rivers and marshes that are flooding over too. And let’s not forget the Metro North culverts.

    Then there’s the DOT who somehow claim no responsibility for sand and sediment being washed off highways and parkways. I can only imagine the silt being generated my the huge piles of dirt at the merit route 7 interchange.

    And its not just Norwalk. Darien, Westport, Fairfield are all dealing with increased flooding.

    I don’t think the talley is up yet, but will post a link when it becomes available.

  • 5 itsridiculous // May 30, 2007 at 7:33 am

    Good point, Turfie, on the many faces of flooding. However, the fact remains that much of the recurring flooding in Norwalk that damages personal homes is not related to rivers, streams & marshes. Those are more natural events that occur only in extreme. The real nightmare of flooding occurs unpredictably when systems fail. It’s true there is no one size fits all solution to flooding, so let’s home HB-6856 doesn’t become an excuse for excess fees to manage the problem, and also that homeowners aren’t charged a “flood remediation assessment”: we already pay that, it’s called property taxes!
    Thanks if you can get the tally. Have a great day, and thanks, as always, for keeping the discussions here interesting and productive.

  • 6 Anonymous // May 30, 2007 at 1:55 pm

    Here’s the link to the roll call vote. All Norwalk house members voted for it.

    http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/VOTE/H/2007HV-00247-R00HB06856-HV.htm

  • 7 Anonymous // May 30, 2007 at 2:06 pm

    Larry! How could you?

  • 8 Anonymous // May 30, 2007 at 2:42 pm

    What the heck did larry do now? he voted yes like the majority.

  • 9 Anonymous // May 30, 2007 at 2:54 pm

    That’s what I meant. St. Lawrence has bailed on Norwalkers. Pun intended.

  • 10 Anonymous // May 30, 2007 at 3:13 pm

    Oh, ok..just thinking perhaps you saw something I didn’t