Transcript Document

WEST HAVEN COMMUNITY FORUM
Connecticut MetroPatterns and other Land
Use and Tax Policy Initiatives:
A Growing Consensus
Robert W. Santy
President
Regional Growth Partnership
Connecticut
Metropatterns
A Regional Agenda for Community and
Prosperity in Connecticut
Myron Orfield
Thomas Luce
Special Act 02-13
Blue Ribbon Commission on Property Tax
Burdens and Smart Growth Incentives
John DeStefano, Jr. - Chairman
Howard Dean - Vice-Chairman
Ct 21 Ct Regional Institute for the
21st Century
STEERING COMMITTEE
Bridgeport Regional
Business Council
Capitol Region COG
COG of the Central
Naugatuck Valley
CT Business & Industry Association
CT Conference of Municipalities
CT Economic Resource Center
CT General Assembly
CT Office of Policy & Management
Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce
Greater Waterbury
Chamber of Commerce
Greater Bridgeport
Regional Planning Agency
Metro Hartford Regional
Economic Alliance
Middlesex County
Chamber of Commerce
Northeast Utilities
Pitney Bowes Inc.
Regional Growth Partnership
Regional Plan Association
SACIA, The Business
Council of Southwest CT
Southeastern CT COG
Southeastern CT
Enterprise Region
1000 Friends of Connecticut
• Modeled on similar organizations in other
states
• Mobilize broad –based members
representing diverse interests on issues of
growth and development in Connecticut
• Advocate and promote community vitality
through balanced economic growth and
environmental health
CONNECTICUT M E T R O P A T T E R N S
Key Findings
 Simple contrasts between cities, suburbs and
rural areas are out of date
 Stressed
 At-risk
 Fringe-developing
 Bedroom-developing
 Affluent
 All types of communities are hurt by the way the
state is growing
 All places would benefit from regional and
statewide reforms
 Reform is politically possible
M ETR O PATTE R N S
Suburban Typology
Analysis of 169 municipalities showed six
distinct types of communities:






Stressed –- 17% of the population
At-risk — 28% of the population
Fringe-developing — 6% of the population
Bedroom-developing — 24% of the population
Affluent suburbs — 11% of the population
Cities — 14% of the population
Community Classifications
• Community Classifications were developed by
Orfield to group communities, much like
Connecticut groups communities into ERGs
(Education Reference Groups)
• West Haven is defined as a Stressed community
• This definition measures property tax base and
growth, population growth and density and free
lunch eligible students to group communities
West Haven’s Community
Classifications
• West Haven just under 11 sq. miles is one of
Connecticut’s smallest towns
• Population density is 865/square mile
• Grand list went up 1.5% between 1994-99
(state average =8%)
• Property tax at 57% of total revenue
compared to 66% state average
Town
New Haven
Population
1998
% Change in
Population
1993-1998
Per Capita
Equalized
Net Grand,
1997
% change in
Equalized
Net Grand,
1994-1999
% Change in
property
taxes, 19941999
Property
taxes as a %
of total
revenues,
1999
123,189
-1.9
$30,729
-19.4
-4.3
40.3
Orange
12,426
-0.5
$120,864
1.9
11.0
86.6
West Haven
51,639
-3.5
$43,928
1.5
2.7
56.8
Woodbridge
8,265
2.4
$135,283
17.6
26.4
89.9
Region
Average
25,781
-0.3
$65,968
1.5
13.7
63.1
State Average
19,373
N/A
$84,369
8.0
15.1
65.9
M ETR O PATTE R N S
Growth Patterns
 Between 1970 and 2000 urbanized land area
increased by 102 percent while population grew by
just 12 percent
 Increasing congestion: average commute times
increased by 16 percent in the 1990s
 Loss of open space: farmland decreased by nearly
10 percent between 1987 and 1997
Blue Ribbon Commission
Blue Ribbon Commission
Blue Ribbon Commission
M ETR O PATTE R N S
Fiscal Capacity
The tax resources of local government
 Tax capacity indicates how high tax rates must be
to support a given level of public services.
 Current and prospective residents and businesses
want value for their tax dollars.
 Low local tax base combined with high needs push
tax rates up and/or services down.
Blue Ribbon Commission
• New Haven’s budget is about $350m
• A reasonable increase is 3%-$10.5m
• The Knights of Columbus Tower is
assessed at $10,073,000
• It pays $388,000 in taxes
• We would need to add 25+ new
Knights of Columbus Towers every year
to meet a reasonable budget increase
M ETR O PATTE R N S
Schools
 Schools are a powerful indicator of a community’s
health and a predictor of the future.
 Middle-class families choose to live in the least
poor school districts they can afford.
 When a place’s schools begin to become poorer, in
more cases than not, the community will follow.
M ETR O PATTE R N S
Resources vs. Need
Property Tax Base Per Household
(inflation-adjusted)
Percentage of Elementary Students in Poverty
Income per Household
80
120,000
800,000
60
600,000
90,000
1995
400,000
1993
40
2000
200,000
2000
60,000
20
30,000
0
Be
d
ro
om
-D
-D
e
nt
flu
e
Af
ev
e
ve
lop
ing
lop
ing
At
-R
isk
Fr
ing
e
sse
d
St
re
Ci
ti e
s
0
es
iti
C0
re
St
ed
ss
Central
Cities
A
isk
t-R
g
in
op
l
e
g
in
op
l
e
A
ue
ffl
nt
ev
At-Risk, Dev At-Risk,
Bedroom-D
eg
m
Developed
Developing
Developing
o
in
Fr
d
Be
ro
Affluent
Blue Ribbon Commission
Local Property Tax Revenues as a % of
Total Revenues for Local Public Education
CONNECTICUT’S LOCAL PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM IS MORE
RELIANT ON THE LOCAL PROPERTY TAX THAN ALL OTHER STATES
CT
52.7% NJ
60.00%
51.0% MA
47.7%
50-State
Average
29.8%
NH
35.7%
40.00%
HI
0.0%
20.00%
0.00%
50 states
Source: National Center for Education Statistics. National Public Education Financial Survey, FY 2000 (latest available). 8/02.
- 28 -
M ETR O PATTE R N S
Consequences
All types of places are hurt by the status quo
 Stressed and At-risk
 Low tax base, high and increasing social stress, insufficient
or aging infrastructure
 Fringe-developing
 Low and stagnant tax base, growth-related costs (infrastructure and schools) on largely residential tax base
 Bedroom-developing
 Growth-related costs on largely residential tax base, loss of
green space
 Affluent
 Congestion, long commutes and loss of green space
Financing Local Services: What Do Citizens Think?
Citizens Forum
•2002: 134 randomly-selected residents of the South
Central Connecticut
•Initially, 80% thought towns should retain control of
their own taxes.
•After deliberation, 68% were open to other possibilities.
2003: 196 residents
•discuss the financing of local government services.
Virtually everyone (98%) thought the system needed
to be changed.
Financing Local Services: What Do Citizens Think?
After Deliberation:
•80%: state should increase aid to reduce local
dependence on property tax
• 69%: “the current system of taxation does not enables
towns to cover the services they need.”
A majority support regional strategies.
• regional cooperation is best method for addressing local
government financing.
• planning, service delivery, taxation.
Whatever strategy they supported, 84% said towns should
determine how funds are used.
Sacred Heart/New Haven Register
Poll – March 2004
• 800 interviews proportionately in 23 towns
• Problem of most concern: taxes 43% - almost 4x
the next highest answer
• Only 28% had heard of “smart growth”, but
• 87% support its policy goals
• 82% support regional cooperation in problem
solving, 77% to provide services
• 83.5% support state incentives for regional service
delivery
METROPOLICY
Fiscal Reform
Policies to reduce fiscal inequality already exist
in all states. Equity-based reforms can:





Reduce dependence on local property taxes
Reduce inequalities in tax rates and services
Reduce competition for tax base
Encourage joint economic development efforts
Complement regional or state-wide land-use
planning
METROPOLICY
Regional Leadership
and Decision-Making
From the Articles of Confederation
to the Constitution
Regional governments exist in all metro areas.
They need to perform better by:
 Better coordinating infrastructure with growth
 Reinvesting in older parts of the region
 Developing regional land-use plans
METROPOLICY
Land-Use Reform
The central elements of comprehensive
land-use reform include:
 Smart growth
 Reinvest in existing areas
 Develop in areas that can
support it
 Protect open space
 Reduce barriers to affordable
housing
 Regional coordination of local planning
 Statewide efforts already exist in 16 states
Recommendations
GOALS:
1.
Lessen reliance on the property tax
2.
Increase the equity, stability and sufficiency of the state-local
revenue stream
3.
Pursue strategies that work in support of Smart Growth
4.
Promote transit alternatives to the automobile
5.
Create municipal and regional partnerships to reduce
destructive inter-municipal competition for grand list growth
6.
Establish incentives to promote integration of local plans of
development with state goals
Recommendations
FUND LOCAL EDUCATION
1.
Increase ECS Foundation to $7,900
$500M
2.
Municipal floor of 50% for education (MER)
$300M
3.
Minimum funding of 50% for Special Education
$125M
•
Fully fund PILOTs
$250M
Recommendations
Explore local revenue options
•
Continue real estate conveyance
•
Locally retain 15% surcharge hotel tax
2.
Regional sales tax option, approved by voters or Councils
of Governments
3.
Better knowledge base for decision making
4.4%
1%
Top
Next
15%
Next
20%
Fourth
20%
Middle
20%
Sales
Property
With Federal Offset
Income
10.2%
Second
“Stadium Project Approved
by Area Voters”
11%
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
20%
Tax incidence study
Lowest
•
4%
1.
Recommendations
Growth Information
1.
Layered Geographic Information System (GIS) database,
coordinating among municipalities and state agencies
2.
A statewide build-out analysis under current land use
regulatory format
3.
A statewide evaluation of public costs associated with sprawl
Recommendations
• Require consistency
between municipal,
regional and state
plans that incorporate
smart growth
principles
• Tie fiscal incentives
to greater cooperation
– particularly through
the enhancement of
the COG structure
Regional Planning Organizations in Connecticut
Northwestern CT
COG
Capitol Region
COG
Windham
COG
Undefined
North Canaan
Central CT
RPA
Colebrook
Hartland
Norfolk
Salisbury
Suffield
Granby
Canaan
Winchester
COG of the
Central
Naugatuck Valley
Housatonic Valley
CEO
Sharon
Cornwall
Simsbury
Torrington
Windsor
Bloomfield
Canton
Somers
Union
Stafford
Woodstock
Thompson
Ellington
East
Windsor
South
Windsor
Willington
Tolland
Vernon
Ashford
Putnam
Eastford
Northeastern CT
COG
Pomfret
Killingly
Mansfield
Chaplin
Coventry
Brooklyn
Manchester
Hartford
Hampton
Harwinton
East
West
Bolton
Hartford
Hartford
Burlington
Warren
Andover
Sterling
Litchfield
Kent
Farmington
Wethersfield
Windham Scotland
Plainfield
Columbia
Morris
Glastonbury
Canterbury
Plymouth
Newington
Plainville
Hebron
New Britain
Rocky
Bristol
Thomaston
Washington
Hill
Marlborough
Sprague
Bethlehem
Lebanon
Southington
Franklin
Voluntown
Cromwell
Watertown
Berlin
Portland
Lisbon
Wolcott
New Milford
Griswold
Woodbury
Colchester
East
Sherman
Bozrah
Waterbury
Roxbury
Middletown
Hampton
Meriden
Norwich
Cheshire
Middlebury
Bridgewater
Middlefield
Preston
Prospect
Salem
New Fairfield
East Haddam
Naugatuck
North
Haddam
Montville
Southbury
Stonington
Brookfield
Wallingford Durham
Ledyard
Beacon Falls
Hamden
Oxford
Danbury
Chester
Bethany
Newtown
Lyme
East Lyme
Killingworth Deep River
North
Seymour
Stonington
Bethel
Haven North
Waterford
Essex
Groton
Woodbridge
Branford
Monroe
Old Lyme
Ansonia
New
Westbrook
Derby
London
New Haven
Guilford
Clinton
Old Saybrook
East Haven
Redding
Shelton
Madison
Branford
Ridgefield
Orange
Easton
Trumbull
West
Haven
Weston
Milford
Avon
Wilton
Stratford
Fairfield
Bridgeport
Westport
Norwalk
Stamford
Greenwich
New
Hartford
Goshen
Enfield
East
Granby Windsor
Locks
Barkhamsted
New
Canaan
• Give COGs control
over more revenue
streams
Litchfield Hills
CEO
Valley
RPA
Darien
Southwestern
RPA
Greater
Bridgeport
RPA
Midstate
RPA
South Central
Regional COG
CT River Estuary
RPA
Southeastern CT
COG
CT Regional Institute
• Link Smart Growth, Economic Development and
Land Use
• Strengthen State Plan of Conservation and
Development
• Strengthen RPOs
• Establish Pre-Approved Development Areas
• Coordinate State agency actions
• Lessen dependence on the Property Tax to fund
local needs
Next Steps
• Many issues can not be solved within town boundaries
• CenterEdge was created to provide education on these
issues
• Many organizations are providing leadership on aspects of
this debate – links are available on the Archdiocese website
at www.oua-adh.org
• 1000 Friends of Connecticut has been formed and will
carry these issues to the Legislature
• Sponsoring organizations for tonight will continue their
efforts
Regional Comparisons
TOWN
POPULATION
1998
% CHANGE IN
POPULATION
1993-1998
PER CAPITA
EQUALIZED NET
GRAND 1997
% CHANGE IN
EQUALIZED NET
GRAND
1994 – 1999
% CHANGE
IN PROPERTY
TAXES
1994 - 1999
PROPERTY
TAXES AS
A % OF
TOTAL
REVENUE
4,438
2.5
$107,484
15.5
16.7
74.0
Hartford
131,523
-6.0
$33,322
-38.1
-13.0
39.9
Simsbury
21,767
1.6
$97,182
7.5
23.9
88.9
South Windsor
22,711
1.6
82,187
6.0
24.2
76.2
Wethersfield
25,095
1.3
$78,219
-5.6
20.4
85.7
Region Average
28,254
-2.1
$66,261
-3.9
11.1
65.0
State Average
19,373
N/A
$84,369
8.0
15.1
65.9
East Granby
• 119 square miles developed 1985-2002 or
14.5%
• Development came at the expense of
decidous forest
• Clear.uconn.edu
donks
• Residential development need not be a net
loser for towns
• Baby boomlet resulted in 18% increase in
school age population while total pop
increased 3.5%
• No other states have done the CLEAR
comparisons of growth over 30 years
• CT has developed primarily where infrastrucure is.
• Research shows development is leapfrogging
• Reluctant to say it is sprawl
• Growth has been moderate
• People don’t want development because so much
of it has been bad over the last 50 years, whether
dense, loose urban or rural
• Local resistance to growth is the fastest
growing activity in CT
• Amount of housing needed just to keep
even xxxxx units
Regional ComparisonsProperty tax base per capita-2002
• Wethersfield $
98,507 13.1 sq.
miles
• Farmington 165,056
28.8
• Hartford
49, 991
18
• Bloomfield 104,155
26.2
• Windsor
108,987
Blue Ribbon Commission
Business Taxes Components
$455
Property
Corporate Income
$1,655
Wethersfield’s Community
Classifications
• Wethersfield is a small town geographically at only 13
square miles
• Population density is already 3 times the state average
• Grand list per capita went down between 1994-99
• Property tax revenue rank is 27 – at 86% of total revenue
• Only 14.2% of grand list is commercial/industrial
• Wethersfield ranks 156 in the number of undeveloped
acres
• 2004 – 12% of school population eligible for free/reduced
lunch