WEST HAVEN COMMUNITY FORUM

1
WEST HAVEN COMMUNITY FORUM

• Connecticut MetroPatterns and other Land Use and
  Tax Policy Initiatives
• A Growing Consensus
• Robert W. Santy
• President
• Regional Growth Partnership

2
Connecticut MetropatternsA Regional Agenda for
Community and Prosperity in ConnecticutMyron
OrfieldThomas Luce
3
Special Act 02-13 Blue Ribbon Commission on
Property Tax Burdens and Smart Growth
Incentives John DeStefano, Jr. - Chairman
Howard Dean -
Vice-Chairman
4
Ct 21 Ct Regional Institute for the 21st Century
STEERING COMMITTEE

• Bridgeport Regional
• Business Council
• Capitol Region COG
• COG of the Central
• Naugatuck Valley
• CT Business Industry Association
• CT Conference of Municipalities
• CT Economic Resource Center
• CT General Assembly
• CT Office of Policy Management
• Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce
• Greater Waterbury
• Chamber of Commerce
• Greater Bridgeport
• Regional Planning Agency

Metro Hartford Regional Economic
Alliance Middlesex County Chamber of
Commerce Northeast Utilities Pitney Bowes
Inc. Regional Growth Partnership Regional Plan
Association SACIA, The Business Council of
Southwest CT Southeastern CT COG Southeastern
CT Enterprise Region
5
1000 Friends of Connecticut

• Modeled on similar organizations in other states
• Mobilize broad based members representing
  diverse interests on issues of growth and
  development in Connecticut
• Advocate and promote community vitality through
  balanced economic growth and environmental health

6
CONNECTICUT M E T R O P A T T E R N SKey
Findings

• Simple contrasts between cities, suburbs and
  rural areas are out of date
• Stressed
• At-risk
• Fringe-developing
• Bedroom-developing
• Affluent
• All types of communities are hurt by the way the
  state is growing
• All places would benefit from regional and
  statewide reforms
• Reform is politically possible

7
M E T R O P A T T E R N S Suburban Typology
Analysis of 169 municipalities showed six
distinct types of communities

• Stressed - 17 of the population
• At-risk 28 of the population
• Fringe-developing 6 of the population
• Bedroom-developing 24 of the population
• Affluent suburbs 11 of the population
• Cities 14 of the population

8
(No Transcript)
9
Community Classifications

• Community Classifications were developed by
  Orfield to group communities, much like
  Connecticut groups communities into ERGs
  (Education Reference Groups)
• West Haven is defined as a Stressed community
• This definition measures property tax base and
  growth, population growth and density and free
  lunch eligible students to group communities

10
West Havens Community Classifications

• West Haven just under 11 sq. miles is one of
  Connecticuts smallest towns
• Population density is 865/square mile
• Grand list went up 1.5 between 1994-99 (state
  average 8)
• Property tax at 57 of total revenue compared to
  66 state average

11
Town Population 1998 Change in Population 1993-1998 Per Capita Equalized Net Grand, 1997 change in Equalized Net Grand, 1994-1999 Change in property taxes, 1994-1999 Property taxes as a of total revenues, 1999
New Haven 123,189 -1.9 30,729 -19.4 -4.3 40.3
Orange 12,426 -0.5 120,864 1.9 11.0 86.6
West Haven 51,639 -3.5 43,928 1.5 2.7 56.8
Woodbridge 8,265 2.4 135,283 17.6 26.4 89.9
Region Average 25,781 -0.3 65,968 1.5 13.7 63.1
State Average 19,373 N/A 84,369 8.0 15.1 65.9
12
M E T R O P A T T E R N SGrowth Patterns

• Between 1970 and 2000 urbanized land area
  increased by 102 percent while population grew by
  just 12 percent
• Increasing congestion average commute times
  increased by 16 percent in the 1990s
• Loss of open space farmland decreased by nearly
  10 percent between 1987 and 1997

13
Blue Ribbon Commission
14
Blue Ribbon Commission
15
Blue Ribbon Commission
16
M E T R O P A T T E R N S Fiscal Capacity

• The tax resources of local government
• Tax capacity indicates how high tax rates must be
  to support a given level of public services.
• Current and prospective residents and businesses
  want value for their tax dollars.
• Low local tax base combined with high needs push
  tax rates up and/or services down.

17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
Blue Ribbon Commission

• We would need to add 25 new Knights of Columbus
  Towers every year to meet a reasonable budget
  increase

20
M E T R O P A T T E R N SSchools

• Schools are a powerful indicator of a communitys
  health and a predictor of the future.
• Middle-class families choose to live in the least
  poor school districts they can afford.
• When a places schools begin to become poorer, in
  more cases than not, the community will follow.

21
M E T R O P A T T E R N S Resources vs. Need
22
Blue Ribbon Commission
23
(No Transcript)
24
M E T R O P A T T E R N S Consequences

• All types of places are hurt by the status quo
• Stressed and At-risk
• Low tax base, high and increasing social stress,
  insufficient or aging infrastructure
• Fringe-developing
• Low and stagnant tax base, growth-related costs
  (infra-structure and schools) on largely
  residential tax base
• Bedroom-developing
• Growth-related costs on largely residential tax
  base, loss of green space
• Affluent
• Congestion, long commutes and loss of green space

25
Financing Local Services What Do Citizens Think?

• Citizens Forum
• 2002 134 randomly-selected residents of the
  South Central Connecticut
• Initially, 80 thought towns should retain
  control of their own taxes.
• After deliberation, 68 were open to other
  possibilities.
• 2003 196 residents
• discuss the financing of local government
  services. Virtually everyone (98) thought the
  system needed to be changed.

26
Financing Local Services What Do Citizens Think?

• After Deliberation
• 80 state should increase aid to reduce local
  dependence on property tax
• 69 the current system of taxation does not
  enables towns to cover the services they need.
• A majority support regional strategies.
• regional cooperation is best method for
  addressing local government financing.
• planning, service delivery, taxation.
• Whatever strategy they supported, 84 said towns
  should determine how funds are used.

27
Sacred Heart/New Haven Register Poll March 2004

• 800 interviews proportionately in 23 towns
• Problem of most concern taxes 43 - almost 4x
  the next highest answer
• Only 28 had heard of smart growth, but
• 87 support its policy goals
• 82 support regional cooperation in problem
  solving, 77 to provide services
• 83.5 support state incentives for regional
  service delivery

28
M E T R O P O L I C YFiscal Reform
Policies to reduce fiscal inequality already
exist in all states. Equity-based reforms can

• Reduce dependence on local property taxes
• Reduce inequalities in tax rates and services
• Reduce competition for tax base
• Encourage joint economic development efforts
• Complement regional or state-wide land-use
  planning

29
M E T R O P O L I C Y Regional Leadership and
Decision-Making


From the Articles of Confederation to the
Constitution

•   Regional governments exist in all metro areas.
  They need to perform better by
• Better coordinating infrastructure with growth
• Reinvesting in older parts of the region
• Developing regional land-use plans

30
M E T R O P O L I C Y Land-Use Reform

The central elements of comprehensive land-use
reform include

• Smart growth
• Reinvest in existing areas
• Develop in areas that can support it
• Protect open space
• Reduce barriers to affordable housing

• Regional coordination of local planning
• Statewide efforts already exist in 16 states

31
Recommendations

• GOALS
• Lessen reliance on the property tax
• Increase the equity, stability and sufficiency of
  the state-local revenue stream
• Pursue strategies that work in support of Smart
  Growth
• Promote transit alternatives to the automobile
• Create municipal and regional partnerships to
  reduce destructive inter-municipal competition
  for grand list growth
• Establish incentives to promote integration of
  local plans of development with state goals

32
Recommendations

• FUND LOCAL EDUCATION
• Increase ECS Foundation to 7,900 500M
• Municipal floor of 50 for education (MER) 300M
• Minimum funding of 50 for Special
  Education 125M
• Fully fund PILOTs 250M

33
Recommendations

• Explore local revenue options
• Continue real estate conveyance
• Locally retain 15 surcharge hotel tax
• Regional sales tax option, approved by voters or
  Councils of Governments
• Better knowledge base for decision making
• Tax incidence study

Stadium Project Approved by Area Voters
34
Recommendations

• Growth Information
• Layered Geographic Information System (GIS)
  database, coordinating among municipalities and
  state agencies
• A statewide build-out analysis under current land
  use regulatory format
• A statewide evaluation of public costs associated
  with sprawl

35
Recommendations

• Require consistency between municipal, regional
  and state plans that incorporate smart growth
  principles
• Tie fiscal incentives to greater cooperation
  particularly through the enhancement of the COG
  structure
• Give COGs control over more revenue streams

36
CT Regional Institute

• Link Smart Growth, Economic Development and Land
  Use
• Strengthen State Plan of Conservation and
  Development
• Strengthen RPOs
• Establish Pre-Approved Development Areas
• Coordinate State agency actions
• Lessen dependence on the Property Tax to fund
  local needs

37
Next Steps

• Many issues can not be solved within town
  boundaries
• CenterEdge was created to provide education on
  these issues
• Many organizations are providing leadership on
  aspects of this debate links are available on
  the Archdiocese website at www.oua-adh.org
• 1000 Friends of Connecticut has been formed and
  will carry these issues to the Legislature
• Sponsoring organizations for tonight will
  continue their efforts

38
(No Transcript)
39
Regional Comparisons
TOWN POPULATION 1998 CHANGE IN POPULATION 1993-1998 PER CAPITA EQUALIZED NET GRAND 1997 CHANGE IN EQUALIZED NET GRAND 1994 1999 CHANGE IN PROPERTY TAXES 1994 - 1999 PROPERTY TAXES AS A OF TOTAL REVENUE
East Granby 4,438 2.5 107,484 15.5 16.7 74.0
Hartford 131,523 -6.0 33,322 -38.1 -13.0 39.9
Simsbury 21,767 1.6 97,182 7.5 23.9 88.9
South Windsor 22,711 1.6 82,187 6.0 24.2 76.2
Wethersfield 25,095 1.3 78,219 -5.6 20.4 85.7
Region Average 28,254 -2.1 66,261 -3.9 11.1 65.0
State Average 19,373 N/A 84,369 8.0 15.1 65.9
40

• 119 square miles developed 1985-2002 or 14.5
• Development came at the expense of decidous
  forest
• Clear.uconn.edu

41
donks

• Residential development need not be a net loser
  for towns
• Baby boomlet resulted in 18 increase in school
  age population while total pop increased 3.5

42

• No other states have done the CLEAR comparisons
  of growth over 30 years
• CT has developed primarily where infrastrucure
  is.
• Research shows development is leapfrogging
• Reluctant to say it is sprawl
• Growth has been moderate
• People dont want development because so much of
  it has been bad over the last 50 years, whether
  dense, loose urban or rural

43

• Local resistance to growth is the fastest growing
  activity in CT
• Amount of housing needed just to keep even xxxxx
  units

44
Regional Comparisons-Property tax base per
capita-2002

• Wethersfield 98,507 13.1 sq. miles
• Farmington 165,056 28.8
• Hartford 49, 991 18
• Bloomfield 104,155 26.2
• Windsor 108,987 31.1

45
Blue Ribbon Commission
Business Taxes Components
46
Wethersfields Community Classifications

• Wethersfield is a small town geographically at
  only 13 square miles
• Population density is already 3 times the state
  average
• Grand list per capita went down between 1994-99
• Property tax revenue rank is 27 at 86 of total
  revenue
• Only 14.2 of grand list is commercial/industrial
• Wethersfield ranks 156 in the number of
  undeveloped acres
• 2004 12 of school population eligible for
  free/reduced lunch