6:45 Ceremonial Presentation in Honor of Memorial Day
TOWN OF MANSFIELD TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, May 28, 2019 COUNCIL CHAMBERS AUDREY P. BECK MUNICIPAL BUILDING 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER Page ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES ...... 1 PUBLIC HEARING 1. Neighborhood Assistance Act Programs (Item #1, 4-13-19 Agenda) ...... 11 OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL REPORT OF THE TOWN MANAGER ...... 13 REPORTS AND COMMENTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS OLD BUSINESS 2. Neighborhood Assistance Act Programs (Item #1, 4-13-19 Agenda) ...... 15 NEW BUSINESS 3. Proposed Changes to Chapter 122, Fees ...... 41 4. Emergency Management – Capitol Region Hazard Mitigation Plan Update ...... 55 5. Appointment of Auditor to Conduct Financial Audit for Fiscal Year 2018/19 ...... 99 6. Proposed Elementary School Project ...... 101 7. Final Report and Dissolution of the Ad Hoc Committee on Polices Services ...... 107 REPORTS OF COUNCIL COMMITTEES DEPARTMENTAL AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORTS PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 8. Economic Development Committee Appointments ...... 121 9. Youth Services Advisory Board Appointments ...... 131 10. Lt. S. Corey: Troop C April 2019 Service Calls (5/2/19) ...... 133 FUTURE AGENDAS EXECUTIVE SESSION 11. Personnel in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes §1-200(6)(a), Town Manager Performance Review ADJOURNMENT
DRAFT
MANSFIELD TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING April 3, 2019
Mayor Paul M. Shapiro called the special meeting of the Mansfield Town Council to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the Audrey P. Beck Building.
I. ROLL CALL Present: Berthelot, Briody, Freudmann, Moran, Shaiken, Shapiro, Schurin Excused: Kochenburger, Wassmundt Staff Present: Town Manager Derrik Kennedy, Director of Finance Cherie Trahan, Superintendent Kelly Lyman, Director of Facilities Allen Corson, Director of Information Technology Jaime Russell
1. Staff Reports/Communications Mr. Kennedy and Ms. Trahan reviewed the handout containing staff responses and information related to Council questions raised in previous budget meetings.
2. Budget Review x Board of Education Superintendent Lyman and Mansfield Board of Education Chair Kathy Ward presented a summary of the Board’s budget including such major cost drivers as obligated salary increases, additional staffing, and the post-employment trust fund contributing to an 0.8% overall budget increase from the current year.
Request: Perform an analysis of what the future educational needs of the town will be as a result of housing trends
x Shared Facilities Management x Shared Finance x Shared Information Technology x Management Services Fund
3. Discussion of Proposed Budget/Council Questions None.
4. Public Comment None.
II. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Moran moved and Mr. Schurin seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
Paul M. Shapiro, Mayor Sara-Ann Chaine, Town Clerk
April 3, 2019
- 1 - - 2 - - 3 - - 4 - - 5 - - 6 - - 7 - - 8 - - 9 - PAGE BREAK
- 10 - Item #1
PUBLIC HEARING TOWN OF MANSFIELD
The Mansfield Town Council will hold a public hearing at 7:00 PM at its regular meeting on May 28, 2019 to solicit public comment regarding potential program applications to the Neighborhood Assistance Program.
At this hearing, persons may address the Town Council and written communications may be received. Information regarding the potential program applications to the Neighborhood Assistance Program is on file and available at the Town Clerk’s office: 4 South Eagleville Road, Mansfield and is posted on the Town’s website (mansfieldct.gov).
Dated at Mansfield Connecticut this 20th day of May, 2019.
Sara-Ann Chaine Mansfield Town Clerk
- 11 - PAGE BREAK
- 12 - Town of Mansfield MEMORANDUM Town Manager’s Office 4 So. Eagleville Rd., Mansfield, CT 06268 860-429-3336 x5 [email protected] To: Town Council From: Derrik M. Kennedy, Town Manager Cc: Town Employees Date: May 28, 2019 Re: Town Manager’s Report
Below, please find my report concerning various items of interest to the Town Council, staff, and the community:
Council Business • Annual Town Meeting – On May 14, 2019, the Town of Mansfield held its Annual Town Meeting for Budget Consideration. Residents approved the Fiscal Year 2019-20 Town and Board of Education budgets as presented by the Town Council (with no amendments) by a vote of 138 to 8. Thank you to all who participated. • Boards and Committees Appointments – Seven standing members received re-appointment to the Economic Development Commission: John McGuire (Chair), Steven Ferrigno (Vice Chair), Chiaku Chukwuogor, Dirk Fecho, Martin Hirschorn, Lane Watson, and Ben Wiles – while the resignation of two members (Ronald Beebe and George Thompson III) allowed the appointment of new members Adrienne McPherson and Jessie Richard. The Youth Services Advisory Board also received two new members with the appointment of Norma Posocco and Annastasia Martineau. Please join me in welcoming all new appointees.
Upcoming Events • Summer Stroll - Join the Mansfield Downtown Partnership in kicking off the summer with a fun evening in Downtown Storrs! The second annual Summer Stroll will take place from 5:00 PM to 8:00 PM on Thursday, May 30. Enjoy seasonal specials and treats at participating businesses. Grab some chalk and leave their mark at our Sidewalk Graffiti Mural! Remember to stop by the Partnership's table on Betsy Paterson Square to pick up your Visit-to-Win It game card and learn about more upcoming events this summer! For more information, please visit mansfieldct.gov/summerstroll. • 14th Annual John E. Jackman Tour de Mansfield - Explore Mansfield by bicycle at the 14th Annual John E. Jackman Tour de Mansfield on Saturday, June 8! Hosted by the Mansfield Downtown Partnership, Town of Mansfield, and Mansfield Community Center, this event offers three different routes around town, all of which begin and end at the Community Center. Enjoy riding around Mansfield at your own pace and build camaraderie with fellow cycling enthusiasts while sharing a group lunch following the rides. For more information and to register, please visit mansfieldct.gov/biketour.
- 13 - • Summer Concerts on the Square - The Mansfield Downtown Partnership and the Town of Mansfield will host free musical performances every Thursday in June and July* from 6:30 PM to 8:00 PM on Betsy Paterson Square in Downtown Storrs (*no concert on July 4). The Summer Concerts on the Square are made possible with the support of our generous sponsors, including Barnes & Noble UConn, Eversource, The Oaks on the Square, and UConn Summer & Winter Programs. To see the full schedule and view videos of each band, please visit mansfieldmusic.org. • Kidsville Summer Kickoff presented by Educational Playcare - Hey, kids! Celebrate the start of summer on Monday, June 17 with a free performance by Kidsville Kuckoo Revue on Betsy Paterson Square (6:30 PM to 7:45 PM). This just-for-kids concert is hosted by the Mansfield Downtown Partnership with support from Educational Playcare in Downtown Storrs. • Storrs Farmers Market – Since 1994, Storrs Farmers Market has been proud to provide the greater Mansfield community with fresh, local produce, meats, dairy, baked goods, and more. Everything sold at Storrs Farmers Market is grown and produced in Connecticut, so the offerings change with the seasons. Sign up for the weekly newsletters to learn what products will be available at each Market. Storrs Farmers Market is open every Saturday from 3:00 to 6:00 PM on the front lawn of the Mansfield Town Hall from May through November. Learn more at storrsfarmersmarket.org.
Upcoming Meetings* All meetings are in Audrey P. Beck Building unless noted otherwise CC – Council Chamber; CR B – Conference Room B; CR C – Conference Room C • Human Services Advisory Committee, May 29, 2019, 3:00PM, CRB • Solid Waste Advisory Committee, June 4, 2019, 5:30PM, CRC • Agriculture Committee, June 4, 2019, 7:00PM, CRB • Mansfield Downtown Partnership Board Meeting, June 6, 2019, 4:30PM, CC • Regulatory Review Committee, June 7, 2019, 8:30AM, CRB • Finance Committee, June 10, 2019, 5:30PM, CC • Town Council, June 10, 2019, 7:00PM, CC
*Meeting dates/times are subject to change. Please view the Town Calendar or contact the Town Clerk’s Office at 860- 429-3302 for a complete and up-to-date listing of committee meetings.
- 14 - Item #2
Town of Mansfield Agenda Item Summary To: Town Council From: Derrik Kennedy, Town Manager CC: Linda Painter, Director of Planning and Development; Curt Vincente, Director of Parks and Recreation Date: May 28, 2019 Re: Neighborhood Assistance Act Programs
Subject Matter/Background At Tuesday’s meeting, the Town Council will conduct a public hearing regarding potential program applications to the Neighborhood Assistance Act (NAA) Program. The NAA program provides funding for community programs conducted by either a municipal government or tax exempt agency through a corporation tax credit to businesses that make cash contributions to the town. The community program must be approved by both the municipal agency and the Department of Revenue Services.
Businesses can receive a Connecticut Tax Credit for their contributions to municipal programs that are approved by the Department of Revenue Services. The amount of the tax credit is determined by the type of project in which the business invests. The minimum investment required is $250; the maximum investment for a business in any calendar year is $150,000.
Pursuant to program guidelines, the Town is required to hold a public hearing regarding proposed program applications and the Council must vote to approve the programs prior to application. Additional projects may be identified through the public hearing by members of the community as well as local non-profit organizations.
Eligible Programs The following types of projects and community programs would be eligible for funding through the Neighborhood Assistance Act:
. Energy Conservation Projects (Tax Credit of 100% of cash invested) including projects to promote energy conservation that are directed toward properties occupied by low-income persons or properties owned or occupied by charitable organizations, foundations, trusts or other entities.
. Community Programs (Tax Credit of 60% of cash invested) including programs that provide community-based alcoholism prevention or treatment programs;
- 15 - neighborhood assistance; job training; education; community services; crime prevention; construction or rehabilitation of dwelling units for families of low and moderate income in the state; funding for open space acquisitions; child day care facilities (must be primarily for children of employees of the sponsoring business); and any other program that serves persons at least 75% of whom are at an income level not exceeding 150% of the poverty level for the preceding year.
Proposed Projects The Town is proposing the following project for the 2019 Neighborhood Assistance Act program:
. Water Harvesting at Mansfield Community Center. This project includes installation of a system to collect, filter, store, and re-use rainwater from building roof areas. This project will make the facility more sustainable by reducing or eliminating the need for water from the local water supply system (UConn water system managed by Connecticut Water). Based on conversations with the Department of Revenue Services, we believe this project could qualify for the 100% tax credit for energy conservation programs. (2012-2018 NAA Funding awards: $36,144.71) Amount Requested: $108,855
In April, staff sent a solicitation to local non-profits asking for submission of proposed projects. We received the following applications in response to that solicitation:
. United Services Inc. This project consists of the construction of a new community clinic and support facility to serve growing client needs in the Windham Region. The new behavioral health center has been designed to integrate active and passive renewable energy technologies, including solar energy and geothermal energy source while providing needed increases in clinical space. The facility would be located in Mansfield, just over the Windham town line, and will serve all surrounding towns. (2014 Funding: $17,705.99; 2017 Funding: $37,135.92; 2018 Funding: $18,774.11) Amount Requested: $150,000
. Storrs Friends Meeting. This project consists of improvements to the Storrs Friends Meeting House to improve energy efficiency and reduce their carbon footprint. Amount Requested: $37,352.19
. Mount Hope Montessori School. This project consists of replacing windows to reduce heat loss and improve energy efficiency. Amount Requested: $3,440
- 16 - Timeline Applications for municipal programs must be submitted to the Department of Revenue Services by July 1, 2019. The Department will issue a list of approved programs by September 1, 2019. Businesses interested in funding any of the approved programs must submit a Neighborhood Assistance Business Act Application to the Department of Revenue Services between September 15 and October 1, 2019.
Financial Impact Any funds that the Town would receive via this program would help to offset project costs. Receipt of partial funding may require project phasing. For example, the partial funding received in previous years for the water harvesting project will be used to hire a consultant to design the system.
Legal Review No legal review is required at this time.
Recommendation If additional applications (other than those that are described in this memo) are received, staff would recommend that the public hearing be continued to the June 10, 2019 meeting to allow time for public review of the additional applications.
Move to continue the public hearing on proposed Neighborhood Assistance Act applications to June 10, 2019.
If no additional applications are received, the Council may close the public hearing and act on the pending applications. Based on previous grants received from the NAA program, staff would recommend that the Council authorize submission of the application for water harvesting as well as the applications received from United Services, Storrs Friends Meeting and Mount Hope Montessori School.
If the Council supports this recommendation, the following resolution is in order:
Resolved, to approve the following projects for submission to the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services for inclusion in the 2019 Neighborhood Assistance Act Program: water harvesting project at the Mansfield Community Center; development of an energy-efficient behavioral health clinic for United Services, Inc.; energy efficiency improvements at Storrs Friends Meetinghouse; and window replacement at Mount Hope Montessori School.
Attachments 1) Neighborhood Assistance Act Proposals (Form NAA-01) for each proposed project 2) Neighborhood Assistance Act Information Sheet
- 17 - - 18 - Part II - Program Information
Check the appropriate description of your program: 100% credit percentage X Energy conservation; or Comprehensive college access loan forgiveness (see Conn. Gen Stat. § 12-635(3)). 60% credit percentage Job training/education for unemployed persons aged 50 or over; Job training/education for persons with physical disabilities; Program serving low-income persons; Child care services; Establishment of a child day care facility; Open space acquisition fund; or Other (specify): ______
Description of program: This program includes installation of a system to collect, filter, store and re-use rainwater from building roof areas. This project will make the facility more sustainable by reducing or eliminating the need for water from the local water supple system (CWC Shenipsit Reservoir).
Need for program: ------,-,------ Water demands in the Storrs section of Mansfield have been high due to UConn construction and the development of a new downtown and businesses. The Mansfield Community Center building can become more sustainable by utilizing its own water system, thus reducing system demand and conserving water.
Neighborhood area to be served: ______Northern Mansfield.
Plan to implement the program: Create a request for proposal for the design of the water harvestingsystem. Hire a reputable firmto design the system and assist with construction documents. Bid the construction of the system and hire a competent construction firmto install.
Form NAA-01 (Rev. 02/19) - 19 - Timetable:
Program start date: _0_7/_1_/20_ _19______Program completion date: _0_7/_1_/2_02_ 1______The program completion date must not be more than two years from the program startdate. A certified post-project review is due to the municipality overseeing implementation no later than three months after program completion date for all projects receiving $25,000 or more in NAA funding.
Part Ill - Financial Information
Program Budget: Complete in full. Expenditures must equal or exceed total funding.
Sources of Revenue:
NAAfunds requested 108,855.00 Other funding sources - itemized sources: a) Previous NAA Awards $36,144.71 b) c) ------d)
Total Funding:
Proposed Program Expenditures:
Direct operating expenses - itemized description: a) Equipment and installation of water harvesting system $135,000.00 b) Filtration and water treatment system for potable water $10,000.00 c) ______d)
Administrative expenses - itemized description: a) b) c) ______d)
Total Proposed Expenditures: $145,000.00
Form NAA-01 (Rev. 02/19) - 20 - Part IV - Municipal Information
To be completed by the municipal agency overseeing implementation of the program
Name of municipal agency overseeing implementation of the program: ______Town of Mansfield
Mailing address: ______4 S. Eagleville Road, Storrs-Mansfield, CT 06268
Jillene B. Woodmansee Name of municipal liaison: ------2 Te I e phone number: _B_6_0-4_ 9_-_3_33_o______Fax number: ------860-429-6863 [email protected] E ma1 .1 a dd ress:
Post-Project Review
Is a post-project review required for this proposal? X Yes · No
If Yes, date post-project review due: 09/30/2021 Date
Form NAA-01 (Rev.02119) - 21 - Department of Revenue Services State of Connecticut (Rev. 02/19)
Municipality: ______
Form NAA-01 2019 Connecticut Neighborhood Assistance Act (NAA) Program Proposal
This form must be completed and submitted to your municipality for approval. All items must be completed with as much detail as possible. If additional space is needed, attach additional sheets. Please type or print clearly. See attached instructions before completing. Do not submit this form directly to the Department of Revenue Services.
Part I — General Information
Name of tax exempt organization/municipal agency: ______
______
Address: ______
______
Federal Employer Identification Number: ______
Program title: ______
Name of contact person: ______
Telephone number: ______– –
Email address: ______
Total NAA funding requested ($250 minimum, $150,000 maximum): $ ______
Is your organization required to file federal Form 990 or 990EZ, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax? Yes No
If Yes, attach a copy of the first page of your most recent return. If No, attach a copy of your determination letter from the U.S. Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service.
- 22 - Part II — Program Information
Check the appropriate description of your program: 100% credit percentage ______Energy conservation; or ______Comprehensive college access loan forgiveness (see Conn. Gen Stat. § 12-635(3)). 60% credit percentage ______Job training/education for unemployed persons aged 50 or over; ______Job training/education for persons with physical disabilities; ______Program serving low-income persons; ______Child care services; ______Establishment of a child day care facility; ______Open space acquisition fund; or ______Other (specify): ______
Description of program: ______
______
______
______
Need for program: ______
______
______
______
Neighborhood area to be served: ______
______
______
______
Plan to implement the program: ______
______
______
______Form NAA-01 (Rev. 02/19) - 23 - Timetable:
Program start date: ______
Program completion date: ______
The program completion date must not be more than two years from the program start date. A certified post-project review is due to the municipality overseeing implementation no later than three months after program completion date for all projects receiving $25,000 or more in NAA funding.
Part III — Financial Information
Program Budget: Complete in full. Expenditures must equal or exceed total funding.
Sources of Revenue:
NAA funds requested ______
Other funding sources - itemized sources: a) ______b) ______c) ______d) ______
Total Funding: ______
Proposed Program Expenditures:
Direct operating expenses - itemized description: a) ______b) ______c) ______d) ______
Administrative expenses - itemized description: a) ______b) ______c) ______d) ______
Total Proposed Expenditures: ______
Form NAA-01 (Rev. 02/19) - 24 - Part IV — Municipal Information
To be completed by the municipal agency overseeing implementation of the program
Name of municipal agency overseeing implementation of the program: ______
______
Mailing address: ______
______
Name of municipal liaison: ______
Telephone number: ______– –
Fax number: ______– –
Email address: ______
Post-Project Review
Is a post-project review required for this proposal? Yes No
If Yes, date post-project review due:
______Date
Form NAA-01 (Rev. 02/19) - 25 - - 26 - Part II - Program Information
Check the appropriate description of your program: 1 O redit percentage �)( Energy conservation; or Comprehensive college access loan forgiveness (see Conn. Gen Stat. § 12-635(3)). 60% credit percentage Job training/education for unemployed persons aged 50 or over; Job training/education for persons with physical disabilities; Program serving low-income persons; Child care services; Establishment of a child day care facility; Open space acquisition fund;-or Other (specify): ______
Description of program: U2--
1 Need for program: __ _S-_e_-"_-_,,___-\_�_�_cJ,_·_,_eJ._- ______
Neighborhood area to be served: _s_· e-_e.._ _c;___+_-+,_l_, '-_l'_,_e""_' ______
Plan to implement the program:
Form NAA-01 (Rev, 02/19) - 27 - - 28 - - 29 - - 30 - Timetable: �•\\ ,'IQ / Cf Program start date: _1_ ?v,_+---"'"-----'------
c 1 '- Program completion date: __ _,,_\[v"---'-', .-.---'-t-'---- -•__ ;J._0_1 _1_-_.2_0__ The program completion date must not be more than two years from the program startdate. A certified post-project review is due to the municipality overseeing implementation no later than three months after program completion date for all projects receiving $25,000 or more in NAA funding.
Part Ill - Financial Information
Program Budget: Complete in full. Expenditures must equal or exceed total funding.
Sources of Revenue:
_ NAA funds requested
Other funding sources - itemized sources: a) b) c) ------d)
Total Funding:
Proposed Program Expenditures:
Direct operating expenses - itemized description: a) b) c) ------d)
Administrative expenses - itemized description: a) b) c) ------d)
Total Proposed Expenditures:
Form NM-01 (Rev. 02/19) - 31 - - 32 - Part IV - fl/lunicipal Information
To be completed by the municipal agency overseeing implementation of the program
Name of municipal agency overseeing implementation of the program: ______
Mailing address: ______
Name of municipal liaison:
Telephone number:
Fax number: ______
Email address:
Post-Project Review
Is a post-project review required for this proposal? 0 Yes 0 No
If Yes, date post-project review due:
Date
Form NAA-01 (Rev. 02119) - 33 - - 34 - Part II - Program Information
Check the appropriate description of your program: 100% credit percentage ✓ Energy conservation; or Comprehensive college access loan forgiveness (see Conn. Gen Stat. § 12-635(3)). 60% credit percentage Job training/education for unemployed persons aged 50 or over; Job training/education for persons with physical disabilities; Programserving low-income persons; Child care services; Establishment of a child day care facility; Open space acquisition fund;or Other (specify): ______Description of program: I \A} ,, (\ ol () w I
Y-- + n Cl Need forprogram:· ---"W-"--'-1 '-'"--"c(_,__ci--'-'-'Vv,_- --".S'------'°'"'--'-rf,-"'---___,__o"--·-'---b:L,-'-��+------"°'-'---O'--'-o\!L\-_-"c/'-".--'-''-'-"'--''.J--"°'-'-'8+-..,__, :...:",_; 6;_\.'_ _ ±be w0v 11 .s ,n --J/J.-___ e. ofow 0 s -/--.SI ; rs> be 0J:
Neighborhood area to be served: __._M�'---Oi,,_,__(\�.>�'_.·6_· e_.-�r . .,,_d _,__C-'"--=e.'---n_+_;____c·C.c...... ,\______
Plan to implement the program: H I c--e Co A ho-.,c:, ·ro I�> ('e, p I tAl:e � l,v I o\..0,W ..> Q c. . .fort:.... fv\0 I'--{'__ o\ G\l'V\
Form NAA-01 (Rev. 02119) - 35 - Timetable: Program start date: A SA P k1 pof\ V'e. Ul. i' p +- Program completion date: o-1 fv- n ol �L1 c�{ c '-/ p <'o) � ct The program completion date must not be more than two years from the program startdate. A certified post-project review is due to the municipality overseeing implementation no later than three months after program completion date for all projects receiving $25,000 or more in NAA funding.
Part Ill - Financial Information
Program Budget: Complete in full. Expenditures must equal or exceed total funding. Sources of Revenue: NAA funds requested
Other funding sources - itemized sources: a) b) c) ------d)
Total Funding: 3w'-lo.oo
Proposed Program Expenditures:
Direct operating expenses - itemized description: o a) LOt, b r ➔ ty'I/,\ -1--r� d IA-\ S b) c) ______d) Administrative expenses - itemized description: a) b) c) ------ d) ------Total Proposed Expenditures:
Fonn NAA-01 (Rev. 02/19) - 36 - Part IV - Municipal Information
To be completed by the municipal agency overseeing implementation of the program
Name of municipal agency overseeing implementation of the program: ______�})oc8 fYJansf1e,)d
Name of municipal liaison: Q_ Telephone number: 1l:(Uc) - Y99 - 2-i?/c[) Fax number:
Email address: u)
Post-Project Review
Is a post-project review required for this proposal? D Yes 0 No
If Yes, date post-project review due:
Date
Form NAA-01 (Rev. 02/19) - 37 - STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SERVICES IP 2015(13)
450 Columbus Blvd. Hartford CT 06103 INFORMATIONAL PUBLICATION The Connecticut Neighborhood Assistance Act Tax Credit Program
Purpose: This Informational Publication explains the by charitable corporations, foundations, trusts, or other Connecticut Neighborhood Assistance Act (NAA) Tax entities. Such projects include, but are not limited to: Credit Program. • Energy conserving modification or replacement of windows and doors; Effective Date: Upon issuance. • Caulking and weather-stripping; Statutory Authority: Conn. Gen. Stat. §12-630aa et. seq. • Insulation; • Automatic energy control systems; Defi nitions: For purposes of the NAA tax credit program: • Hot water systems; Business fi rm means any business entity authorized to do • Equipment required to operate variable steam, hydraulic, business in Connecticut and subject to any of the following and ventilating systems; taxes: • Replacement of burners, furnaces, or boilers; • Insurance Companies and Health Care Centers (Chapter • Electrical or mechanical furnace ignition systems; or 207); • Replacement or modifi cation of lighting fi xtures. • Corporation Business (Chapter 208); • Air Carriers (Chapter 209); The Connecticut Neighborhood Assistance Act Tax Credit Program: The NAA Tax Credit Program provides • Railroad Companies (Chapter 210); a tax credit to business fi rms that make cash investments in • Certified Competitive Video Service Companies qualifying community programs conducted by tax exempt (Chapter 211); or municipal agencies. • Community Antenna Television System Companies (Chapter 211); The credit may be applied against the following taxes: • Satellite Companies (Chapter 211); • Insurance Companies and Health Care Centers (Chapter • Utility Companies (Chapter 212); or 207); • Business Entity (Chapter 213a). For purposes of a • Corporation Business (Chapter 208); business entity subject to the Business Entity Tax, the • Air Carriers (Chapter 209); credit may only be used by the members or partners of • Railroad Companies (Chapter 210); the entity that are subject to the Corporation Business • Certified Competitive Video Service Companies Tax. (Chapter 211); Donation of money to an open space acquisition fund • Community Antenna Television System Companies means money contributed to an open space acquisition fund (Chapter 211); of any political subdivision of the state or any nonprofi t • Satellite Companies (Chapter 211); and land conservation organization. • Utility Companies (Chapter 212). The money must be used for the purchase of land, interest The community programs must be approved by both the in land, or permanent conservation restriction on land to municipality in which the programs are conducted and by be permanently preserved as protected open space. the Department of Revenue Services (DRS). Energy conservation projects means programs to promote Community Programs That Qualify for the NAA Tax energy conservation that are directed toward properties Credit Program: Listed below are examples of the types where at least 75% of occupants are at an income level of programs that qualify for the NAA tax credit and the not exceeding 150% of the poverty level for the year amount of the available credit. immediately preceding the year during which the tax A tax credit equal to 100% of the cash invested is available credit is to be granted or at properties owned or occupied to business fi rms that invest in energy conservation projects. - 38 - A tax credit equal to 60% of the cash invested is available • The minimum contribution on which a tax credit can be to business fi rms that invest in programs that provide: granted is $250. • Neighborhood assistance; • Any organization conducting a program or programs • Job training; eligible for funding under the NAA is limited to receiving • Education; an aggregate of $150,000 of funding for any program or programs for any fi scal year. • Community services; • Crime prevention; • The total amount of all tax credits allowed in any fi scal year is $5 million, which, if exceeded, results in • Construction or rehabilitation of dwelling units for prorating the approved tax credits among the approved families of low and moderate income in the state; organizations. • Donation of money to an open space acquisition fund; Business Applications Deadlines: Each business fi rm • Child day care facilities; requesting a tax credit under the NAA Tax Credit Program • Child care services; must complete a separate Form NAA-02, Connecticut • Employment and training programs directed at Neighborhood Assistance Act (NAA) Business Application, handicapped persons; for each program it wishes to sponsor. Form NAA-02 • Employment and training programs for unemployed must be submitted to DRS on or after September 15 but workers who are 50 years of age or older; not later than October 1 of each year. Business fi rms may • Education and employment training programs for electronically submit their application by emailing a signed recipients in the temporary family assistance program; Form NAA-02 to [email protected]. Any application • Community-based alcoholism prevention or treatment; that is not electronically submitted may be mailed or or hand-delivered to DRS. • Any other program which serves a group of individuals Claiming the Tax Credit: DRS issues an NAA program where at least 75% of the individuals are at an income approval letter to business fi rms that make cash investments not exceeding 150% of the poverty level for the year in qualifi ed community programs. The letter indicates the immediately preceding the year during which the tax tax credit amount that may be claimed on the applicable credit is to be granted. business tax return. The tax credit amount must also Obtaining Approval for the NAA Tax Credit Program: be entered on Form CT-1120K, Business Tax Credit Tax exempt entities and municipal agencies desiring to obtain Summary, and/or Form CT-207K, Insurance/Health Care benefi ts under the NAA must complete Form NAA-01, Tax Credit Schedule. Connecticut Neighborhood Assistance Act Program Carry Back Provisions: The amount of tax credit that Proposal, Parts I, II, and III and submit the form to the is not taken on the tax return of a business fi rm for the municipal agency overseeing the implementation of the income year beginning during the calendar year in which proposal. The overseeing municipal agency then completes the program proposal was approved may be carried back Form NAA-01, Part IV and submits the form to DRS on to the two immediately preceding income years (beginning or before July 1 of each year. Prior to submitting Form with the earlier of the years). No carry forward is allowed. NAA-01 to DRS, each municipality must hold a public hearing on all program applications. The governing body Obtaining Additional Information: Direct inquiries to: of the municipality must vote to approve the programs. Copies of the public hearing notice and minutes of the Department of Revenue Services meeting approving the programs must be submitted by the Research Unit municipality to DRS with the approved program proposals. 450 Columbus Blvd. Ste 1 Hartford CT 06103 Limits on the Amount of Contributions That May Be Call: 860-297-5687 Made or on the Amount of Tax Credit Available: The Email: [email protected] NAA Tax Credit Program has several statutory limits which must be observed, including the following: Effect on Other Documents: Informational Publication • A business fi rm is limited to receiving $150,000 in tax 2013(9), The Connecticut Neighborhood Assistance Act Tax credits annually; however, the amount of tax credit Credit Program, is superseded and may not be relied upon allowed any business fi rm for investments in child after the date of issuance of this Publication. day care facilities for any income year may not exceed $50,000. - 39 - Effect of This Document: An Informational Publication Paperless Filing/Payment Methods (fast, easy, free, and issued by DRS addresses frequently asked questions about confi dential): Business and individual taxpayers can use a current position, policy, or practice, usually in a less the Taxpayer Service Center (TSC) at www.ct.gov/TSC technical question and answer format. to fi le a variety of tax returns, update account information, and make payments online. Related Forms and Publications: Request the most File Electronically: You can choose first-time filer recent edition of the following forms: Form NAA-01, information and fi ling assistance or log directly into the Neighborhood Assistance Act Program Proposal, and TSC to fi le returns and pay taxes. Form NAA-02, Neighborhood Assistance Act Business Application. Pay Electronically: You can pay taxes for tax returns that cannot be fi led through the TSC. Log in and select the Make For Further Information: Call DRS during business Payment Only option. Designate a payment date up to the hours, Monday through Friday: due date of the tax and mail a paper return to complete the • 1-800-382-9463 (Connecticut calls outside the Greater fi ling process. Hartford calling area only); or DRS E-Alerts Service: Get connected to the latest news • 860-297-5962 (from anywhere). from DRS. Receive notification by email of changes TTY, TDD, and Text Telephone users only may transmit to legislation, policies, and procedures. DRS E-Alerts inquiries anytime by calling 860-297-4911. provide information for employer’s withholding tax, News – Press Releases, and Top 100 Delinquency List. Visit the Forms and Publications: Visit the DRS website at DRS website at www.ct.gov/DRS and select Sign up for www.ct.gov/DRS to download and print Connecticut tax e-alerts under How Do I? on the gold navigation bar. forms and publications.
IP 2015(13) Corporation Business Tax Insurance Premiums Tax Public Services Companies Tax Issued: 03/27/2015 - 40 - Item #3
Town of Mansfield Agenda Item Summary To: Town Council From: Derrik Kennedy, Town Manager CC: Joshua Putman, Assistant Town Manager; Linda Painter, Director of Planning and Development Date: May 28, 2019 Re: Proposed Changes to Chapter 122, Fees
Subject Matter/Background The Planning and Zoning Commission has proposed a comprehensive update to the Chapter 122 of the Mansfield Code of Ordinances related to fees for the Planning and Zoning Commission, Inland Wetlands Agency, and Zoning Board of Appeals. These fees were last updated in 2008. Additional information on proposed changes including rationale for the changes can be found in the attached memo from the PZC Chair.
Summary of Proposed Changes
• Article I-Zoning Board of Appeals Fees . Section 122-1(A)(2): Revise the fees for the Zoning Board of Appeals to establish separate fees for application review and required legal notices. The proposed changes would increase the cost of an application from $400 to $700. This increase is primarily associated with the cost of legal notices. If the state were to eliminate legal notice requirements in the future, the advertising fees would no longer be charged. . Note: While not referenced in the current ordinance, Zoning Board of Appeals fees are also subject to state land use fees mandated by C.G.S. Sec. 22a-27j.
• Article II-Planning and Zoning Commission Fees . Article Title: Amend Title to include reference to Inland Wetlands Agency Fees . Section 122-2: Due to the comprehensive nature of the changes to PZC and IWA fee structures, the PZC has recommended that Section 122-2 be repealed and replaced in its entirety. o New Section A: Establishes a table of fees associated with various application types and identifies associated legal notice fees and whether the state land use fee is required. As with the advertising fees associated with ZBA applications, the advertising fees would not be charged if the state were to eliminate the legal notice requirements. o New Section B. Authorizes the Town Council to revise advertising fees by resolution to reflect changes in legal notice costs.
- 41 - o New Section C. Establishes provisions for fee reductions and waivers associated with the development of affordable housing units and the redevelopment of existing sites. o New Section D. Maintains the current charges for copies of maps and various regulations.
• Article V: Technical or Professional Consultant Fees . Section 122-13: Revises provisions to require payment of a deposit equal to 1.5 times the estimated cost of consultant services.
Legal Review Town Attorney review of the proposed changes will be needed.
Financial Impact Staff has prepared a comparison of how the proposed fee structure would change the fee for various projects/sample project types if adopted as proposed.
Recommendation If the Council is prepared to schedule a public hearing on the proposed ordinance changes, the following motion would be in order:
Move, effective May 28, 2019 to refer the proposed changes to Chapter 122 of the Code of Ordinances to the Town Attorney for review and comment and schedule a public hearing for Monday, June 24, 2019 at 7:00 p.m.
If the Council believes that additional review of the proposed ordinance is needed, you may refer the proposed ordinance to an ad-hoc Ordinance Development and Review Subcommittee using the following motion:
Move, effective May 20, 2019 to refer the proposed changes to Chapter 122 of the Code of Ordinances to the Town Attorney and Ordinance Development and Review Subcommittee.
Attachments 1) May 20, 2019 Memo from JoAnn Goodwin, PZC Chair 2) Proposed changes to the fee ordinance 3) Revenue comparison analysis
- 42 - TOWN OF MANSFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Date: May 20, 2019
To: Mansfield Town Council
From: JoAnn Goodwin, Chair Subject: Proposed Changes to Chapter 122, Mansfield Code of Ordinances, Fees Attached please find proposed revisions to Chapter 122 of the Mansfield Code of Ordinances related to Fees for the Planning and Zoning Commission, Inland Wetlands Agency, and Zoning Board of Appeals. The revisions reflect a comprehensive update to the fee structure, which has not been revised since 2008. Significant changes include:
Establishing separate fees associated with advertising costs. Currently, we charge a lump sum fee for all application types. As a total of three legal notices are required for each application that requires a public hearing, there are many cases where the advertising costs subsume most or all of the application fee received by the Town. For example, the application fee for an efficiency unit is $300. The most recent legal notice for a public hearing of an efficiency unit cost $249.42. We are also required to place a legal ad after the PZC takes action on the application. A decision notice for one application can range from $75 to over $100 depending on the complexity of an application. As such, we will have spent more advertising the public hearing and decision than we received in an application fee.
The proposed fee schedule establishes separate fees for public hearing notices and decision notices in addition to the base application fee. For some application types, the base application fee has been reduced as a result.
Establishing fees for multiple plan revisions associated with certain applications. Each time an applicant submits a revised plan in response to staff comments, a review of the revised plan must be completed by multiple departments. In some cases, we have had applications that required multiple plan resubmissions prior to Commission consideration. This issue has not been limited to special permits and site plans. We recently had an application for a regulation amendment where each time staff issued a memo identifying issues with the proposed regulations, the applicant submitted a new proposal in response. Although we are reviewing how we can improve the information we provide to applicants, a financial incentive could also be helpful. Accordingly, a new supplemental fee is proposed for plan revisions/application revisions starting at the second revision. In summary, applicants would be able to submit one revision in
- 43 - response to the 1st round of staff comments as part of the initial application fees. Each subsequent revision would be subject to an additional fee. Changing Fee Structures. Examples of proposed changes to fee structures include but are not limited to: o Changing fee basis from dwelling units to bedrooms for multi-family and group dwelling uses. o Changing fee basis from a lump sum fee based on building size for commercial, industrial and mixed use buildings to a fee tied directly to the gross square feet of the building. Currently, someone proposing a 2,000 square foot building would be charged the same fee as someone proposing a 10,000 square foot building. With the revision, the fee would be tied directly to the actual size of the proposed building/addition. o Creating a fee structure specifically for mixed use projects that includes lower base fees per bedroom and per square foot. This reduction both acknowledges the relationship between the uses and provides a policy incentive to encourage mixed use development. o Creating a separate fee structure for establishing or modifying a Special Design District based on the fee structures for site plan and special permit applications. Given the level of complexity involved with a Special Design District, a higher fee than a standard zoning map amendment is warranted. o Establishing fees for Inland Wetlands Agency review of applications that are based on amount of impervious cover which is directly related to wetland impacts. Establishing fee reductions as an incentive for specific activities. The proposed revisions would establish fee reductions for certain activities that are promoted by the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD), specifically development of affordable housing units and redevelopment of existing sites instead of greenfield development. The Commission could also recommend other fee reductions to promote POCD goals such as sustainable design.
In addition to the attached revisions, staff has also prepared an analysis of how the proposed changes would impact various application types. Please let us know if you have any questions with regard to the proposed revisions.
- 44 - Proposed Changes to Chapter 122, Mansfield Code of Ordinances . Fees May 20, 2019 Draft . Revised Per PZC April 1, 2019 Recommendations
Article I: Zoning Board of Appeals Fees § 122-1 Fees established. [Amended 4-28-2008, effective 5-27-2008] A. Pursuant to Section 8-1c of the Connecticut General Statutes, the following schedule of fees is hereby established for appeals: (1) Motor-vehicle related: $100. (2) Applications or requests to the Zoning Board of Appeals, including, but not limited to, variances, special exceptions and appeals of Zoning Agent orders, decisions or requirements (includes legal notice costs): Base Fee: $400.200 Advertising Fee (Public Hearing Legal Notices): $400 Advertising Fee (Legal Notice of Decision): $100 B. The Town Council may, by resolution, establish a new fee structure.
Article II: Planning and Zoning Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency Fees Repeal Section 122-2 and replace with the following. As this is a complete replacement, changes are not shown in strike-through/underline format. § 122-2 Fees established. [Amended 9-23-2002, effective 10-18-2002; 4-28-2008, effective 5-27-2008] A. Pursuant to Section 8-1c of the Connecticut General Statutes, the following schedule of application fees are hereby established:
- 45 - Application Type Town Fee State Fee Advertising Advertising (Per C.G.S. Fee Fee Sec. 22a-27j) (Notice of (Public Hearing Decision) Notices)* Zoning Permit Application Fees Zoning Permits-Residential Uses New Single-Family Dwelling / Two- Family Dwelling / Accessory Dwelling Unit Application Fee (per unit): $175 Yes NA NA Accessory Structures, Alterations and
Additions Fee for construction valued at less than $50 Yes NA NA $5,000: Fee for construction valued at $5,000 or $75 greater: Home Business Permit (aka Home
Occupation) New Permit Fee: $100 Yes NA NA Permit Renewal Fee: $50 No NA NA New Multi-Family Dwelling/Group
Dwelling Units Fee per bedroom: $25 Yes NA NA Zoning Permits-Non-Residential Uses New Construction Base Fee $125 Fee Per 1,000 Gross Square Feet of Yes NA NA $25 Building (or portion thereof) Accessory Structures, Alterations and
Additions Base Fee $75 Fee Per 1,000 Gross Square Feet of Yes NA NA $15 Building (or portion thereof) Zoning Permits-Other Lot Line Revisions $50 Yes NA NA Signs (New/Replacement) $75 Yes NA NA Temporary Structures $50 Yes NA NA $100 per Zoning Compliance Letter No NA NA property Other Zoning Permits Not Listed $25 Yes NA NA Planning and Zoning Commission
Application Fees Site Plans and Special Permits-
Residential Uses Accessory Dwelling Units $100 Yes $100 $400 (aka efficiency apartment) Multi-Family and Group Dwelling Uses Base Fee $750 Fee per bedroom $25 Yes $100 $400 Supplemental fee per each plan revision $250 (starting at revision number 2) All Other Residential Uses $500 Yes $100 $400
- 46 - Application Type Town Fee State Fee Advertising Advertising (Per C.G.S. Fee Fee Sec. 22a-27j) (Notice of (Public Hearing Decision) Notices)* Planning and Zoning Commission
Application Fees (Continued) Site Plans and Special Permits- Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Uses Base Fee $500 Fee Per 1,000 Gross Square Feet of $20 Building (or portion thereof) Yes $100 $400 Supplemental fee per each plan revision $250 (starting at revision number 2) Site Plans and Special Permits- Agricultural, Open Space and Outdoor Recreation Uses Base Fee $250 Supplemental fee per each plan revision Yes $100 $400 $250 (starting at revision number 2) Site Plans and Special Permits-Mixed
Residential/Non-Residential Uses Base Fee $500 Fee per bedroom (residential uses) $20 Fee Per 1,000 Gross Square Feet of Building (or portion thereof)-commercial, $15 Yes $100 $400 industrial and institutional uses Supplemental fee per each plan $250 revision (starting at revision number 2) Modifications to Approved Site Plans and Special Permits Special Permit Renewal or Extension $50 Yes $100 $400 Modification-Administrative $50 Yes NA NA Modification-Commission $200 Yes $100 $400
Subdivisions/Resubdivisions New Subdivision/ Resubdivision Base Fee $500 Fee per Lot $150 Fee per 1,000 linear feet of new road (or $200 Yes $100 $400 any part thereof): Post Approval Work (No new roads) $500 Post Approval Work (new roads) $2,000 Subdivision Revisions (Including building or development area envelope $100 Yes $100 $400 modifications)
- 47 - Application Type Town Fee State Fee Advertising Advertising (Per C.G.S. Fee Fee Sec. 22a-27j) (Notice of (Public Hearing Decision) Notices)* Planning and Zoning Commission
Application Fees (Continued) Amendments to Zoning Map Special Design District (Establishment,
Expansion, Modification) Base Fee $500 Fee per bedroom (residential uses) $25 Fee Per 1,000 Gross Square Feet of Building (or portion thereof)-commercial, $20 Yes $100 $400 industrial and institutional uses Supplemental Fee per each revision to original application (starting at revision $250 number 2) All Other Zoning Map Amendments $500 Yes $100 $400 Amendments to Zoning Regulations Base Fee $500 Supplemental Fee per each revision to Yes $100 $400 original application (starting at revision $250 number 2) Inland Wetlands Agency Application
Fees Inland Wetlands Agent-Review of
Activity in Regulated Area Inland Wetlands License $40 Yes $100 NA Inland Wetlands Agency-Review of
Regulated Activities Subdivisions/Resubdivisions Base Fee: $150 Fee per lot with activity in regulated area: $50 Fee per 1,000 linear feet of new road (or Yes $100 $400 $200 any part thereof): Fee per 1,000 square feet of disturbance $25 to wetlands (or any part thereof) Inland Wetlands License: Accessory structures, uses and site work associated with existing one and two-family dwellings Yes $100 $400 Base Fee: $75 Fee per 1,000 square feet of disturbance $25 to wetlands (or any part thereof) Inland Wetlands License: New construction-one or two dwelling units on Existing Lots Yes $100 $400 Base Fee: $150 Fee per 1,000 square feet of disturbance $25 to wetlands (or any part thereof)
- 48 - Application Type Town Fee State Fee Advertising Advertising (Per C.G.S. Fee Fee Sec. 22a-27j) (Notice of (Public Hearing Decision) Notices)* Inland Wetlands Agency-Review of
Regulated Activities (Continued) Inland Wetlands License-All other
uses/activities Base Fee: $200 Fee per 1,000 square feet of new Yes $100 $400 impervious cover in regulated area (or $5 any part thereof): Fee per 1,000 square feet of disturbance $25 to wetlands (or any part thereof) Modifications to Approved Licenses Inland Wetlands License- $25 No $100 $400 Renewal/Extension Inland Wetlands License-Modification $50 Yes $100 $400 Amendments to Map and/or
Regulations Amendment to Inland Wetlands Map $250 Yes $100 $400 Amendment to Inland Wetlands $250 Yes $100 $400 Regulations *The public hearing notice fees listed only apply if a public hearing is required. Additionally, this fee is for the publication of two legal notices required by statutes. Additional public hearing notice fees shall apply if changes to the application require the publication of additional notices. B. The advertising fees established in this Chapter may be revised by Resolution of the Town Council to reflect changes in advertising costs. C. The Town fees established pursuant to Section A. shall be adjusted pursuant to the following provisions: (1) Residential Development a. “Per bedroom” fees shall be waived for low income and affordable housing units as defined in the Zoning Regulations. b. “Per bedroom” fees shall be reduced by 50% for workforce housing units as defined in the Zoning Regulations. c. Inland Wetlands Agency fees shall be reduced by 50% for residential or mixed use development where at least 15% of units are designated as low-income units and 15% of units are designated as affordable units as defined in the Zoning Regulations. (2) Redevelopment a. Fees associated with redevelopment of a previously developed site shall be reduced by 50% provided the entire development site is designated as a Smart Growth development area or Village Center in the Plan of Conservation and Development. b. Fees associated with redevelopment of a previously developed site shall be reduced by 25% if at least 50% of the development site is designated as a Smart Growth development area or Village Center in the Plan of Conservation and Development. D. Pursuant to Section 8-1c of the Connecticut General Statutes, the following schedule of fees is hereby established for copies of maps, regulations and other documents: (1) Zoning Map, Wetlands Map or other large scale maps: $5 per map or actual cost of production, whichever is greater
- 49 - (2) Plan of Conservation and Development: $30 or cost of production, whichever is greater (3) Zoning Regulations: $20 or cost of production, whichever is greater (4) Subdivision Regulations: $10 or cost of production, whichever is greater (5) Wetlands Regulations: $10 or cost of production, whichever is greater
Article V: Technical or Professional Consultant Fees § 122-12 Determination that consultant services are necessary. In processing any application, if it is determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Inland Wetland Agency or the Zoning Board of Appeals that it is reasonable and necessary for it to engage the consultant services of one or more technical or professional experts to aid the Commission, Agency or Board in evaluating or determining the application, the Commission, Agency or Board may retain such outside assistance and charge the applicant for all such expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred, as an additional fee. The Commission, Agency or Board shall select, in its sole discretion, the persons or entities who are to be the outside consultant(s). In all such situations, the Commission, Agency or Board is the sole client of the outside consultant.
§ 122-13 Collection procedures; deposits. Upon determination that such expertise is required, the Planning and Zoning Commission, Inland Wetland Agency or Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman, with staff assistance, is authorized to create and implement whatever procedures are determined to be reasonable and necessary to charge and collect any such technical or professional consultant fees from an applicant. Any such procedure may include the requirement of a deposit equal to 1.5 times the estimated cost of consultant services to be paid by the applicant at or soon after the time of application submission and prior to the retention of any such technical or professional consultant so as to ensure payment by the applicant of such reasonable and necessary fee. If the applicant fails or refuses to deposit the actual or estimated fee for consultant services, the Commission, Agency or Board may determine that the application is incomplete, which shall be sufficient grounds for denial of the application. If Town expenditures for consultant assistance exceed applicant deposits, the applicant shall submit additional funds within five days upon receipt of notice from the Town. Any consultant fee deposits remaining after the application review shall be returned to the applicant.[1]
[1] Editor's Note: Former Art. VI, Fees for Fire Prevention Services, adopted 5-26-2009, effective 6-24-2009, which immediately followed, was repealed 12-10-2012, effective 1-4-2012.
- 50 - ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION FEE COMPARISON (not including required State fees)
Where permit fees are based on number of units/project size, examples of previous projects have been provided. Fee Comparison assumes no fee waivers or reductions Fees rounded to closest dollar for comparison purposes. Existing Proposed Difference Residential Permit Fees Residential Additions and Accessory Structures (<$5,000) $ 25 $ 50 $ 25 Residential Additions and Accessory Structures ($5,000+) $ 50 $ 75 $ 25 New Single-Family Home $ 150 $ 175 $ 25 New Two-Family Dwelling $ 50 $ 350 $ 300 New Accessory Dwelling Unit $ 50 $ 175 $ 125 New Multi-Family Residences Meadowbrook Gardens (Phase 1) $ 2,500 $ 3,775 $ 1,275 Meadowbrook Gardens (Phase 2) $ 1,800 $ 1,525 $ (275) Meadowbrook Gardens (Phase 3) $ 3,000 $ 3,525 $ 525 Home Business Permit (Home Occupation) New Home Business $ 75 $ 100 $ 25 Permit Renewal (every 2 years) $ 50 $ 50 $ - Non-Residential Permit Fees New Commercial Buildings Ferrigno Realty $ 150 $ 149 $ (1) Price Chopper $ 150 $ 913 $ 763 UPS Building $ 150 $ 250 $ 100 Additions, Alterations and Accessory Structures Charles River Labs $ 50 $ 143 $ 93 Other Zoning Permits $ - Lot Line Revisions $ 25 $ 50 $ 25 Signs $ 25 $ 75 $ 50 Temporary Structures $ 25 $ 50 $ 25 Zoning Compliance Letter $ 50 $ 100 $ 50 Other Permits not listed $ 25 $ 25 $ -
- 51 - PZC Application Fee Comparison (not including required State fees) Where permit fees are based on number of units/project size, examples of previous projects have been provided. Fee Comparison assumes no fee waivers or reductions Where a public hearing is at the discretion of the Commission, the below fees assume no hearing is required. An additional $400 would be required for public hearing notices if required. Fees rounded to closest dollar for comparison purposes. Existing Proposed Difference Site Plans and Special Permits Administrative Fees Post Approval Work (Based on project size; amount shown is maximum) $ 1,000 $ - $ (1,000) Supplemental Plan Review Fee-Per Revision (starting at second revision) $ - 250 $ 250.00 Site Plans and Special Permits-Residential Uses Accessory Dwelling Units (Efficiency Units) $ 300 $ 600 $ 300 Multi-Family Dwellings-Meadowbrook Gardens (Phase 1) $ 3,500 $ 4,275 $ 775 Multi-Family Dwellings-Meadowbrook Gardens (Phase 2) $ 2,800 $ 2,025 $ (775) Multi-Family Dwellings-Meadowbrook Gardens (Phase 3) $ 4,000 $ 4,750 $ 750 Site Plans and Special Permits-Non Residential Uses Charles River Labs (Addition) $ 1,000 $ 1,090 $ 90 Ferrigno Real Estate $ 500 $ 619 $ 119 Michael's Addition/Eastbrook Mall $ 1,113 $ 1,291 $ 177 Cumberland Farms $ 1,000 $ 1,073 $ 73 Site Plans and Special Permits-Agriculture, Open Space/Outdoor Recreation Uses Gravel Permit (currently based on volume withdrawn; amount shown is maximum) $ 2,000 $ 750 $ (1,250) Gravel Renewal Permit $ 250 $ 150 $ (100) Storrs Adventure Park Special Permit $ 300 $ 750 $ 450 Red Barn Creamery Special Permit $ 300 $ 750 $ 450 Site Plans and Special Permits-Mixed Use Projects 17 Flaherty Road (1 DU/900 SF Office) $ 500 $ 619 $ 119 Mixed Use Example: 75,000 SF(20,000 SF non-resid; 50 dwelling units/120 bedrooms) $ 2,625 $ 3,700 $ 1,075 Modifications to Site Plans and Special Permits Renewals/Extensions $ - $ 150 $ 150 Modification/Administrative $ 50 $ 50 $ - Modification/Commission $ 250 $ 300 $ 50 Amendments to Zoning Regulations/Map Amendments to Zoning Regulations $ 500 $ 1,000 $ 500 Amendment to Zoning Map $ 500 $ 1,000 $ 500 Supplemental Review Fee-Per Revision (starting at second revision) $ - $ 250 $ 250 Amendment to Zoning Map-Special Design District Storrs Center-Phase 4 Amendment $ 500 $ 1,730 $ 1,230 Supplemental Review Fee-Per Revision (starting at second revision) $ - $ 250 $ 250 Subdivisions Modification to Approved Subdivision $ 75 $ 200 $ 125 Mountainview Acres (8 lots) $ 1,700 $ 1,800 $ 100 Mountainview Acres (Post Approval Fee) $ 500 $ 500 $ -
- 52 - IWA Application Fee Comparison (not including required state fees)
Where permit fees are based on number of units/project size, examples of previous projects have been provided. Fee Comparison assumes no fee waivers or reductions
Existing Proposed Difference Work within Regulated Area and/or Wetlands Wetlands License issued by Inland Wetlands Agent $ 100 $ 140 $ 40 Agency Action: Subdivisions* Mountainview Acres (8 lots) $ 650 $ 650 $ - Agency Action: Regulated Activities-One/Two Family Dwellings on Existing One or Two Family Dwelling (new construction)-No Public Hearing $ 250 $ 250 $ - One or Two Family Dwelling (new construction)-Public Hearing $ 500 $ 650 $ 150 Addition/accessory structure/site work associated with existing 1 or 2 family dwelling-No Public Hearing $ 125 $ 175 $ 50 Addition/accessory structure/site work associated with existing 1 or 2 family dwelling-Public Hearing $ 500 $ 600 $ 100 Agency Action: Regulated Activities: All Other Uses* New Construction (up to 10,000 SF)-20,000 SF IC assumed for comparison-No Public Hearing $ 250 $ 400 $ 150 New Construction (up to 10,000 SF)-20,000 SF IC assumed for comparison- Public Hearing $ 500 $ 800 $ 300 New Construction (over 10,000 SF)-50,000 SF IC assumed for comparison-No Public Hearing $ 250 $ 550 $ 300 New Construction (over 10,000 SF)-50,000 SF IC assumed for comparison- Public Hearing $ 1,000 $ 950 $ (50) Additions (up to 10,000 SF) & Accessory Structures-20,000 SF IC assumed for comparison-No Public Hearing $ 125 $ 400 $ 275 Additions (up to 10,000 SF) & Accessory Structures-20,000 SF IC assumed for comparison-Public Hearing $ 500 $ 800 $ 300
Additions (over 10,000 SF)-35,000 SF IC assumed for comparison-Public Hearing $ 1,000 $ 875 $ (125) Amendments to Wetlands Regulations/Map Amendments to Inland Wetlands Regulations $ 500 $ 750 $ 250 Amendment to Inland Wetlands Map $ 500 $ 750 $ 250 Modifications to Approved Licenses Inland Wetlands License Renewal/Extension $ 100 125 $ 25 Inland Wetlands License-Modification $ 50 150 $ 100 Staff visits for noncompliance with Agency Order $ 50 $ - $ (50) *All Fee examples assume no disturbance to wetlands. If project includes direct impact, a fee of $25/1,000 square feet (or part thereof) of wetland disturbance would also be assessed.
- 53 - PAGE BREAK
- 54 - Item #4
Town of Mansfield Agenda Item Summary
To: Town Council From: Derrik M. Kennedy, Town Manager CC: Josh Putman, Assistant Town Manager; Fran Raiola, Fire Chief; Adam B. Libros, Emergency Management Director and Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal Date: May 28, 2019 Re: Emergency Management – Capitol Region Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
Subject Matter/Background Hazard Mitigation is defined as any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to life and property from hazard events. It is an on-going process that occurs before, during, and after disasters and serves to break the cycle of damage and repair in hazardous areas. A plan identifies population density, forestry, agriculture, ponds, lakes, rivers and dams, bridges and addresses concerns of potential outcome that a large scale event would have under existing conditions and as continued development occurs within the town. Critical town and utility infrastructure, including schools, historic landmarks, elderly neighborhoods, housing complexes, shopping areas, and proposed new construction are reviewed. The plan focuses on water supply and flooding management, public fire protection, snow removal and storage, tree growth impacting electrical power distribution, debris removal, mass notification communication systems, shelter facilities and hazardous materials transported via railroad. There is also concentration on climate change. Strategies are devised and projects developed to reduce or eliminate long term impacts through risk assessment and evaluation of the Town’s capabilities to manage and recover from natural disasters.
The Town Council of Mansfield previously approved a Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2014. At that time, the Town was an included as part of the former Windham Region Council of Governments. The Capital Region Hazard Mitigation Plan Update incorporates not only those towns embraced under Capital Region Council of Governments (CRCOG) but also jurisdictions that were formerly under Windham Region or Central Connecticut Region. The Town of Mansfield has been integrated into CRCOG now comprised of thirty eight (38) municipalities.
Reference is hereby made to more extensive details of community planning hazard mitigation efforts found in the Executive Summary and Mansfield Annex documents provided herewith.
- 55 - Financial Impact Adoption of the plan will enable the Town of Mansfield to apply for mitigation grants and public assistance funds administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security, and identify related issues affecting eligibility, if any.
Legal Review No legal review is required at this time.
FEMA Region I has completed its review of the Capitol Region Hazard Mitigation Plan Update and found it approvable pending adoption by the subject municipalities. With this approval, the aforementioned jurisdictions meet the local mitigation planning requirements under 44 CFR 201 pending FEMA’s review of the Adoption documentation and the Final Plan.
Recommendation Over the years, the Town has incurred significant expenses as a result of the damages and other losses due to flooding, hurricane and winter storms. FEMA reimbursements for mitigation strategy projects and post occurrence recovery have been significant economic and quality of life benefits. Staff recommends that the Council adopt the Capital Region Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2019-2024 so that the Town may continue to obtain financial support for hazard mitigation planning toward the prevention of loss of life and property as a result of hazard events.
If the Council affirms adoption, the following resolution is in order:
RESOLVED by the Town Council: 1. The Plan is hereby adopted as an official plan of the Town of Mansfield; 2. The respective officials identified in the mitigation strategy of the Plan are hereby directed to pursue implementation of the recommended actions assigned to them; 3. Future revisions and Plan maintenance required by 44 CFR 201.6 and FEMA are hereby adopted as a part of this resolution for a period of five (5) years from the date of this resolution. 4. An annual report on the progress of the implementation elements of the Plan shall be presented to the Town Council.
Attachments 2019-2024 Capitol Region Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: 1) Executive Summary 2) Mansfield Annex 3) Certificate of Adoption resolution
- 56 - Capitol Region Council of Governments Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: 2019 – 2024
Executive Summary
Introduction Connecticut's Capitol Region encompasses the City of Hartford and 37 surrounding urban, suburban, and rural communities. The Capitol Region Council of Governments (CRCOG) received Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds through the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) to develop a Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Update for the 38 municipalities comprising the region:
Town of Andover Town of East Windsor Town of Marlborough Town of Suffield Town of Avon Town of Ellington City of New Britain Town of Tolland Town of Berlin Town of Enfield Town of Newington Town of Vernon Town of Bloomfield Town of Farmington Town of Plainville Town of West Hartford Town of Bolton Town of Glastonbury Town of Rocky Hill Town of Wethersfield Town of Canton Town of Granby Town of Simsbury Town of Willington Town of Columbia City of Hartford Town of Somers Town of Windsor Town of Coventry Town of Hebron Town of South Windsor Town of Windsor Locks Town of East Granby Town of Manchester Town of Southington Town of East Hartford Town of Mansfield Town of Stafford
CRCOG staff and municipal officials from each community contributed to this planning project. The Capitol Region Emergency Planning Committee (CREPC) ESF-5 Emergency Management subcommittee was expanded to provide guidance to the update process. This plan update builds on the existing Capitol Region Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan of 2014 and incorporates information from the former Central Connecticut Region Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2016) and the former Windham Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2015). Berlin, New Britain, Plainville, and Southington were previously included in the former Central Connecticut Region Hazard Mitigation Plan. Columbia, Coventry, Mansfield, and Willington were previously included in the former Windham Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. The other 30 communities listed above were included in the previous Capitol Region Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (2014).
The purpose of this plan is to identify natural hazards likely to affect the Capitol Region and its nearly one million residents, assess vulnerabilities to these hazards, and set forth mitigation strategies that will reduce the loss of life and property, economic disruptions, and the cost of post-disaster recovery for the region's communities. The benefits of preparing a Hazard Mitigation Plan include:
. Improving the region's ability to deal with natural disasters and reduce losses . Reducing the need for emergency response to natural disasters . Enabling municipalities to access FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grants upon formal adoption of an approved plan . Improving post-disaster recovery implementation
- 57 - The plan considers the following natural hazards that affect the region:
. Dam Failure . Forest and Wildland Fires . Drought . Hurricanes and Tropical Storms . Earthquake . Tornadoes and High Winds . Flooding . Severe Winter Storms
The impacts of these natural hazards were evaluated as well as the locations and groups of people particularly vulnerable to the effects of these hazards. Mitigation goals and strategies were developed at both the regional and local levels to reduce or prevent the damages to life and property that can result from these natural hazards. CRCOG and CREPC, in addition to local and other partners, are responsible for implementation of the regional goals contained in this plan. Each participating municipality identified its own mitigation goals and strategies and assumes responsibility for implementation of those measures.
Hazards Impacting the Capitol Region The Capitol Region is vulnerable to the numerous natural hazards with flooding, winter storms, and high wind events being the natural hazards that most frequently occur with enough severity to cause loss of life or property. To evaluate the impacts of these hazards on our region, we looked at historical accounts of major storms and other events; examined flood insurance claims data and public assistance provided after federally declared disasters; analyzed demographic data and physical features; and used HAZUS- MH, a computer model, to estimate losses due to flooding, hurricanes, and earthquakes.
Loss estimates for each hazard are summarized for each community in Table ES-1 below and range from approximately $247,000 per year in Andover to nearly $11,093,000 in Hartford. Details regarding these loss estimates are provided in Section II and each municipal annex of this plan. The annualized loss estimate for the Capitol Region due to natural hazards is estimated at $84.1 million. The following is a brief summary of the natural hazards affecting the region and our communities.
Table ES-1. Annualized Loss Estimate by Community (in $1,000s)
Town Total Storms Storms Tropical Drought Flooding Wildfires Tornadoes Dam Failure Dam Earthquakes Severe Winter Winter Severe Hurricanes and and Hurricanes Thunderstorms Andover $0 $0 $8 $1 $223 $11 $1 $1 $2 $247 Avon $0 $0 $72 $4 $1,135 $163 $2 $266 $4 $1,646 Berlin $0 $0 $76 $11 $1,245 $83 $3 $291 $5 $1,714 Bloomfield $0 $0 $79 $15 $1,284 $181 $3 $301 $5 $1,868 Bolton $0 $0 $13 $0 $337 $19 $2 $1 $2 $374 Canton $0 $0 $28 $10 $645 $48 $1 $151 $5 $888 Columbia $0 $0 $14 $1 $372 $9 $2 $2 $3 $403 Coventry $1 $0 $25 $4 $843 $33 $5 $4 $5 $920 East Granby $0 $0 $18 $2 $323 $41 $1 $76 $3 $464 East Hartford $0 $0 $150 $14 $3,213 $188 $7 $752 $3 $4,327 East Windsor $0 $0 $37 $8 $700 $30 $1 $164 $5 $945
- 58 -
Town Total Storms Storms Tropical Drought Flooding Wildfires Tornadoes Dam Failure Dam Earthquakes Severe Winter Winter Severe Hurricanes and and Hurricanes Thunderstorms Ellington $1 $0 $34 $2 $1,057 $67 $6 $5 $4 $1,176 Enfield $0 $0 $121 $24 $2,799 $385 $6 $655 $6 $3,996 Farmington $0 $0 $106 $39 $1,589 $192 $3 $372 $5 $2,306 Glastonbury $0 $0 $150 $5 $2,158 $216 $5 $505 $10 $3,049 Granby $0 $0 $23 $3 $707 $117 $1 $166 $8 $1,025 Hartford $0 $0 $478 $32 $7,822 $910 $17 $1,831 $3 $11,093 Hebron $1 $0 $22 $0 $656 $27 $4 $3 $5 $718 Manchester $0 $0 $186 $7 $3,651 $381 $8 $855 $5 $5,093 Mansfield $2 $0 $79 $21 $1,799 $115 $10 $8 $6 $2,040 Marlborough $0 $0 $17 $3 $401 $18 $1 $94 $4 $538 New Britain $0 $0 $196 $26 $4,589 $187 $10 $1,074 $2 $6,084 Newington $0 $0 $110 $18 $1,916 $153 $4 $448 $2 $2,651 Plainville $0 $0 $63 $28 $1,111 $55 $2 $260 $2 $1,521 Rocky Hill $0 $0 $76 $4 $1,236 $83 $3 $289 $3 $1,694 Simsbury $0 $0 $68 $16 $1,474 $225 $3 $345 $6 $2,137 Somers $1 $0 $24 $13 $776 $93 $4 $3 $4 $918 South Windsor $0 $0 $128 $6 $1,612 $408 $3 $377 $5 $2,539 Southington $0 $0 $87 $21 $2,700 $127 $6 $632 $7 $3,580 Stafford $1 $0 $30 $22 $819 $32 $4 $4 $8 $920 Suffield $0 $0 $37 $1 $986 $103 $2 $231 $8 $1,368 Tolland $1 $0 $34 $6 $1,020 $141 $5 $4 $5 $1,216 Vernon $2 $0 $82 $6 $1,977 $259 $11 $8 $2 $2,347 West Hartford $0 $0 $221 $38 $3,966 $670 $8 $928 $4 $5,835 Wethersfield $0 $0 $75 $11 $1,672 $132 $4 $391 $2 $2,287 Willington $0 $0 $12 $6 $409 $24 $2 $2 $4 $459 Windsor $0 $0 $95 $3 $1,821 $100 $4 $426 $5 $2,454 Windsor Locks $0 $0 $43 $9 $783 $320 $2 $183 $2 $1,342 Total $9 $0 $3,116 $444 $61,827 $6,345 $164 $12,106 $170 $84,181 Hurricanes and Tropical Storms The Atlantic hurricane season extends from June 1 through November 30 each year. While the Capitol Region is spared the coastal storm surges associated with hurricanes, it is not immune from damaging winds and rain. According to the state's Hazard Mitigation Plan, a moderate Category II hurricane can be expected to hit Connecticut once every 23 to 30 years. A major Category III or IV hurricane may occur before 2040 based on 20th century trends.
In August 2011, Hurricane Irene, which was downgraded to a tropical storm before hitting Connecticut, caused widespread damage to the region and state. Irene was responsible for three deaths associated with flooding and downed wires from falling trees. According to The Hartford Courant, insurance companies paid out $235 million on more than 60,000 claims in Connecticut related to damage from Irene. However, this figure does not include hundreds of millions more in uncovered expenses and cleanup costs for Connecticut's largest electric utility at the time, Connecticut Light and Power (now Eversource). At the height of the storm, some 754,000 residents were without power. Capitol Region
- 59 - cities and towns were widely affected by downed trees, flooding, and power outages as a result of Irene. Many residents and businesses were without power for over a week. According to the Connecticut Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (DEMHS), municipalities, and other local and private nonprofit agencies incurred expenses of over $3.18 million due to Irene. The municipalities and agencies are eligible for reimbursement of 75% of these costs under FEMA's Public Assistance program.
CRCOG used FEMA's HAZUS-MH software to estimate the extent of physical damage and the economic losses to the region and our communities if we were hit with another hurricane with a 1% annual chance recurrence interval. The HAZUS-MH hurricane model primarily considers wind damage for inland areas such as the Capitol Region, which is not subject to storm surges. The model predicts the region could face economic losses of approximately $512 million. Floods Flooding can occur as a result of other natural hazards such as heavy precipitation, hurricanes, winter storms, snow melt, ice jams, or dam failures. The Capitol Region's numerous rivers and streams, as well as its urbanized areas, make floods and flash floods a regular risk. Individuals and local governments face significant economic loss, risks to public safety, and degraded waterways from flooding. There is not a "flood season" per se in Connecticut; however, waterways are normally higher during spring and are thus especially vulnerable to flooding from intense precipitation. Significant flooding can also occur as a result of hurricanes and tropical storms. According to the 2014 Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, major flooding of small rivers and loss of life can be expected every 5 to 10 years throughout the state. Major flooding of larger rivers, such as the Connecticut and Farmington, with loss of life and structural damage can be expected once every 30 years. Historic and widespread floods occurred in 1936, 1938, 1955, and 1982.
An analysis of claims filed under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in the Capitol Region demonstrates the potential for losses due to flooding. Since the program's inception, over 1,860 claims resulting in payments of nearly $15.1 million have been filed in the Capitol Region as of January 2018. West Hartford has had the highest number of overall flood loss claims, followed by Farmington, New Britain, and Simsbury. Farmington and West Hartford have also had the highest overall flood loss payments.
Of these claims, 436 were repetitive loss claims (i.e., more than one claim over $1,000 has been filed for flood damages to an insured building over a 10-year period). Approximately 144 properties have experienced repetitive losses in the Capitol Region. These losses have resulted in payments of approximately $5.5 million. West Hartford has the highest number of repetitive flood claims, followed by Simsbury. Farmington, West Hartford, and Newington have had the highest repetitive flood loss payments.
To help assess the risks we face from major flooding, CRCOG used FEMA's HAZUS-MH loss estimation program to model the effects of flooding at the local level. The following table shows the damages each town in the region might face from a flood with a 1% probability of occurring in any given year (i.e., the 100-year flood) and the average annualized losses from a flood in any given year. As can be seen, losses due to a 1% annual chance flood could be particularly high for the communities of East Hartford and Vernon. Farmington and West Hartford are at the highest risk of receiving flood damage based on the annualized losses.
- 60 - Significant areas of the Capitol Region are vulnerable to flooding. About 8.5%, or 56,827 acres, of the Capitol Region is located in floodplains. Over half of this land is zoned residential. Without restrictions on development in floodplains, lives and property are at risk.
Table ES-2. HAZUS-MH 1% Annual Chance Event and Annualized Losses due to Flood Total Losses Total Losses Town (1% Annual Annualized Loss Town (1% Annual Annualized Loss Chance Flood) Chance Flood) Andover $7,873,000 $604 Mansfield $30,104,000 $21,012 Avon $69,855,000 $4,336 Marlborough $9,538,000 $3,072 Berlin $64,802,000 $11,056 New Britain $33,351,000 $25,570 Bloomfield $51,811,000 $15,468 Newington $43,598,000 $18,126 Bolton $1,193,000 $319 Plainville $44,482,000 $28,279 Canton $34,106,000 $10,062 Rocky Hill $9,069,000 $4,308 Columbia $23,278,000 $817 Simsbury $48,070,000 $16,181 Coventry $20,206,000 $4,003 Somers $7,719,000 $13,384 East Granby $7,882,000 $1,892 South Windsor $67,123,000 $6,145 East Hartford $141,861,000 $14,434 Southington $64,141,000 $20,510 East Windsor $35,996,000 $7,939 Stafford $57,649,000 $22,378 Ellington $14,633,000 $2,197 Suffield $10,683,000 $829 Enfield $57,001,000 $24,479 Tolland $9,139,000 $5,873 Farmington $78,659,000 $39,353 Vernon $118,795,000 $6,336 Glastonbury $94,366,000 $5,044 West Hartford $88,125,000 $38,288 Granby $11,670,000 $3,231 Wethersfield $93,308,000 $11,181 Hartford $60,966,000 $31,832 Willington $3,971,000 $6,145 Hebron $3,709,000 $207 Windsor $89,805,000 $2,991 Manchester $32,957,000 $7,035 Windsor Locks $8,716,000 $9,355
Dam Failure Dams provide vital benefits to our region such as water supply, power generation, flood control, and recreation, but in the event of failure, they can pose a threat to lives and property. Dam failure can happen for a number of reasons including as a result of natural disasters such as structural failure due to earthquakes or overtopping due to heavy precipitation. Dams in Connecticut are regulated by the Department of Energy & Environmental Protection (DEEP).
According to the DEEP, there are hundreds of dams in the Capitol Region. The majority of these are either Class A (low hazard) or Class AA (negligible hazard); failure of a Class A dam would lead to minimal economic loss and may cause damage to agricultural land or unpaved roadways while failure of a Class AA dam would cause negligible loss or damage. Dams of concern for hazard mitigation are those in classes BB, B, and C. In the Capitol Region, 61 dams are Class C, or high hazard, dams. Failure of a Class C dam would result in probable loss of life, major damage to habitable structures, damage to major highways, and great economic loss. There are 53 Class B, or significant hazard, dams in the Region. Failure in these dams would result in similar but less severe damage. Finally, there are 146 Class BB, or moderate hazard, dams in the region. Failure of one of these dams would result in damage to normally unoccupied structures or local roadways or would cause moderate economic loss; no loss of life would be expected. The state estimates there are nearly 12,000 people in Hartford County and 4,150 people in Tolland County within the mapped dam inundation areas of high and significant hazard dams. The
- 61 - Capitol Region includes most of, although not all, the municipalities in Hartford and Tolland Counties, thus the regional population exposed to this risk is likely less than 2 percent. Severe Winter Storms Connecticut is subject to blizzards, ice storms, and nor'easters - storms characterized by strong, possibly damaging northeasterly winds. The Capitol Region receives an average annual snowfall of about 40" although snowfall amounts vary widely from year to year and can vary dramatically across the region in any given storm. Severe winter storms can result in damage to buildings and infrastructure, loss of life, and disruptions to regional transportation and communication systems. Half of all federal disaster declarations for Connecticut since 1954 have followed major winter or snowstorms. Federal assistance is frequently used to offset the snow/ice removal costs that the state and municipalities incur. For example, a federal emergency was declared for the February 11-12, 2006, snowstorm in several counties in Connecticut (including Hartford and Tolland) to help share the costs of snow removal. In 2011, FEMA obligated over $74 million in Public Assistance funds to the State of Connecticut to reimburse state agencies, local governments, and eligible private nonprofit organizations for costs associated with the January 11-12, 2011, snowstorm and Storm Alfred in October. The frequency, intensity, and timing of winter storms dramatically impacts snow removal budgets. Storm Alfred was particularly costly for municipalities because of the heavy debris loads resulting from the high number of fully leafed trees downed in this storm. Municipalities also incur higher labor costs for snow removal on weekends and holidays. Tornadoes/High Winds Connecticut averages approximately three tornadoes every 2 years; however, in the first week and a half of July 2013 four tornadoes hit the state including three that touched down in the Capitol Region. Hartford and Litchfield Counties are at the highest risk for tornadoes within the state based on historical patterns and locations of their occurrence. Between 1950 and 2003, Hartford County experienced 14 tornadoes, and Tolland County experienced 10. Between 2006 and 2018, Connecticut experienced 23 tornadoes. Three of these were in Hartford County and two in Tolland County. The Capitol Region experienced three tornadoes in 2013. Four tornadoes severely impacted Connecticut during one storm in May 2018 although none were located in the Capitol Region. On October 2, 2018, an EF1 tornado touched down in New Canaan, and an EF-0 was reported in the Capitol Region in Mansfield.
Typically, tornadoes occur between April and October. High winds and microbursts (strong straight-line downburst winds) can also inflict damage to property and result in injuries.
One of the country's most destructive tornadoes touched down in Windsor Locks and Windsor on October 3, 1979. The F4 tornado had winds in excess of 200 miles per hour (mph) and tore an 11-mile path from Windsor to Suffield. The tornado killed 3 people, injured 500, and caused an estimated $250 million ($776,385,000 in 2011 dollars) in damage, in part because it struck the New England Air Museum, destroying several planes and hangars. Earthquake Connecticut has a moderate risk of earthquakes based on the frequency of their occurrence, not the intensity of individual earthquakes. Between 1568 and 1989, the state had 137 recorded earthquakes. The Capitol Region experienced 17 between 1837 and 2018. Of those where the magnitude was known, all were under magnitude 4.0. A strong earthquake centered in central Connecticut and thought to be 3.8 magnitude occurred on August 9, 1840.
- 62 - Magnitude 3.0 to 3.9 earthquakes are often felt by people up to 100 miles away from the epicenter but rarely cause damage. Magnitude 4.0 to 4.9 earthquakes cause shaking of objects indoors but generally cause none to slight damage. Magnitude 5.0 to 5.9 earthquakes can cause moderate to major damage to poorly constructed buildings but none to slight damage to other buildings. Connecticut incorporated building codes for seismic activity into the state building code in 1992. There were no requirements prior to that. So, while the risk for a very damaging earthquake is relatively low in the region, some structures may be impacted by less intense earthquakes depending on the soil and integrity of the structure.
Using FEMA's HAZUS-MH software, CRCOG analyzed a probabilistic suite of earthquake scenarios to estimate the potential loss to property and life. Based on these scenarios, the annualized loss estimate for the region is $3.1 million, with Hartford and West Hartford having the highest annualized losses based on their built-up environments.
These simulations highlight the significance of the location of the epicenter to the damages that could be expected. A moderately strong earthquake centered near a more populated, built-up area would be expected to result in considerably more damage than one located in a more remote area. Based on our history and geology, the Capitol Region's vulnerability to damaging earthquakes is low. The damages we are likely to face here from earthquakes are much lower than in other parts of the nation and world. Drought Droughts periodically occur in Connecticut and can have serious consequences. While a drought does not pose immediate threats to life and property, it can have severe economic, environmental and social consequences. A lack of precipitation can affect not only agricultural production but also tourism, water utilities, residential wells, businesses, and more. Connecticut experienced notable droughts in 1957, 1964-67, 1980-81, 2002, 2012, and 2015-16. The 2012 drought affected Hartford, Tolland, and Windham Counties from April 12 through April 24. According to the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Association (NOAA) Storm Events Database, rivers and streams were most affected as most ran at record low levels during the spring runoff season. The main impact of this meteorological drought was periods of very high fire danger.
A meteorological drought was most recently declared for 2015-16. During the 2015-16 drought, many water utilities imposed voluntary or mandatory water conservation and restriction measures on their customers. Such restrictions can impact customers including businesses. As the state's 2014 Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan notes, predicting the future occurrences of drought within any given time period is difficult. Forest and Wildland Fires Forest or wildland fires can cause not only long-term damage to vegetation and ecosystems but also damage to developments, especially as residential development has increased in woodland areas. In the last 25 years, a few forest fires have occurred in the Capitol Region including a brush fire in April 1999 in Vernon, which burned about 40 acres and came within 100 feet of homes in a nearby neighborhood, and a fire in April 2005, which burned 8 acres along the Farmington River in Avon. The scale of these fires is much less than those experienced in the western and midwestern United States; nonetheless, forest fires here pose a risk to lives and property, especially at the urban/woodland interface.
- 63 - Mitigation Strategy To address the impacts of these natural hazards, the planning committee and local and regional staff reexamined the goals, objectives, and strategic mitigation activities proposed in the 2014 Plan as well as assessed our experiences with natural disasters of the last 5 years and considered input from the public and other stakeholders in order to develop a blueprint for better protecting our region over the next 5 years. Each mitigation action was prioritized, and responsible agencies, potential funding sources, and time frames for implementing the projects were identified. What follows is a brief outline of the regional and local strategies proposed. Regional Goals, Objectives, and Mitigation Actions Because of the regional nature of natural hazards and common concerns, some mitigation activities are better addressed at the regional level by CRCOG; however, the means to carry out certain activities may not be available to regional agencies but are available to municipalities. For example, CRCOG cannot enact laws and regulations, levy taxes, or enter into construction contracts. This section establishes our regional strategy for addressing natural hazards and sets out the mitigation actions that may best be undertaken by CRCOG on a regional level.
Goal: Minimize the loss of life and property and economic disruptions that can result from natural hazards.
Objective 1: Improve stormwater management and groundwater recharge throughout the region to prevent increased flooding and lessen the effects of drought.
Mitigation Actions:
1.1 Encourage all municipalities in the region to adopt regulations that incorporate or refer to recommended practices from the most current Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual, Connecticut Guidelines for Erosion and Sedimentation Control and, in particular, those that promote low impact development and green infrastructure techniques. This will encourage development that is in harmony with natural drainage systems.
1.2 Foster improved understanding of the importance of stream management, maintenance of natural drainage channels, and use of green infrastructure practices among municipal staff, inland wetlands commissions, and planning and zoning commissions through education.
Objective 2: Assist municipalities in implementing hazard mitigation strategies.
Mitigation Actions:
2.1 Work with member municipalities to maintain this regional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan with updates at least every 5 years.
2.2 Annually notify communities of the opportunities to apply for mitigation funds under the PDM and FMA programs and notify communities of HMGP opportunities as applicable. Provide letters of support when appropriate.
- 64 - 2.3 Incorporate additional natural hazard mitigation concerns into the regional Plan of Conservation and Development if it is updated in 2019-2024, and provide specific instructions to municipalities to address natural hazard mitigation in local Plans of Conservation and Development as they are updated.
2.4 Encourage municipalities to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program's Community Rating System by hosting an information workshop.
Objective 3: Assist municipalities in minimizing risks associated with power disruptions.
Mitigation Actions:
3.1 Encourage the installation of generators at critical facilities and in developments serving the elderly or special need populations, or development of microgrids to serve the same purpose, through outreach and associated work with local officials to determine which facilities still do not possess standby power but require it.
Objective 4: Assist municipalities in minimizing risks associated with droughts.
Mitigation Actions:
4.1 Assist municipalities that do not currently have drought ordinances in enacting such ordinances to enable the enforcement of water conservation, and assist with messaging and notifications regarding droughts. These actions should be consistent with guidance resulting from implementation of the State Water Plan (2018) and the Coordinated Water System Plan (2018) as well as the updated Connecticut Drought Preparedness and Response Plan. Municipal Goals, Objectives, and Mitigation Actions Each of the 38 municipalities in the Capitol Region also reassessed its goals, objectives, and strategic mitigation actions from the 2014 Plan and developed a new strategic course of action for the upcoming 5 years. While many are unique to the individual communities, there are commonalities among the actions proposed, and most communities have proposed a range of activities including public education and awareness; natural resource protection; plans, studies, and regulatory actions; structural projects and modifications to buildings, facilities, and infrastructure; as well as measures to improve preparedness and emergency response.
Table ES-3: Summary of Types of Mitigation Projects Proposed by Community
Mitigation
Project
Type Resources Education & Awareness Natural Protection Preparedness & Emergency Response Prevention Projects Structural Property Protection Andover 5 1 7 3 2 1 Avon 2 1 5 4 1 3
- 65 -
Mitigation
Project
Type Resources Education & Awareness Natural Protection Preparedness & Emergency Response Prevention Projects Structural Property Protection Berlin 5 1 7 3 2 1 Bloomfield 2 1 5 4 1 3 Bolton 2 1 2 3 2 4 Canton 7 2 5 5 0 4 Columbia 5 1 8 5 7 1 Coventry 3 1 4 2 1 4 Coventry 3 2 2 1 4 2 East Granby 3 1 7 11 8 2 East Hartford 0 0 0 0 0 0 East Windsor 3 2 5 4 0 2 Ellington 4 1 4 6 1 4 Enfield 4 2 5 3 3 2 Farmington 2 1 2 3 1 1 Glastonbury 3 1 1 2 1 3 Granby 3 1 3 3 2 4 Hartford 5 1 0 5 2 3 Hebron 7 4 5 9 3 2 Manchester 3 1 3 2 2 3 Mansfield 2 1 1 5 1 1 Marlborough 4 1 1 1 2 5 New Britain 8 1 7 6 3 3 Newington 2 1 3 2 1 2 Plainville 6 1 3 4 5 3 Rocky Hill 2 1 2 5 0 3 Simsbury 6 2 9 12 6 3 Somers 2 0 0 1 1 3 South Windsor 4 2 2 7 8 4 Southington 5 1 5 2 3 2 Stafford 4 1 7 3 1 4 Suffield 4 1 5 3 1 3 Tolland 2 1 6 1 3 1 Vernon 4 1 1 4 0 1 West Hartford 6 1 4 3 6 1 Wethersfield 2 1 3 1 2 4
- 66 -
Mitigation
Project
Type Resources Education & Awareness Natural Protection Preparedness & Emergency Response Prevention Projects Structural Property Protection Willington 4 1 10 6 3 5 Windsor 2 1 3 3 11 5 Windsor Locks 4 1 5 7 2 1
Table ES-4: Summary by Community of Mitigation Projects for Each Goal . .
. . . . hazard " " soft "
or " " . . making bodies Hazard -
Mitigation green, " . Goal ponse capabilities of the region
. . . . institutional awareness understanding and of Minimizeimpact the of natural hazards physical on buildings infrastructure and Ensure MunicipalCodes Regulations and support hazard mitigation Improve natural hazard impacts mitigation and withinmunicipal governments other and decision Increase the use of natural, mitigation measuresas such space open preservation and infrastructure. green Improve the resiliencelocal of regional and utilities and infrastructure using strategies including adaptation, hardening, creating and redundancies. Improve public outreach,education, warning and systems Improve the emergency res and its communities Ensure communitycharacter social and equity are addressed in mitigation activities Minimize the economic impact of hazard damages Andover 2 0 3 1 2 3 6 2 0 Avon 2 0 1 1 4 2 4 2 0 Berlin 4 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 Bloomfield 3 1 3 2 2 6 5 1 0 Bolton 12 0 1 1 4 5 4 1 0 Canton 6 0 1 1 0 2 4 1 0 Columbia 6 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 Coventry 6 0 4 2 8 1 8 3 0 Coventry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East Granby 1 0 3 2 3 1 5 1 0 East Hartford 6 0 5 1 1 2 4 1 0 East Windsor 4 0 2 3 0 2 6 2 0
- 67 - . .
. . . . hazard " " soft "
or " " . . making bodies Hazard -
Mitigation green, " . Goal ponse capabilities of the region
. . . . institutional awareness understanding and of Minimizeimpact the of natural hazards physical on buildings infrastructure and Ensure MunicipalCodes Regulations and support hazard mitigation Improve natural hazard impacts mitigation and withinmunicipal governments other and decision Increase the use of natural, mitigation measuresas such space open preservation and infrastructure. green Improve the resiliencelocal of regional and utilities and infrastructure using strategies including adaptation, hardening, creating and redundancies. Improve public outreach,education, warning and systems Improve the emergency res and its communities Ensure communitycharacter social and equity are addressed in mitigation activities Minimize the economic impact of hazard damages Ellington 1 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 0 Enfield 4 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 Farmington 5 0 3 1 1 1 3 2 0 Glastonbury 3 4 1 2 1 4 0 1 0 Granby 5 5 3 3 3 4 5 2 0 Hartford 5 0 1 1 1 1 3 2 0 Hebron 3 1 1 1 0 1 3 1 0 Manchester 4 1 2 1 2 3 0 1 0 Mansfield 6 1 3 3 3 8 3 1 0 Marlborough 3 0 1 1 1 1 3 1 0 New Britain 8 1 2 2 2 4 1 2 0 Newington 3 0 1 1 2 1 4 1 0 Plainville 8 4 4 4 4 5 8 1 0 Rocky Hill 2 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 Simsbury 10 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 Somers 2 2 1 1 2 5 3 1 1 South Windsor 4 0 2 1 4 3 5 1 0 Southington 3 2 1 1 0 2 6 2 0 Stafford 2 0 1 2 1 3 4 1 0 Suffield 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 Tolland 4 1 2 1 3 4 5 1 0 Vernon 5 0 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 West Hartford 7 1 3 1 2 2 10 2 1 Wethersfield 16 0 1 1 1 1 3 1 1
- 68 - . .
. . . . hazard " " soft "
or " " . . making bodies Hazard -
Mitigation green, " . Goal ponse capabilities of the region
. . . . institutional awareness understanding and of Minimizeimpact the of natural hazards physical on buildings infrastructure and Ensure MunicipalCodes Regulations and support hazard mitigation Improve natural hazard impacts mitigation and withinmunicipal governments other and decision Increase the use of natural, mitigation measuresas such space open preservation and infrastructure. green Improve the resiliencelocal of regional and utilities and infrastructure using strategies including adaptation, hardening, creating and redundancies. Improve public outreach,education, warning and systems Improve the emergency res and its communities Ensure communitycharacter social and equity are addressed in mitigation activities Minimize the economic impact of hazard damages Willington 5 2 2 2 2 2 4 1 0 Windsor 4 2 2 0 4 2 4 0 0 Windsor Locks 2 1 1 1 12 3 4 1 0
Planning Process The update planning process began in 2017 when FEMA awarded CRCOG a Pre-Disaster Mitigation Planning Grant to update its multi-jurisdictional natural hazard mitigation plan. This Plan Update was developed in collaboration with CREPC, the region's 38 municipalities, and DESPP/DEMHS. As in 2013- 2014, ESF-5 Emergency Management served as the planning committee for the update process and provided guidance to the project. A consultant (Milone & MacBroom, Inc. of Cheshire, Connecticut) was retained to provide technical support and coordinate efforts to involve officials from each town. Milone & MacBroom, Inc. assembled a team of subconsultants (Dewberry, Jamie Caplan Consulting, and Punchard Consulting) working on state and local hazard mitigation plans in Connecticut in parallel with the CRCOG planning process to provide its expertise and input. Finally, members of the public were provided opportunities to provide input throughout the development of the Plan Update.
The hazards included in the planning process in 2017-2018 were those profiled and analyzed 5 years earlier. Importantly, they were the same as the hazards included in the 2014 Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and its update (to be adopted in 2019).
As the hazards analyses were undertaken, the consultant team led meetings with municipal officials to initiate updates to individual city and town plans. These meetings were held in each of the 38 municipalities and included local staff from a variety of departments including administration, planning, emergency management, police, fire, public health, public works, and engineering. In some towns, citizens and elected officials also participated. The consultant team conducted the following meetings
- 69 - locally over a 5-month period (November 2017 through March 2018) with municipal officials to conduct the local update process:
Table ES-5: Summary of Local Planning Meeting Dates and Attendance Local Planning Municipality Meeting Date Andover 3/29/2018 Avon 1/16/2018 Berlin 11/9/2017 Bloomfield 12/20/2017 Bolton 2/16/2018 Canton 12/6/2017 Columbia 2/16/2018 Coventry 12/18/2017 East Granby 12/14/2017 East Hartford 1/18/2018 East Windsor 11/28/2017 Ellington 1/16/2018 Enfield 2/26/2018 Farmington 1/12/2018 Glastonbury 12/20/2017 Granby 12/14/2017 Hartford 12/13/2017 Hebron 2/13/2018 Manchester 12/20/2017 Mansfield 12/13/2017 Marlborough 2/6/2018 New Britain 11/27/2017 Newington 11/9/2017 Plainville 11/6/2017 Rocky Hill 11/10/2017 Simsbury 12/19/2017 Somers 11/20/2017 South Windsor 12/20/2017 Southington 11/14/2017 Stafford 3/29/2018 Suffield 11/28/2017 Tolland 1/10/2018 Vernon 1/11/2018 West Hartford 11/29/2017 Wethersfield 12/5/2017 Willington 2/13/2018 Windsor 12/18/2017 Windsor Locks 12/11/2017
- 70 - To review prior goals, objectives, and actions and to strategize about new mitigation initiatives, CRCOG and the consultant team sought the advice of the CREPC planning committee at workshops held on January 23, March 27, and September 12, 2018. The meetings were attended by municipal officials from most of the Capitol Region communities as well as representatives from DEEP, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and the Connecticut Institute for Resilience and Climate Adaptation (CIRCA). The consultant team presented and described mitigation success stories; a number of proposed mitigation initiatives with assistance from DEEP, SHPO, and CIRCA; and reported on additional strategies/actions based on our findings and discussions with local officials at the individual municipal meetings. These meetings led to the new initiatives described in this update such as the historic resources resiliency, addressing spills from small businesses, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) stormwater registration compliance, regional critical facilities, etc.
A variety of means were used to inform the public of the planning process and to gain public input on hazards, areas and issues of concern, and mitigation measures. These specific outreach efforts include public meetings, web postings, and an internet-based public survey. From the survey and public meetings, we found there is strong support for: 1) activities that will mitigate and accelerate recovery from, damage to utilities, infrastructure, and critical facilities (especially the power grid); 2) providing assistance to vulnerable populations; and 3) public education and outreach, public warning system improvements, and emergency response trainings. There is less support for mitigation actions involving floodproofing, drought ordinances, and building-earthquake analysis. Natural and recreational resource recovery, as well as tourism and business recovery, are the lowest priorities for most respondents.
Plan Implementation and Maintenance Upon approval of the Plan Update by FEMA, each municipality's governing body as well as CRCOG's Policy Board will need to formally adopt the Plan Update. CREPC will also be asked to append this plan to the Regional Emergency Support Plan (RESP).
Implementation of the strategies contained within this plan will depend largely on the availability of resources. Each municipality and CRCOG will have to consider the costs, availability of funding, and impacts of each strategy individually. The CRCOG Policy Development & Planning Department will be responsible for regional strategies and coordination with CRCOG Public Safety staff. The planning subcommittee of CREPC (ESF-5), which provided guidance to this project, will monitor progress on its implementation with assistance from CRCOG staff. The subcommittee will conduct annual outreach to municipalities to ascertain progress on proposed mitigation actions.
For more information on natural hazard mitigation planning, please visit CRCOG's website – http://crcog.org/2016/05/30/natural-hazards-mitigation-planning/.
- 71 - 20 Mansfield
Community Overview Mansfield covers 45.7 square miles and has a population of 26,543 (2010 Census). According to the University of Connecticut Center fore E Land Us ducation & Research (UConn CLEAR, 2015) the Town is approximately 64% forested (including deciduous, coniferous, and wetland forest), and is mostly rural with some agriculture. Fourteen percent of Mansfield falls within the UConn CLEAR “developed” category. More information can be found at https://clear.uconn.edu/. New residential development is primarily occurring in the vicinity of the University of Connecticut and near Routee 6s on th outh side of Town.
Water bodies in the Town include: Chapins Pond Dunham Pond, Eagleville Pond, Echo Lake, Hansens Pond, Knowlton Pond, Mansfield Hollow Lake and McLaughlin Pond. Mansfield’s elevation ranges from about 160 feet in the southeast corner of town at the Natchaug River to about 730 feet in the north/northwest section.
Urban densities of population are found in the village of Storrs (home of the main campus of the University of Connecticut) and in southern Mansfield. The number of students living on- campus at the University accounts for 44.3% of the Town’s total population. The largest individual population concentration in town, the University of Connecticut’s Storrs campus had 19,324 undergraduates and 4,306 graduate students enrolled in the Fall 2016 semester. UConn’s housing facilities allow the campus to accommodate over 12,500 students while the university is in session. In 2013 the State announced plans to increase undergraduate enrollment at the Storrs Campus by 5,000 students over ten years; however, enrollment growth has been tempered by budgetary constraints. It is anticipated that as enrollment increases over time, the number of both on and off-campus housing units will grow to meet the new demand. The seasonal increase in population in this area creates an elevated hazard concern. The University’s Police and Fire protection capabilities are comparable to that of a municipality, but given a natural disaster of a large enough scale, the University would require further assistance beyond that which they can provide for themselves. This would likely strain Mansfield’s emergency services, which already have a large geographic area to cover.
Significant new development has been completed or begun on the UConn-Storrs campus since adoption of the former WinCOG’s 2015 Hazar d Mitigation Plan Update (“2015 HMP”). None of this new development has occurred in flood or other notable hazard zones. Municipal water service has been extended to the Four-Corners area of Town as part of the community’s efforts to encourage development there, and extension of sewer service is expected to be completed by December 2019. While portions of the Four Corners area are located within the FEMA- mapped special flood hazard area (SFHA) associated with Cedar Swamp Brook, the Town’s Zoning Regulations limit uses in flood zones to agricultural uses, surface parking, and accessory structures – all of which require special permit approval.
2019 – 2024 Capitol Region Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Mansfield Annex - 72 - Critical Facilities Critical Facilities throughout the Capitol Region are listed in Appendix B. Critical and important facilities and cultural resources in Mansfield include the Mansfield Fire Department, the UConn Fire Department, a private psychiatric and substance abuse hospital, the resident trooper office, the UConn Police department, nine primary and secondary level schools, six historic districts, historic buildings throughout town, UConn and associated cultural institutions, two elderly concentrations consisting of five housing communities, three retail areas, a public telephone facility, two well fields and associated water treatment facilities, the UConn wastewater treatment plant ant reclaimed water plant, UConn’s central utility plant, Holiday Hill camp, a reservoir and water treatment facility owned by Windham, four major manufactured home parks as well as a number of manufactured homes throughout town, numerous apartment buildings that house large populations, several other apartment buildings, and three high hazard/potential loss dams.
Table 20-1: Critical Facilities, Mansfield Facility Shelter Generator 3 Mansfield Fire Department Stations University Of Connecticut Fire Department Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Hospital Resident Trooper Office University Of Connecticut Police Department Primary and Secondary Schools: 2 Montessori Schools 3 Elementary Schools Middle School High School Reynolds School Natchaug Hospital School Historic Resources: Spring Hill District Mansfield Centre District Mansfield Hollow District Gurley Ville District UConn District Mansfield Training School District Old Town Hall Several buildings on UConn Campus Other Buildings Throughout Town The University Of Connecticut Elderly Concentrations: Mansfield Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation Juniper Hill Elderly Housing Glen Ridge Residential Community Wright’s Way Elderly Housing Jensen’s Rolling Hills Residential Community Shopping Areas: Storrs Center East Brook Mall Four Corners Shopping Area
- 73 - Facility Shelter Generator Telephone Facility Well Fields And Water Treatment Facilities: UConn Willimantic River Well Field UConn Fenton River Well Field UConn Water Storage Facility UConn Wastewater Treatment Plant UConn Reclaimed Water Plant UConn Central Utility Plant Holiday Hill Camp Reservoir And Water Treatment Facility Owned By Windham Major Manufactured Home Parks: Jensen’s Rolling Hills Residential Community Valleyview Chaffeeville Road Park Burcamp Other Manufactured Homes Dispersed Throughout Town Large Population Apartment Buildings 3 High Hazard/Potential Loss Dams
Capabilities Hazard mitigation is addressed specifically in Mansfield’s Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD). The HMP document itself is cited. POCD actions specifically address natural hazards.
Authorities in the Town of Mansfield who play advisory, supervisory, or direct roles in hazard mitigation for the Town include:
Role Hazard Authorities Advisory Supervisory Direct Mitigated Agriculture Committee X Drought Conservation Commission X Flooding Department of Building and Housing Inspection X X All but drought Department of Public Works X X X All but drought Division of Fire and Emergency Services X Wildfire Emergency Management Advisory Council X All Department of Human Services X X All but drought Office of Emergency Management X X X All Office of the Fire Marshal X X Wildfire Parks & Natural Resources Committee X Flooding (Previously the Open Space Preservation Committee) Planning & Zoning Commission/Inland Wetland Agency X X Flooding Sustainability Committee X Drought & Flood Town Council X X All Town Manager X All Department of Planning and Development X X All Town / University Relations Committee X All Zoning Board of Appeals X Flooding Department of Parks & Recreation X X All
- 74 - The Town of Mansfield has consistently participated in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) since January 2, 1981. The most recent Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) was published on January 2, 1981. The current Town of Mansfield Flood Insurance Study (FIS) was published July 1980. The original FIS and FIRMs for flooding sources in the Town are based on work completed in March 1978. Many of the local flooding problems are consistent with the floodplains mapped by FEMA.
Mansfield’s zoning regulations prohibit construction of new residential or commercial structures within designated flood hazard areas with the exception of agricultural and accessory structures. All proposed structures must meet elevation requirements and strict construction demands. Manufactured (mobile) homes have more stringent requirements. Proposed development in the 1% annual chance flood plain may not alter flood levels. As a result of the limitations imposed by Zoning Regulations no new development has occurred in the floodplain in recent years.
The Town performs monitoring at several bridges that are known to be scour prone (see Challenges section). The Stone Mill Road and Laurel Lane bridges were both replaced between 2011 and 2013, minimizing the potential for damage to those bridges during a flood.
Annual expenses to maintain town-owned dams are incorporated into the annual budget for parks and recreation and public works.
Mansfield follows water conservation orders when they are issued by any of the major utilities in town. UConn enacts significant voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures for its users when drought conditions occur, as referenced in its 2011 Wellfield Management Plan. Several town facilities are connected to the University’s water system.
Public fire protection covers a significant percentage of the town’s population, though the Fire Department relies on fire ponds and dry hydrants throughout most of the community. Any new public water supply expansion projects include installation of hydrants. The Fire Department maintains ten fire ponds. When a water source is not available near a fire, water is brought to the site by a pumper truck.
The Town provides plowing services through Public Works. The Town also requires locations for snow storage to be considered in the design of parking lots. Eversource, the Town’s energy provider, works with the Town’s tree warden to remove dangerous trees and branches along power lines. The Town itself has a small line-item in its annual budget to address tree issues on a case-by-case basis. The local electrical utility performed intensive trimming near electrical lines following the severe storms in 2011.
The Town has implemented a reverse 9-1-1 program and notifies the public when a severe storm is approaching. The Town maintains shelter facilities and evaluates the need for supplies
- 75 - at least annually or following each event. The Town performs debris management through Public Works with the assistance of the local electrical utility when necessary. New Capabilities The Town updated its Plan of Conservation and Development in 2015. That plan includes goals, strategies, and actions related to mitigation of natural hazards and is integrated into decision making at multiple levels.
A map modernization effort by FEMA is currently underway for Tolland County, but its full extent, and how much of Mansfield it will cover, is unknown. During development of the East Brook Mall (95 Storrs Road) a portion of Sawmill Brook was moved. FEMA maps are now out of date due to that move, but it is expected that the map modernization effort will address this.
New Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater regulations have been adopted.
Municipal water service has been extended to the Four-Corners area of Town, improving wildfire-response capabilities there. The Town has not found it necessary to require installation of any new cisterns or dry hydrants in the last few years. The Fire Department purchased a water tanker in early summer 2015 at a cost of approximately $475,000.
The Town has an EAP for the dam at Bicentennial Pond. Challenges
Challenges Overview Falling trees and limbs during winter storms, and to a lesser degree from high wind events, are Mansfield’s greatest hazards, along with the power outages they cause. An EF0 tornado touched down in Mansfield on October 2, causing some damage. Invasive species, in particular the Emerald Ash Borer, are causing major damage to the Town’s trees, exacerbating treefall issues.
Sources of flooding in Mansfield (as noted in the FIS) include Natchaug River, Willimantic River, Mount Hope River, Conantville Brook, Fenton River, Fishers Brook, Eagleville Brook, Cedar Swamp Brook, Nelson Brook and Sawmill Brook. Areas of particular concern include one home on Laurel Lane that becomes isolated during times of high water levels, five homes on Thornbush Road that are isolated or inundated by the Willimantic River approximately once every five years during times of high water, and an area of Bassett Bridge Road in the vicinity of the State boat launch that is closed during times of high water. This latter area is a flood control area managed by the US Army Corps of Engineers and is designed to be flooded, however, traffic is disrupted during these times. Town staff identify Thornbush Road as the most at-risk of flooding area in Town. Inundation of the railroad that runs along the western town line is both an economic concern and, at times, a hazardous material concern.
- 76 - Mansfield also has six “scour bridges.” The bridges located on Old Turnpike Road, Stonemill Road and Gurleyville Road all cross the Fenton River, while the bridge located on Laurel Lane crosses the Mount Hope River.
The overall risk to Mansfield from dam failure is considered to be low. The failure of any of the three dams in Town classified as significant hazard (Class B), or the three dams classified as high hazard (Class C) could cause serious damage. The Class C dams are the Eagleville Lake, Mansfield Hollow, and Willimantic Reservoir Dams. McLaughlin Pond Dam (Class B) has the potential to damage an important travel route (State Route 89) near Mount Hope, and is a concern for the Town; CT DEEP is currently pursuing action on this dam. Town staff indicate that there has not been any damage to municipal and private structures and infrastructure due to dam failure in recent memory.
The overall risk of Mansfield to drought is considered to be low. Mansfield Fire Department reports that all 10 fire ponds have become unusable at one time or another due to a combination of maintenance issues (sedimentation) and drought conditions. Several residential wells have been re-drilled over the past few years due to running dry, although it was reportedly not conclusive that these events were due to drought.
Only 5% of the town is protected by public fire protection. The Town of Mansfield reports that it does not experience wildfires often. In 2013, 16 wildfires burned approximately five acres total. In 2012, 17 wildfires burned approximately six acres total. In 2011, six burned approximately eight acres total. The Town reports that no wildfires have occurred since 2013.
In addition to historical trends, Mansfield is concerned with the potential impacts of climate change on hazard vulnerability, particularly with regard to severe storms, droughts and wildfire potential. Hazard Losses The economic losses faced by the community from natural hazards can be estimated by reviewing historic, and modeling future, loss figures. Loss estimates are summarized below.
Historic FEMA Payments FEMA reimburses communities for hazard losses through programs including Public Assistance (PA) and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Combining PA and private flood insurance payments can give an estimate for total losses to a community.
According to FEMA, Mansfield has two severe repetitive loss (SRL) properties and two additional repetitive loss (RL) properties. All of the properties are listed as residential. One of these properties is listed as mitigated. According to the Town, this property was elevated through a severe repetitive loss grant. The two SRL properties and the two RL properties are all located in the 1% annual chance floodplain of the Willimantic River. The two SRL properties have reported 22 losses with an average payment of $20,300 per loss. The two RL properties have reported seven losses with an average payment of $6,500 per loss. The total payments to
- 77 - SRL and RL properties for the 29 losses totals $492,086. In total, the NFIP has paid $678,775 to properties in Mansfield as a result of 38 flood loss claims.
Total PA reimbursements to the community were as follows:
• Flood Events: $59,848 ($3,150 annually) • Hurricane Events: $199,711 ($10,511 annually) • Winter Storm Events: $2,183,372 ($114,914 annually)
These are summarized in the tables below.
Table 20-2: Flood Event PA Reimbursements, Mansfield Incident Oct 2005 Declaration 12/16/2005 Disaster No. 1619 Entity FEMA PA Reimbursement State $3,859 Municipal $55,989 Nonprofit $0 Total $59,848 Annualized $3,150
Table 20-3: Hurricane Wind Event PA Reimbursements, Mansfield Aug - Sep 2011 Oct - Nov 2012 Incident (T.S. Irene) (Storm Sandy) Declaration 9/2/2011 10/30/2012 Disaster # 4023 4087 Entity FEMA PA Reimbursement State $12,106 $13,365 Municipal $99,983 $74,257 Nonprofit $0 $0 Total $112,089 $87,622 Annualized $5,899 $4,612
- 78 - Table 20-4: Winter Storm PA Reimbursements, Mansfield Mar Dec Jan Feb Jan Oct Feb Jan Incident 2003 2003 2005 2006 2011 2011 2013 2015 Declaration 3/11/03 1/15/04 2/17/05 5/2/06 3/3/11 11/17/11 3/21/13 4/8/15 Disaster # 3176 3192 3200 3266 1958 4046 4106 4213 Entity FEMA PA Reimbursement State $26,950 $27,877 $42,495 $38,094 $48,126 $30,377 $47,917 $79,975 Municipal $21,402 $30,501 $30,378 $26,250 $41,629 $88,135 $67,095 $102,464 Nonprofit $125,204 $87,962 $176,336 $113,829 $301,810 $0 $0 $628,567 Total $173,556 $146,340 $249,209 $178,172 $391,564 $118,512 $115,012 $811,006 Annualized $9,135 $7,702 $13,116 $9,377 $20,609 $6,237 $6,053 $42,685
National Centers for Environmental Information Losses The table below summarizes events in the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) severe storm database that were specifically noted as having impacted the community since 2012.
Table 20-5: NCEI Database Losses since 2012, Mansfield Date Event Property Damage 6/22/2012 Thunderstorm Wind $0 8/15/2012 Lightning $0 9/18/2012 Thunderstorm Wind $5,000 7/10/2013 Tornado $17,000 7/27/2014 Hail $5,000 7/27/2014 Hail $10,000 8/25/2015 Flood $0 6/27/2017 Hail $0 Total Thunderstorm $37,000 Total Flood $0
The NCEI database also reports one loss of life caused by lightning during the 8/15/2012 event.
Losses under other event categories (such as drought, high wind, flooding, and winter storms) were not specifically noted as impacting this community, though they did impact Tolland County and nearby towns. NCEI losses are reported in Section II of this Plan.
HAZUS-MH Losses CRCOG used FEMA’s Hazus-MH model to analyze the risks that the community might face from flooding, hurricanes, and earthquakes. The model estimates economic losses to the town due to damage to buildings and building contents, as well as other economic disruptions. Both residential and commercial structures are addressed. Losses from different hazards are summarized below.
- 79 - Table 20-6: Estimated Damages to Mansfield from a 1% Annual-Chance Flood Loss Type 2018 Results Households Displaced 135 People Needing Shelter 92 Buildings at Least Moderately Damaged 0 Economic Losses Residential Building & Content Losses $11,312,361 Other Building & Content Losses $18,543,474 Total Building & Content Loss $29,855,835 Total Business Interruption Losses $669,311 TOTAL $30,525,146
Table 20-7: Estimated Damages to Mansfield from a 1% Annual-Chance Hurricane 2018 Results Loss Type (1% track) Buildings at Least Moderately Damaged 1 Buildings Completely Damaged 0 Total Debris Generated (tons) 19,261 Truckloads (at 25 tons/truck) of building debris 770 Economic Losses Residential Building & Content Losses $14,919,039 Other Building & Content Losses $400,044 Total Building & Content Loss $15,319,083 Total Business Interruption Losses $578,158 TOTAL LOSSES $15,897,241
Losses were calculated from a modeled probabilistic earthquake (1% annual-chance of occurrence), as well as for four specific scenarios with epicenters around Connecticut.
Table 20-8: Estimated Damages to Mansfield from a Probabilistic Earthquake Loss Type 2018 Results Wage Loss $2,796 Rent Loss $4,589 Relocation Loss $4,925 Income Loss $2,060 Inventory Loss $96 Total Business Disruption $14,466 Structural Loss $13,802 Non-Structural Loss $38,651 Total Building Loss $52,453 Total Content Loss $12,480 TOTAL LOSSES $79,399
- 80 - Table 20-9: Estimated Damages to Mansfield from Modeled Earthquake Scenarios Epicenter Location Magnitude Estimated Total Losses East Haddam 6.4 $675,079.93 Haddam 5.7 $87,234.50 Portland 5.7 $101,439.03 Stamford 5.7 $6,692.15
Other Hazard Costs The Town estimates the cost to dredge and increase capacity of an individual fire pond to withstand drought conditions to range between $2,000 to over $10,000 depending on site- specific conditions. Town officials also note that economic losses due to a drought can be significant in Mansfield given the amount of agricultural land; this includes a local dairy farm and bottling plant that would be significantly impacted by a drought.
Town staff report that wildfires cost the Mansfield Fire Department approximately $2,000 per acre affected in terms of personnel, apparatus, and equipment.
The Town of Mansfield reports that the cost to respond to a downed branches incident could be several thousand dollars depending on the scale of the event. The Town of Mansfield reports that the cost to respond to the July 10, 2013 EF-1 tornado was $11,900.
Average Annualized Losses Average Annualized Loss (AAL) figures are useful tools for comparison of the risks faced from different hazards with different likelihoods of occurring in a given time period. AAL estimates were prepared for the community based on the methodologies discussed in Section II of the Multi-Jurisdictional HMP. Dam failure, drought, tornado, and wildfire losses were sourced from the 2014 Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, with dam failure data supplemented by the National Performance of Dams Program and the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection. Earthquake and hurricane losses were calculated in HAZUS-MH. Losses for flooding came from NFIP claims, for winter storms from Public Assistance Reimbursements, and for thunderstorms from the NCEI database. These are presented in the table below in dollars per year. Note that Hurricanes and Tropical Storms represent the largest share of total annualized losses.
Table 20-10: Average Annualized Losses, Mansfield
Total Storms Drought Flooding Wildfires Tornadoes Dam Failure Dam Earthquakes Severe Winter Winter Severe Hurricanes and and Hurricanes Thunderstorms Tropical Storms Tropical
$1,631 $0 $79,399 $21,012 $1,798,723 $114,914 $9,662 $7,713 $5,852 $2,038,908
- 81 - Losses Summary A review of the above loss estimates demonstrates that the Town of Mansfield has experienced significant expenses as a result of natural hazards, and is at risk for additional losses if some of the less-frequent events were to occur. These actual and potential losses justify hazard mitigation actions to reduce losses in the future. Mitigation Strategies and Actions
Noted Hazard Mitigation Needs During the course of this Plan development, multiple hazard mitigation needs of Mansfield were noted, including: • Mansfield is interested in micro-grids for critical facilities around Town Hall • The Town’s budget for tree maintenance has not increased since the previous Plan, and Town personnel cite a lack of funding as impairing its urban forestry efforts. • The Town is concerned about the state of the McLaughlin Pond dam and the risk it poses to State Route 89. Status of Previous Mitigation Strategies and Actions The Town of Mansfield reviewed the mitigation actions proposed in the 2015 HMP and determined the status of each. That information is included in the table below.
Table 20-11: Status of Previous Mitigation Strategies and Actions, Mansfield Action # Action Notes Status GOAL: TO REDUCE THE LOSS OF LIFE AND PROPERTY AND ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES AS A RESULT OF NATURAL DISASTERS. Objective 1: To reduce the likelihood of flooding by improving existing natural and artificial drainage systems. Develop a list of quick-filling catch basins Town no longer uses sand due to with low silt capacity for placement on a MS4 regulations, so catch-basin 1.1 Drop priority list for monitoring and more clogging is no longer a significant frequent cleaning. issue. Purchase or rehabilitate Vac-all equipment Equipment purchased with the Town 1.2 for silt removal. (2013 Cost Estimate: of Coventry, is shared between the Complete $150,000) two towns. Adopt new regulations requiring greater use of Green Infrastructure and Low Impact 1.3 Completed and adopted Complete Development (LID) stormwater management practices. Incorporate LID stormwater management Yes, now done regularly following 1.4 practices into town projects as funding Capability adoption of regulations noted above. allows. Objective 2: To reduce the likelihood of flooding by improving road, bridge and dam conditions. Improve north side of Bassetts Bridge Road west of the bridge crossing the Not yet completed due to limited Carry 2.1 Naubesatuck Lake; this section of road is funds. Forward frequently washed out in high water events. (2013 Cost Estimate: $250,000)
- 82 - Action # Action Notes Status Action currently underway: Town is Prepare Emergency Operations Plans updating EOPs for Town-owned dams Carry 2.2 (EOPs) for Town-owned and maintained to EAPs, is also looking at private Forward dams. dams. Implement recommendations resulting from Carry 2.3 Delayed until EAPs complete. inspections of Town-owned dams. Forward Carry Encourage owners of private dams to Forward 2.4 This action is currently underway. develop EOPs and share with Town. with Revisions Carry Encourage owners of private dams to Forward 2.5 implement recommendations resulting from This action is currently underway. with dam inspections. Revisions Town no longer pursued acquisition of Advocate for federal and state agencies to open space that includes a dam due allow dam repair as eligible grant activity 2.6 to liability. Town does not feel it is Drop for properties acquired by the Town for productive to advocate for this change open space purposes. at this time. Objective 3: To reduce the likelihood of flooding, evaluate property prone to flooding. An undersized bridge has been Consider acquiring property on Laurel Lane upsized to alleviate the flood problem 3.1 Drop that is isolated during flooding events. at this site and isolation is no longer a problem. Town explored FEMA grants but Continue to monitor and work with property found none were available. One owners of five homes on Thornbush Road Carry mobile home in the floodway was for possibilities to eliminate risk, including Forward 3.2 removed, but property is still privately- potential use of FEMA grants (these homes with owned and the structure may be are in the flood zone and at times become Revisions replaced. There are three additional inundated during high water events). mobile homes in the floodway. Monitor and evaluate areas on Higgins Highway (Route 31) that have flooded No significant flooding has occurred in Carry 3.3 during large events for possible mitigation these areas since the previous HMP. Forward actions. Carry Work is continuing on amendments to Continue to update zoning regulations for Forward 3.4 existing regulations. Carry forward flood hazard areas to reflect best practices. with within “Zoning Clean-Up” action. Revisions Objective 4: Reduce the amount of debris from severe storms through preventative tree maintenance. Develop public education programming Program not yet started due to budget Carry 4.1 with regard to tree planting and and staff limitations. Forward maintenance on private property. Action in progress as part of Carry Update regulations to encourage use of regulation amendments listed above. Forward 4.2 native species and reflect best practices in Carry forward within “Zoning Clean- with hazard mitigation. Up” action. Revisions Continue to require underground installation of new utility lines in new Town continues to implement this subdivisions and encourage property action. Property owners are also 4.3 Capability owners to work with utility companies to doing this on their own, motivated by explore possibilities for undergrounding past outages. existing lines.
- 83 - Action # Action Notes Status Objective 5: Expand activities related to emergency preparedness and improve natural hazard response capabilities. Ensure that the emergency shelters have Emergency shelters are regularly 5.1 adequate supplies to respond to natural Capability restocked. This is a capability emergencies. Continue to work with state and local This is performed as part of the 5.2 partners for regional shelter planning and Town’s standard operations. This is a Capability emergency response. capability Acquire and install generators at critical Generators have been installed at all 5.3 local facilities (2013 Cost Estimate: Complete critical facilities. $125,000 for two facilities). Improve and expand the Town’s GIS Fire Department has mapped all dry system to assist town personnel in the Carry 5.4 hydrants, but additional work is event of an emergency of natural disaster. Forward needed. (Estimated Annual Cost: $50,000) Continue to improve communication technologies and efficiencies between the This is an ongoing effort. 5.5 Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and Capability This is a capability other services including the University of Connecticut Use various communication technologies including social media, town website, government access channel and standard This is part of the Town’s standard 5.6 media to educate and inform the public on Capability operations. This is a capability how to prepare and respond to hazards and emergencies and to encourage them to be prepared to help others in need. Maintain working relationships with utility This is performed as part of the 5.7 companies to coordinate planning, Town’s standard operations. This is a Capability response and recovery efforts. capability Make available literature on natural Not yet complete due to staff and Carry 5.8 disasters and preparedness at Town Hall budget limitations. Forward and the Library Make available information on natural disasters and preparedness on the Town’s Not yet complete due to staff and Carry 5.9 website with links to state and federal budget limitations. Forward resources. Consider creation of microgrids that can be disconnected from the main power grid that Town is interested in creating a Carry utilize renewable energy sources such as microgrid that encompasses critical Forward 5.10 for the Town Hall, Community Center, and facilities near Town Hall, including the with E.O. Smith High School which are Town Offices, Public Works garage, Revisions important for storm recovery and shelter and the Library operations Objective 6: Whenever practical, incorporate natural hazard mitigation strategies into existing town projects and programs. This is a capability, as the Town Monitor best practices with regard to considers best practices as it regularly sustainable and resilient design and 6.1 updates its regulations. New LID Capability incorporate into town projects when standards adopted for stormwater feasible. management.
- 84 - Action # Action Notes Status Objective 7: To reduce the likelihood of wildfire hazards by improving water availability and managing combustible materials. Municipal water service has been extended since the previous Plan. Carry Identify places in need, throughout town, Town staff believe current alternative Forward 7.1 and add alternative water sources. (2013 water sources are sufficient. Future with Estimated Cost: $4,000/dry hydrant) actions should be to conduct a study Revisions to identify potential wildfire-fighting needs. No new cisterns or dry hydrants have been installed since the previous Plan. Town does and will continue to encourage installation of fire Carry Encourage developers to install water protection through education and Forward 7.2 sources for fire protection and explore collaboration with developers. This is with potential for a water source ordinance. a capability. Revisions Additionally carry forward “water source ordinance” within “Zoning Clean-Up” action. Educate property owners on vegetation Carry clearing techniques that will reduce water Not yet complete due to staff and Forward 7.3 runoff and reduce the amount of budget limitations. with combustible fuel. Revisions Objective 8: To minimize the impacts of droughts. Not yet complete due to staff and Carry Develop a public education program budget limitations. UConn has a Forward 8.1 encouraging water conservation. water usage alert system; Town with should consider piggy backing. Revisions Adopt water use restrictions during drought Not yet complete due to staff and Carry 8.2 periods for public water supply customers budget limitations. Forward based on stream flow conditions. Objective 9: To minimize the impacts of major winter storms. Town completed this action but the Carry Develop communication strategy to better communication strategy requires an Forward 9.1 inform public of parking restrictions during update. Facebook, website, and with snow events. Code-Red Reverse 911 should be Revisions used. Establish protocols for evaluation of snow Not yet complete due to staff and Carry 9.2 loads on Town buildings. budget limitations. Forward Carry Not yet complete due to staff and Consider snow storage needs when Forward 9.3 budget limitations. Carry forward updating street design specifications with within “Zoning Clean-Up” action. Revisions Active Mitigation Strategies and Actions The Town proposed to initiate several new mitigation actions for the upcoming five years. Additionally, a number of actions from the previous planning period are being carried forward or replaced with revised actions. These are listed below.
Each of the following actions has been prioritized based on FEMA guidelines, listed from highest to lowest priority, and numbered.
- 85 - Action #1 Encourage owners of private dams to develop EAPs and share with Town. 3. Improve institutional awareness and understanding of natural hazard impacts and Goal mitigation within municipal governments and other decision-making bodies Category Preparedness & Emergency Response Lead Emergency Management Cost $0 - $10,000 Funding Town Operating Budget Timeframe 01/2019 - 12/2019 Priority High
Action #2 Encourage owners of private dams to implement recommendations resulting from dam inspections. 3. Improve institutional awareness and understanding of natural hazard impacts and Goal mitigation within municipal governments and other decision-making bodies Category Preparedness & Emergency Response Lead Emergency Management Cost $0 - $10,000 Funding Town Operating Budget Timeframe 01/2019 - 12/2019 Priority High
Action #3 Establish protocols for evaluation of snow loads on Town buildings. Goal 1. Minimize the impact of natural hazards on physical buildings and infrastructure Category Preparedness & Emergency Response Lead Public Works Cost $0 - $10,000 Funding Town Operating Budget Timeframe 01/2019 - 12/2019 Priority High
- 86 - Action #4 Complete zoning regulation "clean up" to reflect hazard mitigation best practices. Address issues including potential cistern & dry hydrant requirements in new subdivisions, use of native species, and snow storage needs for streets. Goal 2. Ensure Municipal Codes and Regulations support hazard mitigation Category Prevention Lead Planning Cost $10,000 - $25,000 Funding Town Operating Budget Timeframe 01/2019 - 12/2020 Priority High
Action #5 Evaluate areas on Higgins Highway (Route 31) that have flooded during large events for possible mitigation actions. Goal 1. Minimize the impact of natural hazards on physical buildings and infrastructure Category Prevention Lead Public Works Cost $25,000 - $50,000 Funding Town Operating Budget / Grants / DEMHS Timeframe 01/2020 - 12/2020 Priority High
Action #6 Implement recommendations resulting from inspections of Town-owned dams. 5. Improve the resilience of local and regional utilities and infrastructure using strategies Goal including adaptation, hardening, and creating redundancies. Category Structural Projects Lead Public Works Cost More than $100,000 Funding Grants / CT DEEP Timeframe 07/2022 - 06/2023 Priority High
- 87 - Action #7 Improve north side of Bassetts Bridge Road west of the bridge crossing the Naubesatuck Lake; this section of road is frequently washed out in high water events. (2013 Cost Estimate: $250,000). 5. Improve the resilience of local and regional utilities and infrastructure using strategies Goal including adaptation, hardening, and creating redundancies. Category Structural Projects Lead Public Works Cost More than $100,000 Funding Grants Timeframe 07/2022 - 06/2023 Priority High
Action #8 Conduct outreach to local small businesses with the aim of preventing the accidental release and pollution from chemicals stored and used at their facilities during or following natural hazard events. Goal 6. Improve public outreach, education, and warning systems Category Education & Awareness Lead Planning, in coordination with DEEP Cost $0 - $10,000 Funding Materials & Resources Provided by CT DEEP Timeframe 01/2019 - 12/2019 Priority Medium
Action #9 Coordinate with NEMO and CRCOG to share resources and gain technical support for hazard mitigation actions involving stormwater management and public outreach, which have parallel benefits related to MS4 stormwater permit compliance. Goal 1. Minimize the impact of natural hazards on physical buildings and infrastructure Category Prevention Lead Public Works Cost $0 - $10,000 Funding Town Operating Budget Timeframe 01/2020 - 12/2020 Priority Medium
- 88 - Action #10 Make available information on natural disasters and preparedness on the Town’s website with links to state and federal resources. Goal 6. Improve public outreach, education, and warning systems Category Education & Awareness Lead Emergency Management Cost $0 - $10,000 Funding Town Operating Budget Timeframe 01/2020 - 12/2020 Priority Medium
Action #11 Make available literature on natural disasters and preparedness at Town Hall and the Library. Goal 6. Improve public outreach, education, and warning systems Category Education & Awareness Lead Emergency Management Cost $0 - $10,000 Funding Town Operating Budget Timeframe 01/2020 - 12/2020 Priority Medium
Action #12 Participate in EMI courses or the seminars and annual conference held by the Connecticut Association of Flood Managers. 3. Improve institutional awareness and understanding of natural hazard impacts and Goal mitigation within municipal governments and other decision-making bodies Category Education & Awareness Lead Planning Cost $0 - $10,000 Funding Town Operating Budget Timeframe 07/2019 - 06/2024 Priority Medium
- 89 - Action #13 Conduct outreach efforts to educate and train residents on individual actions they can take to prepare for, survive, and recover from disaster events. Goal 6. Improve public outreach, education, and warning systems Category Education & Awareness Lead Emergency Management Cost $10,000 - $25,000 Funding Town Operating Budget Timeframe 07/2020 - 06/2022 Priority Medium
Action #14 Install an emergency generator at the Public Library. Goal 7. Improve the emergency response capabilities of the region and its communities Category Preparedness & Emergency Response Lead Emergency Management Cost $10,000 - $25,000 Funding Town Operating Budget / DEMHS Timeframe 07/2020 - 06/2022 Priority Medium
Action #15 Develop a list of best practices with regard to sustainable and resilient design to be incorporated into town projects when feasible. Goal 1. Minimize the impact of natural hazards on physical buildings and infrastructure Category Prevention Lead Planning Cost $10,000 - $25,000 Funding Town Operating Budget Timeframe 01/2020 - 12/2022 Priority Medium
Action #16 Develop communication strategy to better inform public of parking restrictions during snow events. Use Facebook, Website and Code Red Reverse 911. Goal 6. Improve public outreach, education, and warning systems Category Preparedness & Emergency Response Lead Emergency Management Cost $10,000 - $25,000 Funding Town Operating Budget Timeframe 01/2020 - 12/2022 Priority Medium
- 90 - Action #17 Conduct a wildfire vulnerability and needs assessment to guide construction of additional dry hydrants and/or cisterns. 4. Increase the use of natural, “green,” or “soft” hazard mitigation measures, such as Goal open space preservation and green infrastructure. Category Prevention Lead Fire Department Cost $25,000 - $50,000 Funding Town Operating Budget / Grants / CT DEEP Timeframe 07/2021 - 06/2023 Priority Medium
Action #18 Complete preparation of EAPs for Town-owned and maintained dams, as well as private ones where applicable. Goal 7. Improve the emergency response capabilities of the region and its communities Category Preparedness & Emergency Response Lead Emergency Management Cost $50,000 - $100,000 Funding Town Operating Budget / Grants Timeframe 01/2023 - 12/2024 Priority Medium
Action #19 Contact the owners of Repetitive Loss Properties and nearby properties at risk to inquire about mitigation undertaken and suggest options for mitigating flooding in those areas. This should be accomplished with a letter directly mailed to each property owner. Goal 1. Minimize the impact of natural hazards on physical buildings and infrastructure Category Property Protection Lead Planning Cost $0 - $10,000 Funding Town Operating Budget / DEMHS Timeframe 07/2021 - 06/2022 Priority Low
- 91 - Action #20 Monitor catch basins to determine whether switch away from sand has had an impact on basin filling. 4. Increase the use of natural, “green,” or “soft” hazard mitigation measures, such as Goal open space preservation and green infrastructure. Category Prevention Lead Public Works Cost $0 - $10,000 Funding Town Operating Budget Timeframe 07/2021 - 06/2022 Priority Low
Action #21 Seek Certification within the Sustainable CT program and make progress with the hazard mitigation goals associated with SustainableCT certified actions. 4. Increase the use of natural, “green,” or “soft” hazard mitigation measures, such as Goal open space preservation and green infrastructure. Category Natural Resources Protection Lead Planning Cost $0 - $10,000 Funding Town Operating Budget Timeframe 07/2021 - 06/2022 Priority Low
Action #22 Work with CT DEEP to complete a formal validation of the Repetitive Loss Property list and update the mitigation status of each listed property. Goal 1. Minimize the impact of natural hazards on physical buildings and infrastructure Category Property Protection Lead Planning Cost $10,000 - $25,000 Funding Town Operating Budget / CT DEEP / DEMHS Timeframe 07/2021 - 06/2023 Priority Low
- 92 - Action #23 Develop public education programming with regards to tree planting and maintenance on private property. Goal 6. Improve public outreach, education, and warning systems Category Education & Awareness Lead Public Works Cost $10,000 - $25,000 Funding Town Operating Budget / Grants Timeframe 07/2021 - 06/2023 Priority Low
Action #24 Coordinate with CT SHPO to conduct historic resource surveys, focusing on areas within natural hazard risk zones (such as flood or wildfire hazard zones and areas near steep slopes), to support identification of vulnerable historic properties and preparation of resiliency plans across the state. This action leverages existing resources and best practices for protection of historic and cultural resources through an ongoing statewide initiative by CT SHPO. Goal 8. Ensure community character and social equity are addressed in mitigation activities Category Property Protection Lead Planning, in coordination with SHPO Cost $10,000 - $25,000 Funding SHPO Timeframe 07/2021 - 06/2023 Priority Low
Action #25 Develop a public education program encouraging water conservation that utilizes UConn water usage alerts. Goal 6. Improve public outreach, education, and warning systems Category Education & Awareness Lead Public Works Cost $10,000 - $25,000 Funding Town Operating Budget / Grants Timeframe 01/2021 - 12/2023 Priority Low
- 93 - Action #26 Educate property owners on vegetation clearing techniques that will reduce water runoff and reduce the amount of combustible fuel. Goal 6. Improve public outreach, education, and warning systems Category Education & Awareness Lead Public Works Cost $10,000 - $25,000 Funding Town Operating Budget Timeframe 01/2021 - 12/2023 Priority Low
Action #27 Explore the feasibility of developing a microgrid that encompasses some or all of the following: Town Hall, Community Center, E.O. Smith High School, Library, Town Garage. 5. Improve the resilience of local and regional utilities and infrastructure using strategies Goal including adaptation, hardening, and creating redundancies. Category Structural Projects Lead Public Works Cost $25,000 - $50,000 Funding Grants / CT DEEP Timeframe 07/2023 - 06/2024 Priority Low
Action #28 Improve and expand the Town’s GIS system to assist town personnel in the event of an emergency of natural disaster. Goal 7. Improve the emergency response capabilities of the region and its communities Category Preparedness & Emergency Response Lead Planning Cost $50,000 - $100,000 Funding Town Operating Budget / Grants Timeframe 01/2024 - 12/2024 Priority Low
- 94 - Û 9 Û
Û þ PO320 Capitol Region Natural Hazards Tolland Willington Mitigation Plan Update 9 Û Mansfield, Connecticut Û Eagleville Fire Dept. Û Leandner Pond Dam Û Flood Plains, Dams Û Unnamed Dam Odd Pond Dam þ Û & Critical Facilities Swamp Brook Û Hooked Pond Dam Û Pond Dam Mclaughlin Pond Dam Û Û Ûv Û Critical Facilities Varga Pond Dam Dorothy C. Goodwin Schoo þ Fire Station Bergin ¹º Correctional Institute UConn Police Dept. Swan Lake Dam Stone Mill Road ( Police Station ¹º Pond Dam Training Dam #2 UConn Sewer . Û E.O. Smith Û Mansfield Û Treatment ( High School ¹º School Û þ UConn Û Unnamed Dam Hank Hill Training Dam #1 Fire Dept. Mirror 89 Lake Dam Pond Dam PO v Healthcare Facility Û ¹º Û Bone Mill Dam UConn Child ( Û Û Hansens Pond Dam ! Development Labs Mansfield ; State Facility Police Dept. Û Rocque Hidden Pond Dam Û Star Pond Dam Pond Dam v Nova Pond Dam 9 Town Facility PO32 Û v 195 Û Eagleville Dam v PO Mansfield VFC . Waste Water Facility Û Û þ Dunham Pond Dam Gardiner Road Dam Û þ [ Emergency Center Eagleville Fire Dept. Mansfield Recreation Pond Dam ¹º ! ¹ºþ Southeast NRHP Buildings/Sites (v 275 Spring Û Elementary School PO Johnson Pond Dam Pond Dam Chapins Pond Û Û ¹º Û Dam Hazard Class Mansfield ¹º Middle School Û BB, A, AA OR Unclassified Û ¹º ! ! Echo Lake Dam 9 Û Û PO31 Û Û Class B - Significant Hazard þ Û Û Mt. Hope Crane Hill Pond Dam Mansfield Û Û Class C - High Hazard Coventry Montessori School ¹º Hollow Dam ¹º . Û Û Û FEMA Flood Hazard Area Annie E. Vinton School 100 Year Flood Zone Natchaug ¹º Hospital School þ 500 Year Flood Zone Sawmill Brook Perkins Corner Pond Dam Û v NRHP Districts/Areas Pond Dam ¹ºÛ Û Willimantic ¹º Reservoir Dam Û Data Sources: FEMA, National Register of Historic Oak Grove Montessori Û Places, CT DEEP, CRCOG, ESRI ¹º Eatons Pond Dam 203 Û PO ¹º ¤£6 66 99 Realty Drive Cheshire, CT 06410 v Û Columbia PO (203) 271-1773 Fax: (203) 272-9733 87 PO - 95 - 14 ³ www.miloneandmacbroom.com vv Û PO 9 Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û 9(9v vv 9
9
¹º
Bolton Lake (Lower) Û 9 Û
Û þ PO320 Capitol Region Natural Hazards Tolland Willington Mitigation Plan Update 9 Û Mansfield, Connecticut Û Eagleville Fire Dept. Û Leandner Pond Dam Û Dam Breach Inundation Area Û Unnamed Dam Odd Pond Dam þ Û & Critical Facilities Swamp Brook Û Hooked Pond Dam Û Pond Dam Mclaughlin Pond Dam Û Û Ûv Û Varga Pond Dam Dorothy C. Goodwin Schoo Bergin ¹º Correctional Institute UConn Police Dept. Swan Lake Dam Stone Mill Road Critical Facilities ¹º Pond Dam Training Dam #2 UConn Sewer . Û E.O. Smith Û Mansfield Fire Station Û Treatment ( High School þ Û þ UConn Û Unnamed Dam Hank Hill Training Dam #1 Fire Dept. Mirror 89 ( Police Station Lake Dam ¹º Pond Dam Û PO Û Û Û Bone Mill Dam UConn Child ( Hansens Pond Dam School ! Development Labs Mansfield ¹º Police Dept. Û Û Rocque Hidden Pond Dam Star Pond Dam Pond Dam v Healthcare Facility 32 Û v Nova Pond Dam PO v 195 PO Mansfield VFC Û ; State Facility Eagleville Dam v Û Û þ Dunham Pond Dam Gardiner Road Dam 9 Town Facility Û þ Eagleville Fire Dept. Mansfield Recreation ¹º Pond Dam . Waste Water Facility ¹ºþ Southeast (v 275 Spring Û Elementary School PO Johnson Pond Dam Pond Dam Chapins Pond [ Emergency Center Û Û ¹º Û Mansfield ¹º Middle School ! NRHP Buildings/Sites Û ¹º ! ! Echo Lake Dam 9 Û Û 31 Dam Hazard Class POÛ Û þ BB, A, AA OR Unclassified Û Mt. Hope Û Crane Hill Pond Dam Mansfield Û Coventry Montessori School ¹º Hollow Dam ¹º . Û Û Û Û Class B - Significant Hazard Annie E. Vinton School Û Class C - High Hazard Natchaug ¹º Hospital School þ Dam Breach Inundation Areas Sawmill Brook Perkins Corner Pond Dam Û v NRHP Districts/Areas Pond Dam ¹ºÛ Û Willimantic ¹º Reservoir Dam Û Data Sources: FEMA, National Register of Historic Oak Grove Montessori Û Places, CT DEEP, CRCOG, ESRI ¹º Eatons Pond Dam 203 Û PO ¹º ¤£6 66 99 Realty Drive Cheshire, CT 06410 v Û Columbia PO (203) 271-1773 Fax: (203) 272-9733 87 PO - 96 - 14 ³ www.miloneandmacbroom.com vv Û PO 9 Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û 9(9v vv 9
9
¹º
Bolton Lake (Lower)
CERTIFICATE OF ADOPTION TOWN OF MANSFIELD TOWN COUNCIL
WHEREAS, the Town of Mansfield has historically experienced severe damage from natural hazards and it continues to be vulnerable to the effects of those natural hazards profiled in the plan (e.g. flooding, high wind, thunderstorms, winter storms, earthquakes, droughts, dam failure, and wildfires), resulting in loss of property and life, economic hardship, and threats to public health and safety; and
WHEREAS, the Mansfield Town Council approved the previous version of the Plan in 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Mansfield and Capitol Region Council of Governments developed and received conditional approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, 2019-2024 under the requirements of 44 CFR 201.6; and
WHEREAS, public and committee meetings were held and public input was sought in 2017 and 2018 regarding the development and review of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, 2019-2024; and
WHEREAS, the Plan specifically addresses hazard mitigation strategies and Plan maintenance procedure for the Town of Mansfield; and
WHEREAS, the Plan recommends several hazard mitigation actions/projects that will provide mitigation for specific natural hazards that impact the Town of Mansfield, with the effect of protecting people and property from loss associated with those hazards; and
WHEREAS, adoption of this Plan will make the Town of Mansfield eligible for funding to alleviate the impacts of future hazards; now therefore be it
RESOLVED by the Town Council: 1. The Plan is hereby adopted as an official plan of the Town of Mansfield; 2. The respective officials identified in the mitigation strategy of the Plan are hereby directed to pursue implementation of the recommended actions assigned to them; 3. Future revisions and Plan maintenance required by 44 CFR 201.6 and FEMA are hereby adopted as a part of this resolution for a period of five (5) years from the date of this resolution. 4. An annual report on the progress of the implementation elements of the Plan shall be presented to the Town Council.
Adopted this ______day of May, 2019 by the Town Council of Mansfield, Connecticut
______Paul Shapiro, Mayor
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has affixed his/her signature and the corporate seal of the Town of Mansfield this _____ day of ______, 2019.
______Sara-Ann Chaine, Town Clerk
- 97 - PAGE BREAK
- 98 - Item #5
Town of Mansfield Agenda Item Summary To: Town Council From: Derrik Kennedy, Town Manager CC: Joshua Putman, Assistant Town Manager; Cherie Trahan, Director of Finance Date: May 28, 2019 Re: Appointment of Auditor to Conduct Financial Audit for Fiscal Year 2018/19
Subject Matter/Background Section 7-392(c) and 4-232 of the Connecticut General Statutes, as amended, requires that each municipality annually designate an independent public accounting firm to audit the books and accounts of that government. Services were put out to bid out in 2016/17. A three-year contract (with an option to extend for two years) was awarded to Blum Shapiro & Company, P.C. The FY 2018/19 audit will be the third year of the contract.
Financial Impact Funds are included in the proposed 19/20 budget to cover the audit fees of $48,150.
Recommendation If the Town Council is in agreement, the following motion is in order:
Move, effective May 28, 2019 to appoint Blum Shapiro and Company, P.C. as the auditing firm for the Fiscal Year 2018/19.
- 99 - PAGE BREAK
- 100 - Item #6
Town of Mansfield Agenda Item Summary To: Town Council From: Derrik Kennedy, Town Manager CC: Joshua Putman, Assistant Town Manager; Kelly Lyman, Superintendent; Allen Corson, Director of Facilities Date: May 28, 2019 Re: Proposed Elementary School Project
Subject Matter/Background The School Building Committee has completed its responsibility to the Board of Education and Town Council in finding a suitable site for the proposed new elementary school and has recommended said site to the Town Council. The Board of Education has approved education specifications to assist in the conceptual design for the proposed school. Two, three-meeting rounds of community information sessions have been held for the public with regards to site selection and estimated costs of the proposed school.
If the Town Council is supportive of the project based on the factors evaluated and presented by the School Building Committee, the next step the process to bringing the proposed school to fruition would be to have the Town Council act to put the question to the residents as a referendum question on a ballot for this November.
The purpose of the May 28, 2019 meeting is to entertain any remaining questions regarding the project and to understand the steps that are required to be taken at no later than the Town Council’s June 10, 2019 meeting. It is at the June 10 meeting that the Town Council will be asked to recommend the project and to set the referendum date for November.
Legal Review Referendum resolution language has been recommended by bond counsel and reviewed by the town attorney. Town attorney, bond counsel and State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) counsel have been discussing appropriate use of information if Town Council adopts referendum resolution.
Financial Impact As noted in the public information sessions, the not-to-exceed value of the project has been stated at $50,600,000. This represents the full cost of the project. The Town is eligible for State reimbursement of over 50% of this figure, representing an estimated net project cost to the Town at $23,200,000. It is expected that this number will be
- 101 - reduced due to final building design specifications by the State. Based on the expected operational and energy savings of the consolidation of three schools to one and on the design elements, the net cost to the taxpayer is expected to result in an annual debt service of around $1,000,000. This represents approximately 1.00 mill, which for the median home value in Mansfield ($225,000), the tax implication would be about $158 per year.
Recommendation At this meeting, there is no recommendation for any action. Action will be requested at the June 10, 2019 meeting.
Attachments 1) Planning and Zoning Commission 5/6/19 DRAFT minutes 2) Planning and Zoning Commission 8-24 Referral: School Building Project
- 102 - MONDAY, MAY 6, 2019 . REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: S. Accorsi, P. Aho, B. Chandy, J. Goodwin, R. Hall, D. Plante, K. Rawn, B. Ryan, V. Ward ALTERNATES PRESENT: L. Cooley, C. Cotton ALTERNATES ABSENT: K. Fratoni STAFF PRESENT: L. Painter, Director of Planning and Development J. Woodmansee, Community Development Assistant
Chair J. Goodwin called the meeting to order at 6:52 p.m. No alternate members are seated as the full PZC membership is present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: APRIL 15, 2019 REGULAR MEETING S. Accorsi MOVED, K. Rawn seconded, to approve the April 15, 2019, minutes as presented. S. Accorsi, P. Aho and V. Ward indicated that they had listened to the recording. MOTION PASSED (8-0-1, R. Hall was disqualified).
OLD BUSINESS: REFERRAL PURSUANT TO C.G.S. 8-24 FROM THE MANSFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION REGARDING PROPOSED SITE OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL L. Painter noted that her memo dated 5/2/2019 outlines how the proposed school project is consistent with the goals and strategies outlined in the POCD. K. Rawn RESOLVED, B. Chandy seconded, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Mansfield approves the following project pursuant to Section 8-24 of the General Statutes of Connecticut: Construction of a grades K through 4 consolidated elementary school of approximately 81,900 gross square feet and designed to accommodate approximately 566 students and related site improvements and work including but not limited to new play fields and playgrounds, an entry drive, parking lots, a new septic system and a well, to be located on Town-owned property at 134 Warrenville Road in Mansfield; and the demolition of the existing Southeast Elementary School and development of that portion of the property with improvements to support the new school facility; provided that this resolution is for approval of conceptual plans only. The project is subject to and shall comply with all applicable zoning, site plan, subdivision, inland wetlands and other laws, regulations and permit
- 103 - approvals, and this resolution shall not be a determination that any such project is in compliance with any such applicable laws, regulations or permit approvals. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ON-CALL CONSULTANT SELECTION Tabled.
NEW BUSINESS REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY VENDING IN BETSY PATERSON SQUARE L. Painter reported that this is an annual request to have the UConn Diary Bar truck parked at Betsy Paterson Square on the dates of the outdoor movies. P. Aho MOVED, B. Ryan seconded, that the PZC authorize the temporary parking and use of the UConn Dairy Bar truck at the Betsy Paterson Square in Storrs Center on the dates that correspond with the outdoor movie nights this season, which are July 12th, July 26th, August 2nd, August 9th and August 16th. The use is accessory to Downtown Storrs events and shall be subject to any conditions that may be placed upon the use by the Mansfield Traffic Authority or the Mansfield Downtown Partnership. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
P1351 COMMUNITY SCHOOL OF THE ARTS, LENARD HALL, 450 S. EAGLEVILLE RD. (FORMERLY 898 STAFFORD ROAD), APPROVAL OF SIGN DESIGN L. Painter reviewed the proposed sign design. B. Chandy MOVED, V. Ward seconded, to approve the design of the proposed identity sign for the Community School of the Arts at 450 South Eagleville Road. This approval authorizes the Chair to approve any changes to the sign face proposed to accommodate the Town’s new logo and brand. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW MEETINGS PURSUANT TO SECTION 7-159b. CONNECTICUJT GENERAL STATUTUES A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW, LEE LAMBERT, 957 STORRS ROAD Lee Lambert, owner of the Spring Hill Inn, located at 957 Storrs Road, is present to discuss his pre- application. Mr. Lambert reviewed the current use of the property as an inn with 6 guest rooms and a restaurant space which is currently for lease. Mr. Lambert showed a historic photograph depicting a barn which was once on the property, stating he would like to re-build and is considering potential uses which may include guest rooms, suites, an inn keeper apartment, utility space, an event center and white tent events in the yard. The PZC membership was generally supportive of the idea of reviewing zoning regulations related to the proposed expansion of the inn and new uses.
- 104 - PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW, CLEAR MOUNTAIN CAPTIAL, LLC, 497 MIDDLE TURNPIKE Attorney Ben Wiles from Updike, Kelly and Spellacy, P.C. and Chuck Lee are present on behalf of the applicant, Clear Mountain Capital, LLC. Chuck Lee explained plans to develop the 60 acre parcel located at 497 Middle Tpke. He noted that the proposed project will be an approximate 290,000 gross square feet of upscale rental apartments, amenities and common facilities across a mid-rise complex and will include public open space. Both market rate and affordable units will be offered as studio, one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments, supported by public water and sewage. Members generally discussed the allowable roof height and the potential of increasing height to provide a better aesthetic but not for the purposes of increasing livable space, as well as architectural preferences, use of open space, egress and security features.
REPORTS: L. Cooley reported that Regional Planning will meet on May 16, 2019. L. Painter reported on the status of staff time for zoning permitting and enforcement.
COMMUNICATIONS: The referral from Coventry is noted and staff will notify PZC if any additional action is necessary.
ADJOURNMENT: J. Goodwin declared the meeting adjourned at 7:59 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
V. Ward, Secretary Mansfield Planning and Zoning Commission
- 105 -
TOWN OF MANSFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
JoAnn Goodwin, Chair AUDREY P. BECK BUILDING FOUR SOUTH EAGLEVILLE ROAD MANSFIELD, CT 06268-2599 [email protected] (860) 429-3330 Fax: (860) 429-6863
To: Town Council Derrik Kennedy, Town Manager Kelly Lyman, Superintendent of Mansfield Public Schools From: Planning and Zoning Commission Date: Thursday, May 23, 2019 Re: 8-24 Referral: School Building Project
At a meeting held on May 6, 2019, the Mansfield Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously adopted the following motion:
“RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Mansfield approves the following project pursuant to Section 8-24 of the General Statutes of Connecticut:
Construction of a grades K through 4 consolidated elementary school of approximately 81,900 gross square feet and designed to accommodate approximately 566 students and related site improvements and work including but not limited to new play fields and playgrounds, an entry drive, parking lots, a new septic system and a well, to be located on Town-owned property at 134 Warrenville Road in Mansfield; and the demolition of the existing Southeast Elementary School and development of that portion of the property with improvements to support the new school facility; provided that this resolution is for approval of conceptual plans only. The project is subject to and shall comply with all applicable zoning, site plan, subdivision, inland wetlands and other laws, regulations and permit approvals, and this resolution shall not be a determination that any such project is in compliance with any such applicable laws, regulations or permit approvals.”
If you have any questions regarding this action, please contact Linda Painter, Director of Planning and Development.
- 106 - Item #7
Town of Mansfield Agenda Item Summary To: Town Council From: Derrik Kennedy, Town Manager CC: Joshua Putman, Assistant Town Manager; Sgt. Keith Timme, Resident State Trooper Date: May 28, 2019 Re: Final Report and Dissolution of the Ad Hoc Committee on Police Services
Subject Matter/Background The Ad Hoc Committee on Police Services was created on March 23, 2015 by a vote of the Town Council. The impetus for the formation of the Committee was Governor Malloy’s proposed budget that would increase costs to the Town of Mansfield for resident state troopers by $500,000 in one year. Over the past four years, the committee met with several police departments and police representatives, toured public safety facilities, and analyzed several public safety arrangements in different university settings. In 2017, the Committee issued an RFP for consulting services that would assist in (1) reviewing the existing public safety needs for the Town, and (2) in developing the framework and transition to a municipal police department. In February 2018, the Council received the report from the consultant and committee. In March 2018, the Council agreed to wait until after a new town manager arrived to further explore the option of moving forward with a local police department. Over the past year, I have met regularly with the Committee to review the budgets of comparable police departments, meet with area police representatives, meet with former and current Mansfield resident state trooper (RST) sergeants, and discussed the merits of a local department and current services of the RST model. At this time, the Committee has finalized their discussions and is bringing forward their final report for acceptance by the Council.
Legal Review None
Financial Impact None
Recommendation The Ad Hoc Committee on Police Services is recommending to remain with the Connecticut State Police Resident Trooper Program for police services delivery and to evaluate the option of a local police department if the State makes significant changes
- 107 - to the cost of model of the resident trooper program, or there becomes a clear need for a substantially larger police force in Mansfield.
If the Town Council is in favor of this recommendation, then the following motion is in order:
Move, effective March 28, 2019, to accept the final report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Police Services, dated May 2019
Additionally if the Council supports this request, the following resolution would be in order:
Resolved, that the Ad Hoc Committee on Police Services be dissolved effective immediately.
Attachments 1) Final Report and Recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee on Police Services, May 2019
- 108 -
Final Report and Recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee on Police Services
May 2019
- 109 - Executive Summary In the wake of escalating resident trooper costs borne by the Town of Mansfield, the Town Council created an Ad Hoc Committee on Police Services to explore options for police services for the Town, including remaining with the State Police, establishing a local police department, or working with area agencies to develop a shared/regional police services model.
The Ad Hoc Committee on Police Services (“Committee”) met with area public safety agencies, spoke with several police executives, and hired a consultant firm perform analysis and make a recommendation to the Town on its best option for service delivery.
After working for four years, the Committee recommends the Town maintain its current resident state trooper program. We recognize we may need to reevaluate our police services operations in the future if the State alters the resident state trooper program, such as through further cost increases, or if there is a significant change in Mansfield’s policing needs.
Report on the Activities of the Committee The Committee was created on March 23, 2015 by a vote of the Mansfield Town Council (“Council”). Specifically, the Council action approved, “the creation of an ad hoc committee to study the state trooper program and that the members who served on the original Policy Study Committee be asked to consider joining the committee. Mayor Paterson and Councilors Kegler and Moran agreed to serve on the Committee. The motion passed unanimously” (Council Minutes).
The impetus for the formation of the Committee was Governor Malloy’s proposed budget would increase costs to the Town of Mansfield for resident state troopers by $500,000 in one year.
- 110 - The Committee first met on April 7, 2015. Over the next 48 months, the Committee met 34 times through Council and management transitions. In its deliberations, the Committee met with and discussed police and shared services with the following agencies:
• Connecticut State Police • University of Connecticut Police & Fire Services • Town of Windham and Willimantic Police Department • State of Connecticut Commissioner of Public Safety • Town of Tolland • Town of Coventry and Coventry Police Department • City of Durham, New Hampshire Police Department
The Committee toured the following facilities: • University of Connecticut Police Department & Dispatch Center • City of Willimantic Police Department • Town of Coventry Police Department
The Committee analyzed the following public safety service agreement models: • Keene College/City of Keene • Wayne State/City of Detroit • UMass/Town of Amherst • UConn/City of Hartford
Of particular note, the Committee had several key findings and decision points.
In November 2015, the Committee reported back to the Town Council with three options for consideration: maintain resident trooper program, evaluate public safety service delivery option with UConn, or evaluate the feasibility of a regional police department with the Towns of Coventry and/or Tolland. It was the recommendation of the
- 111 - Committee that the Council continue to study and evaluate service delivery options, and that the ad hoc committee continue to meet.
In April 2016, after meetings with UConn and the Public Safety Commissioner, the Committee further agreed upon possible service delivery and analysis options, including: • District provided service by UConn PD, remaining part of Town provided service by the Resident Trooper Program • District provided service by UConn PD, remaining part of Town provided service by the City of Willimantic • District provided service by UConn PD, remaining part of Town provided service by the Town of Coventry
In March 2017, the Committee approved the issuance of a request for qualifications (RFQ) for technical assistance to analyze police department staffing and scheduling models.
Between March and June, the Committee received and reviewed proposals from the RFQ solicitation. On June 20 & 21, 2017, the Committee interviewed four firms (International Association of Chiefs of Police, Police Foundation, Novak Consulting Group). However, one firm (Municipal Resources, Inc.) withdrew their submission. After deliberations, the Committee narrowed field to IACP and Novak. After revising the scope of the RFQ for the two finalists, the Committee approved hiring IACP for technical assistance on August 7, 2017.
Between September 2017 and February 2018, the Committee worked closely with consultants from the IACP.
On February 15, 2018, IACP presented the Committee with its final report and recommended budget. This report is attached. The Committee approved (2-1) to send report to Town Council and begin the process for the Town to establish its own police
- 112 - agency. On February 26, 2018, IACP and Chief Kurz from Durham, New Hampshire (a member of the IACP review group) also presented their findings and recommendations to the Council. The Council believed it was premature to adopt a recommendation favoring the creation of a Town policy agency, and instead unanimously voted to “receive the final report and for the town to further investigate whether Mansfield should establish its own police department” (Council Minutes).
On March 8, 2018, the Committee agreed to wait until after a new town manager arrived to further explore whether to maintain the existing resident state trooper program or more forward with the possibility of creating a local police department.
Between July 2018 and February 2019, the Committee analyzed budgets of various local police departments; heard presentations from former and current Mansfield resident trooper sergeants; and received comments from the Coventry Police Chief regarding the IACP report and findings.
Report by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (2018) As noted, the IACP submitted their final report to the Committee and Town Council in February 2018. The report provides an analysis and recommendations for the Town to transition to a local police department.
The report included a history of police services in Mansfield, recognition of the 2012 Management Partners/Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) Report, a list of interviewed stakeholder and community discussions, demographic information about the Town’s residents, a description of the organizational structure of the town government, past police services budgets documenting the increased costs associated with the resident state trooper program, extensive and detailed historical crime statistics along with crime and budgetary comparisons with similarly-sized communities, patrol areas and deployment, and an analysis of Mansfield patrol call distribution and patrol workload. The IACP investigators also noted the difficulty in acquiring detailed local crime and enforcement data from the CSP.
- 113 -
We summarize below the report’s conclusions based on this analysis. In doing so, the Committee is not suggesting it agrees – or disagrees - with specific proposals and recommendations in the report. Indeed, there was significant discussion at Committee meetings about the merits and accuracy of a number of conclusions and recommendations in this report. • In the review, the IACP found that the police services in the Town of Mansfield are primarily service related, and as noted in the previous section, crime rates are relatively low. (p. 56) • Generally, the response times observed were within a reasonable range for CFS response. (p. 56) • Overall, the IACP noted that calls for service (CFS) volumes, including officer- and community-initiated activity, have declined over the past three years. (p. 57) • Despite these facts, as the report will describe below, the size of the community, the presence of the University of Connecticut, and the desire by the community for 24/7 police services, suggest the need for a police force that exceeds the number produced purely through the calculations, which are provided in the report. (p. 57)
The report then made staffing, scheduling, and budgetary recommendations. The Report recommended a municipal police force of ten officers and one administrative person. The department would include a police chief, one investigator/patrol officer, two sergeants, and six patrol officers. However, the report left the door open for further staffing needs in its recommendation that, “ideally, the department and community would be best-served by a force of fourteen officers and one staff member” (p. 63).
Among their recommendations was to utilize an “on demand” or “short schedulei” process rather than the more typical “balanced scheduleii” used by most police departments.
- 114 - The Report makes note of benefits and concerns with each scheduling approach. For the Town of Mansfield, the Report recommended using the short scheduling method, using a four-on, four-off format, noting further that, “this type of a work schedule has the greatest flexibility for both staff and the agency, and it also has the ability to minimize overtime, and to adjust to hourly shift demands” (p. 63). The report emphasized the town’s desire for a full service, 24/7 police force, functioning collaboratively with University PD for the more concentrated populations around the University, and also able to provide good response times for the farther reaches of the town.
Concerning a recommended budget, the Report does provide for scenarios of a personnel phase-in, fully-staffing in the first year, as well as a five-year cost projection. With these scenarios, (using 2018 cost estimates) the Report projects a first year budget for a local police department at $1,784,315. This would be for ten municipal officers and an administrative professional. The Report compares this estimate to the 2018 budget for the resident trooper program at $1,719,430, which includes eight troopers. Adding two state troopers to achieve a recommended, total force of ten, the cost to the Town would increase to $2.1 million.
Findings and Recommendations by the Committee Comments and concerns of Committee members and guests were noted throughout the Committee’s deliberations. In February 2019, the Committee noted the following key points with regards to current police services and a local police department:
• The shift of the financial burden from the state to the host municipality for state troopers has increased significantly in recent years, making it more difficult for the Town to maintain, let alone consider increasing, the level of service1. • The existing resident trooper model limits the Town’s ability to manage police services, although there is the corresponding benefit of having the resident troopers part of and managed by a large, sophisticated police agency.
1 The cost to municipalities has increased from being responsible for 70% of the state trooper’s wages and benefits in 2016 to over 100% of wages and fringe benefits in 2019.
- 115 - • The existing resident trooper staffing limits expansive community policing. The Committee discussed the significance of this issue or whether the creation of a 10-member department would alter this situation. The decline in very large student parties coupled with proactive, collaborative interaction between UConn Police and the Connecticut State Police and implementation of nuisance and underage drinking ordinances, may have contributed to reducing this concern. • There is a positive, professional working relationship between the troopers and UConn police. • There are inadequate facilities for existing and/or future police services without improvements, regardless of whether the Town maintains the current resident state trooper program or moves to a municipal department. • The IACP report presented concerns for the Committee, such as a limited budget for overtime, the viability of the short schedule, the low pay rates for staff, and low capital investment and on-going costs.
The Committee debated the need for a local police department at this point in the Town’s development. It was noted that with the extension of the sewer line into Four Corners and possible heavy investment and development in the Opportunity Zone, the need for a larger and/or local police department may become more appropriate as certain areas of the Town grow and develop.
It was further debated that the costs for a local department, as represented in the IACP report, were below the actual, necessary costs for proper recruitment and retention. It was noted by the Coventry Chief that the wages in the IACP were 20-30% below proper levels to recruit and retain qualified officers in this area. When the noted adjustment is made to the wages of the recommended staff by the IACP, the first year budget for a fully-staffed local police department increased from $1.7 million to $2.0 million. In the fifth year, the IACP budget increased from $1.7 million to $2.5 million. “In the fifth year of the IACP budget from Year One to Year Five this significant increase is reduced, due to the reduction in capital costs and the institution of a regular plan for equipment replacement.
- 116 - Committee members also discussed other issues or concerns, including: • Substituting a small municipal force for state troopers who arguably are the best-trained and supervised police officers in the State. The desire to have state police oversight and responsibility for disciplinary actions, such as investigating complaints of excessive force. • A local police force would require a command structure compared to a resident trooper’s office of a single supervisory sergeant and troopers. • Under the current contract with the CSP, the Town is “guaranteed” that it will have a set number of patrol officers contracted and provided for by the state police at all times. This means both less control by the Town, but also fewer Human Resources issues and demands. • The comparative advantage or disadvantage of having a small municipal force would largely attract relatively new police officers who would likely leave to take advantage of opportunities and specializations available in larger forces, or police officers from large departments looking for a more rural and possibly relaxed environment before they retire. • As referenced above, the projected capital budget to equip and maintain a municipal police force seemed unrealistic and did not adequately capture the costs associated with telecommunications equipment (and future upgrades), vehicles, holding cells, specialized investigative services, or similar costs or programs currently provided by the state police.
Although Mansfield has had to reduce the number of resident state troopers due to cost, there has not been any significant, recent concern about the level of policing. This, coupled with concerns about increased liability with a local department, the increase in costs due to more appropriate wage calculations, and the desire to wait to see how the Town develops, it is the recommendation of Committee to:
1. Remain with the Connecticut State Police Resident Trooper Program for police services delivery, with the direction to the Town Manager to continue to work with
- 117 - the CSP to encourage a community policing model for the town, and a strong working relationship with UConn PD and Off Campus Housing Office.
2. Reevaluate the option of creating a municipal department if the State makes significant changes to the cost or model of the resident trooper program, or there becomes a clear need for a substantially larger police force in Mansfield.
Committee Membership: • April 2015 – November 2015 (Paterson, Moran, Kegler) • November 2015 – April 2016 (Moran, Kegler, Ryan) • October 2016 – Sept. 2017 (Moran, Ryan, Raymond) • January 2018 – March 2018 (Moran, Ryan, Freudmann) • July 2018 – April 2019 (Moran, Freudmann, Kochenburger)
Recognition of Staff: • Matt Hart, Town Manager • Maria Capriola, Assistant Town Manager & Interim Town Manager • John Carrington, Interim Town Manager • Denise McNair, Acting Assistant Town Manager • Derrik Kennedy, Town Manager • Joshua Putman, Assistant Town Manager • Cherie Trahan, Director of Finance • Alicia Ducharme, Budget Analyst • Sgt. Rich Cournoyer, CSP • Sgt. Keith Timme, CSP • Austin Murray, Graduate Intern • Thomas Fitzgerald, Graduate Intern
i In a short schedule, “the department schedules officers less hours than required during any given month. This results in a circumstance in which the employee owes the agency time, which the agency can schedule as the need demands (with appropriate advanced notice). This process typically involves the creation of a schedule shell in
- 118 - which the department ensures filling all shift minimums. In this format, there is also some over-scheduling involved, which allows for immediate backfilling of shifts vacated due to leave requests; however, the design of these schedules does not include the significant peaks that often occur within a balanced schedule. Instead, the over-scheduling of staff is smaller, which creates more efficiency in terms of personnel usage” (p. 60). ii In a balanced schedule, “the department fully schedules all its personnel based on 40 hours per week, or 80 hours per pay period (bi-weekly), throughout the year. For example, if a department had 10 officers working a 6-on, 3- off, 8.5-hour schedule, that would be 60 shifts over the 9-day cycle, or about 6.5 shifts per day. The issue here is that in this model, the agency has a maximum of six shifts per day, which means that the department either has to agree to operate with a smaller number of shifts when people want to take leave, or the department will have to use overtime to backfill any openings” (p. 58).
- 119 - PAGE BREAK
- 120 - Item #8
- 121 - - 122 - - 123 - - 124 - - 125 - - 126 - - 127 - - 128 - - 129 - PAGE BREAK
- 130 - Item #9
TOWN OF MANSFIELD OFFICE OF THE TOWN MANAGER
Derrik M. Kennedy AUDREY P. BECK BUILDING Town Manager FOUR SOUTH EAGLEVILLE ROAD MANSFIELD, CT 06268-2599 (860) 429-3336 x5 ♦ Fax: (860) 429-6863
May 15, 2019
Annastasia Martineau 820 Mansfield City Road Unit 13-B Storrs Mansfield, CT 06268
Re: Appointment to Mansfield Youth Services Advisory Board
Dear Ms. Martineua:
This letter is to confirm your appointment to the Mansfield Youth Services Advisory Board for a term to expire on September 30, 2022.
I trust that you will find the work of the Committee to be rewarding, and I greatly appreciate your willingness to serve our community.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding your appointment.
Regards,
Derrik M. Kennedy, Town Manager
Cc: Town Council Sara-Ann Chaine, Town Clerk Katherine Bell, Youth Services Supervisor Patricia Schneider, Human Services Director
- 131 - TOWN OF MANSFIELD OFFICE OF THE TOWN MANAGER
Derrik M. Kennedy AUDREY P. BECK BUILDING Town Manager FOUR SOUTH EAGLEVILLE ROAD MANSFIELD, CT 06268-2599 (860) 429-3336 x5 ♦ Fax: (860) 429-6863
April 9, 2019
Norma Posocco 13A Sycamore Dr. Storrs Mansfield, CT 06268
Re: Appointment to Mansfield Youth Services Advisory Board
Dear Ms. Posocco:
This letter is to confirm your appointment to the Mansfield Youth Services Advisory Board for a term to expire on September 30, 2022.
I trust that you will find the work of the Committee to be rewarding, and I greatly appreciate your willingness to serve our community.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding your appointment.
Regards,
Derrik M. Kennedy, Town Manager
Cc: Town Council Sara-Ann Chaine, Town Clerk Katherine Bell, Youth Services Supervisor Patricia Schneider, Human Services Director
- 132 - Item #10
- 133 -