PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
SOUTH WINDSOR TOWN COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
7:45 P.M.
PURPOSE: TO RECEIVE PUBLIC INPUT ON A PROPOSED ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING INSPECTION FEES FOR SUBDIVISIONS AND SITE DEVELOPMENTS
The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:50 p.m. There were approximately 5 people present in the audience. The Clerk of the Council read the Call of the Meeting (a copy of which is attached hereto).
Council Members Present
Councillor Burnham
Councillor Barbour
Councillor Delnicki
Deputy Mayor Streeter
Councillor Havens
Councillor Fine
Councillor Paquin
Councillor Pelkey
Mayor Aman recused himself from this meeting because of his position as
Chairman of the Board of the Connecticut Homebuilders Association.
Town Manager Matthew Galligan was absent from the meeting. However, Town Attorney Barry Guliano, and Asst. to the Town Manager Judy hall were present.
Atty. Guliano explained that the Ordinance comes about at the request of the Town’s Engineering Department, and he then asked Town Engineer Jeff Doolittle to briefly outline the reasons for the request.
Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer, then came forward to explain to the Council that this Ordinance was originally proposed as part of the “budget process” this year; and its purpose is as a “user fee ordinance,” so that the Town’s inspections for developers of new subdivisions and projects will, basically, pay the Engineering Department for those inspections—rather than passing on the costs for said inspections to the taxpayers.
MINUTES
Public Hearing – Town Council
Re: Proposed Ordinance Establishing Inspection Fees for Subdivisions
And Site Developments
Page 2
November 4, 2002
The way the Ordinance is written, according to the Town Engineer, the Town will charge a “deposit” of 1-1/2% of the bonding cost of each development. This money, he added, will be placed in an “escrow” interest bearing account set up for each project. The Engineering Department personnel would then “log” the hours they have spent inspecting each project; and, twice a year, charge their hours against the money in each project’s account.
The developers will be charged on an “average hourly rate” probably to be set at $45.23. This has been established similar to the Police Officers “Off Duty Rate,” according to Mr. Doolittle, and will include avg. hourly rate, benefits, overhead, and administration fees. At the end of each project, he continued, a final bill will be issued for the development costs of that project.
Mr. Doolittle asked that Council keep in mind that Engineering would only be billing for services actually rendered and would, therefore, be different for each project. If much time is spent on a certain project, there will be more billings for that project; and the reverse is true for lesser projects. He felt that this process benefits the Town, in that Engineering Department is able to insure a quality product for all of these developments; and, he also felt, it helps the developers by giving them an incentive to do a good job on their projects in order to avoid excessive inspections.
Continuing, Mr. Doolittle pointed out that such an Ordinance will provide staff with additional flexibility so that at times of high development, staff will be able to appropriately cover that development since there will be funds to hire more inspectors, as needed.
At the end of the project, Mr. Doolittle explained, a final bill will be issued and the money will be withdrawn from the funds in that particular account. Any remaining funds, he added, would be returned to the Developer—and, conversely, if there are insufficient funds from the Developer, a final bill will be sent to the Developer and he will be asked to pay those expenses.
Deputy Mayor Streeter then asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak on this proposal. Coming forward then was Mr. Richard Kelley, Rosemary Lane, a local developer, who owns a company on Ellington Road called RSK Kellco Inc.
MINUTES
Public Hearing – Town Council
Re: Proposed Ordinance Establishing Inspection Fees for Subdivisions
And Site Developments
Page 3
November 4, 2002
Mr. Kelley initiated his remarks by stating that he and his firm have an “excellent” relationship with Town staff, including those who were speaking this evening. However, the thrust of Mr. Kelley’s remarks was mainly directed at the unfairness of the proposed Ordinance to ethical and reliable developers. He said he sympathized with the Town encouraging developers to “pay their own way—particularly residential developers; and he, too, felt there was no excuse for any developer to have the Town staff “come back and come back” and do something the developer should have done the first time..
When speaking of “commercial” projects, Mr. Kelley felt you were talking a “different ballgame.” A $75 extra fee in a “kitty” or a bond “is a make or break.” Mr. Kelley said that representatives from the South Windsor Chamber of Commerce should be present this evening to protect the small business person. Some of these fees, he stressed, can “make or break a project.”
Mr. Kelley suggested an alternative to the proposal—develop a “penalty” process up front that would come into play “if someone messes up.” He felt something like this would be fairer to those contractors and developers who were conscientious about meeting the Town’s requirements.
In the event, this proposal became an Ordinance, Mr. Kelley asked who would be keeping tract of the “inspection” time spent at each project. He gave the example of large projects that might call for 2, 3, or 4 inspections a day; how would you keep tract of such an inspection schedule..
And, lastly, Mr. Kelley asked if this is really the message the Town wants to send to its businesses in Town—another tax on contractors and developers. He asked for a better alternative to meet the “inspection” problems.
Deputy Mayor Streeter then asked if there was anyone else from the public who wished to speak. There was no one.
MINUTES
Public Hearing – Town Council
Re: Proposed Ordinance Establishing Inspection Fees for Subdivisions
And Site Developments
Page 4
November 4, 2002
The Deputy Mayor then called for a straw vote. He then asked:
How many of those present were
In favor of this proposed Ordinance? 0 in favor
How many of those present were
Opposed to the proposed Ordinance 4 were opposed
Deputy Mayor Streeter then closed the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia R. Brown
Clerk of the Council
Attmt.: (Copy of Proposed Ordinance)
| 
