Round I: Question 1

What is your position on making the Board of Selectmen a policy board and handing off day to day operations of the Town to a Town Manager?

Rich Cabral and Fred Dudek

The town of Killingworth has experience a rapid growth over the last 10 years and the day to day operations have become ever more demanding. A Town Manager form of government would lend itself to a more efficient and cost saving means of government, thus, establishing a more effective sense of accountability and taking the business of the Town out of the political arena. This form of fiscal governance would provide an atmosphere of continuity and not one that would change every two years with a new election. The Board of Selectmen would then become the policy making body of the Town and concern itself with the quality of life in our community. Realizing that a change such as this would require a change in our Charter and eventual passage by the legislative body of the Town, we, as your elected representatives, would welcome an exchange of ideas concerning this matter and would support a move to this form of government for Killingworth.

Rick Albrecht

I believe that at this time we are well served by the Board of Selectmen - Board of Finance - Town Meeting form of government. Every town in our area continues to operate with a 'hands on' First Selectman although Town Charters may vary the size of the board and method of election. While the Board of Selectman (BOS) is the primary policy making board, the board of Finance (BOF), by virtue of its' fiscal control can also influence policy.

Day to day managing can easily be done by the First Selectman. The 'job description' is not in the employee manual but I believe that while the First Selectman's position is a 24/7 responsibility, it's also a full time office job and I would not abuse the position by taking unusually long leaves for personal or business reasons. Obviously there are daytime appointments and obligations out of the office but my point is that I intend to treat it as a full time job.

There is one major responsibility that I would consider the First Selectman hand off because of its significant technical and long term responsibilities. That is the position of Director of Public Works. The operational budget for highway maintenance, transfer station/solid waste and Town Engineer is $1,250,000 without capital projects. During the last few years the responsibility for compiling these budgets has been passed down to the Highway Foreman. Currently we have an 'Acting Foreman' who was hired as the town mechanic. By default, the foreman has had to assume the roles of budgeting, working with contractors, working with vendors and supervising 10 - 12 employees.

We have recently heard a lot about our most valuable asset, our infrastructure, our aging infrastructure of roads, bridges and other rights of way. Because of years of poor planning we have been acting in crisis mode. I would propose that we investigate hiring a full time professional engineer to become the Director of Public Works. The BOS would still set the annual and long range agenda, but the recommendations would come from a professionally developed plan of action.

We recently learned that engineering studies and reports should accompany requests for changes and upgrades to the infrastructure, including placement of new stop signs and changes in speed limits. Please keep in mind that engineering costs for major projects are included in those projects.

There is currently a budget for routine services for a 'Town Engineer' of $40,000 and there are wages in the Highway account for eight employees. We only have six now. So without new money, I believe we could hire a Professional Engineer, letting the Highway Foreman go back to a 'Working Foreman' role as was originally the plan. I believe this course of action would prepare us for a fiscally sound and coordinated long range plan of action.

John Amport

The Board of Selectmen is a policy making board with the First Selectman as Chairman & CEO. The Board of Selectmen is to "generally supervise the administration of the affairs of the Town" and be "generally responsible for coordinating the activities of all the Agencies of the Town, and for keeping under review, the present and future needs of the Town". They are also specifically charged with responsibilities having to incurring indebtedness, acquisition or disposition of land and roads, approving contracts and initiation of legal proceedings.

The hiring of a Town Manager would do little to change the BOS role in the operational activities of the Town. The First Selectman is the Chief Executive and Administrative Officer (See Charter Section 7-2). The real question is; what is the best organizational structure to have effective and responsive Town operations? I believe that the best solution is to create a Director of Operations responsible for the hands-on day to day operations in the same vein as our Director of Finance position. I think it is unwise to remove the First Selectman position from its daily managerial oversight role (This holds true as well as to the elimination the Town Clerk and Tax Collector as elected officials).

An ancillary benefit of this approach is that it would allow the 1st Selectman additional time to focus on more strategic issues.

I know some will say that the Town cannot afford "another layer" of overhead. It is my considered opinion that it would actually save money through improved productivity, better purchasing strategies and superior planning.

Cathy Iino

As long as Killingworth can find energetic, competent men and women to serve as first selectman, we should not give up the benefits of directly electing our town administrator. An appointed town manager would be an expensive addition to our budget. (I don't think any town of our size in Connecticut has a town manager.) He or she would be one step removed from accountability to the community; just as important, our selectmen would be one step further insulated from the day-to-day realities of life on the ground.

That said, I believe that we should tap into some of the sources of expertise available to help us better manage the town. The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, universities such as Yale and the U. Conn., collaborative regional groups, and nonprofit organizations in areas ranging from the environment to pension planning offer a wide variety of information and advice, often without charge. No doubt our town services and procedures can be improved, but we do not need to reinvent the wheel for each vehicle we launch.

Ed Sipples

In the future, this will probably become a necessary change, but right now I think there is a better match of meeting our town needs that I must address first. It is a compromise plan that allows us to "WALK BEFORE WE RUN." Even though the other two Selectmen have already rejected this plan, if re-elected, I will bring it to the table again. Here is the plan:

Create a new position of ASSISTANT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. Make him responsible for developing our long range infrastructure plan. Also, have the Highway Foreman report to him and solve another Town problem. Fill the position with a qualified person who already works part time for the Town. We have Dick Leighton, who is currently our part time Building Inspector and part time Sanitation Inspector. Add this third part time position of Asst. Public Works Dir. to his duties and make him a full time town employee. We are already paying him for two thirds of his job, so our incremental expense is only one third! I have discussed this plan with Mr. Leighton and acting Town Foreman Mr. Adametz. They both believe this is do-able and wholeheartedly support it. It solves the problem and it won’t cost the Town a lot of money.

I believe this is an excellent question because it touches upon a key problem that faces our growing town. Currently, there is no comprehensive, long range plan to deal with our AGING INFRASTRUCTURE. We need an inventory of our bridges and culverts, a prioritization and then an appropriation of monies for a plan to tackle the necessary repairs.

We currently do have a plan that prioritizes road resurfacing projects, but we need to stop playing games with these monies. In particular, the other two Selectmen decided to withhold all the road resurfacing monies in the '06-'07 budget. In my short absence of just one week, they reduced the road resurfacing line item from $202,000 to $0! Fortunately, the Board of Finance restored $95,000 and this at least allowed our very worst roads to be resurfaced.

Currently, the 1st Selectman position is viewed as being the place where this infrastructure plan should come from. The problem is that as new 1st Selectmen are elected every two years, priorities change and long range plans seem to be altered in favor of short term projects.

Right now, the Town needs a stable, knowledgeable person, immune to election results, who is capable of overseeing our town’s long term infrastructure needs. But I don’t think this means a Town Manager. KW is in an awkward stage of growth. We are becoming too big to do things the old way, but not big enough to expend the huge monies to create dedicated new positions (with benefits). A parallel example is our Town’s growing requirement for more law enforcement. There’s certainly been a lot of attention lately about speeding, but the expense to create our own Police Dept. is staggering. I believe that a full time Town Manager fits into this same category....the Town is not ready to spend this kind of big money!

Question 1 Rebuttal by John Amport:
We certainly have a wide diversity of opinion as to the Town's optimum organizational structure.

The Republicans want to take "the business of the Town out of the political arena". If the business of running the Town is not political to whom does an aggrieved citizen plead their case? By their way of thinking, we should "de-politicize" the offices of the Town Clerk and Tax Collector. The Town "de-politicized" the Assessor's office a number of years ago. Has that established a "more efficient and cost saving" means of government?

The Democrats are spread across spectrum of alternatives short of having a Town Manager. The idea of cost offsets by hiring a Professional Engineer may seem appealing the realities are:

1. The wide range of disciplines required every year makes it more effective and efficient to hire the specific expertise needed (re: closing of the Sludge Lagoons).
2. Having a "Working Foreman" is not a guarantee of an efficient well managed operation.
3. Hiring a PE to manage Public Works is not a cost effective use of a professional's time (salary).

The right solution is more along the lines of what (dare I say it?) Mr. Sipples and I recommend.

Round I: Question 2

What is your position on changing Planning and Zoning regulations to allow one acre zoning in subdivisions to bring more reasonably priced housing to Killingworth?

John Amport

First, let me point out that the zoning regulations are the sole purview of the PZC by Statute. They are a group of dedicated individuals that have dedicated years (in some cases decades) to studying what is best for Killingworth. As I understand it, our zoning regulations are first and foremost soil based. This is as it should be in a community that is solely dependent on wells and septic systems. Destruction of our ground water would be an enormous disaster for Killingworth.

Clearly more reasonably priced housing would address a number of developing concerns with Killingworth. Many of our seniors express the desire to "down-size" within the community but find little in their price range. The Killingworth Volunteer Fire Company has expressed a long term concern over being able to adequately recruit new members as the demographics of the town change.

Based on current development trends it seems unlikely that the residential construction industry is going to spontaneously build more reasonably priced houses solely based on the availability cheaper land. However, that does not mean that developers will not show up seeking a means to take advantage of the state "Affordable Housing" laws. As many of you know, I helped the 1st Selectman rebuild the Killingworth Housing Partnership last year. It is essential that this group be engaged in evaluating what "Affordable Housing" opportunities exist within Killingworth. This is a daunting challenge given our soil based zoning and various institutional obstacles exist. We should be grateful that Marty was able to recruit this fine hard working group.

Cathy Iino

I would support some one-acre zoning if, and only if, it is paired with strict measures to protect Killingworth's resources and its open spaces.

Simply converting some of our two-acre, soil-based zoning to one-acre zoning is not likely to lead to more affordable houses, in any case. Enormous houses that have to be expensively heated and cooled will not be within reach of the people we are concerned about even if they are built on less than two acres. And if we simply make more lots available by reducing the minimum lot size, the town will face enormously increased expenses for education and other services.

If, however, we permit some cluster housing accompanied by adequate set-asides of open space and energy efficiency requirements, we could gain some less expensive housing without sacrificing our environment. Perhaps we should consider even smaller lot sizes, if that would result in better energy efficiency and less environmental impact. This kind of development might be especially appropriate for 55-and-older housing.

The Killingworth Housing Partnership recently submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission some creative suggestions for ways our zoning regulations could be altered to foster a more balanced stock of housing. The partnership recommends ways to make it somewhat easier to build accessory apartments and two-family dwellings, for example. Included in these recommendations are limitations on the total number of bedrooms, the minimum size of lots, and the encouragement of joint wells and septic systems. This is the kind of careful thinking we need in planning our future.

For the moment, when the stock of houses on the market is extremely high and prices are likely to fall rather than rise, we should proceed with utmost caution. We should certainly try to control the pace as well as the dimensions of new development. As I have said before, once we lose our open spaces, we can’t get them back, and our town will be the poorer in every way.

Ed Sipples

I would not be in favor of this change. It is a good question, however, and does touch upon our high cost of living problem. I would clarify and pinpoint the problem by identifying two key groups of people:
1) Our SENIORS who are on fixed incomes
2) Our YOUNG town volunteers
We need to do something special to help these two groups and I will address this later.

I am not in favor of an across the board reduction of lot sizes to one acre for a variety of reasons. First, our current zoning regulations regarding building lot size is a "soil based" two acres and makes a lot of sense to me. Regardless of whether you believe one acre or five acres is the right number, it must always be tied to being "soil based." This protects one of our most important natural resources, our WATER. It is intended to allow our individual septic systems to work properly and not adversely affect our environment. Secondly, all the surveys and questionnaires I've ever read, clearly indicate that residents want to maintain KW's RURAL CHARACTER. In fact, when talking one on one to residents, many say they don't want any more growth at all. It's often, "Now that I've moved into KW, I want the drawbridge to be lifted." Although this is not realistic since private property owners in the United States of America have the right to sell their land if they so desire, they should be made to meet the justifiable standards and regulations that protect the greater good of our Town. Also, it is important to note that KW does have true "Affordable Housing" available on Patrick and Warwickshire Drives. The developer, however, only chose to make a total of 5 homes "Affordable Housing." Further, most people don't realize that Duplex Housing is available on four "soil based" acres.

Now, let's talk about making some valid exceptions to allow the two groups mentioned above more reasonably priced livability in town. SENIORS who have lived in town for a sustained period of time and are on low fixed incomes, should not be forced to leave town because they can't afford to stay here anymore. There are ways to ease the burden of tax increases (that other towns have implemented) that need to be explored and brought to KW. Our Board of Finance should be looking into this.

I am in favor of developing "55 AND OVER" housing regulations that will be less than the two acre minimum. Older people do not dramatically affect our tax rates. Our Planning and Zoning people are working on this and I hope finalize regulations soon.

And last but not least, many of our young people are hard pressed to find housing in KW that they can afford. We continually lose our young volunteer fire fighters and ambulance people to other towns and cities. If KW were to ease our current restrictions on ACCESSORY APARTMENTS, perhaps this trend would change. I will leave the details to the P&Z experts and I believe they are now examining this. I am hopeful that in the near future, young volunteers will have a bigger and better selection of affordable places to live in town than ever before.

Rich Cabral & Fred Dudek

Killingworth's rural-residential nature should be maintained in any future growth of the Town. Specific attention needs to be given to the quality of water and the preservation of open space. Our present minimum of two (2) acres is soil based for reasons of septic system installation and availability of a quality water supply. Any change to a lower acreage per house could possibly lead to sewer lines and a treatment plant due to the soil's inability to properly handle the increased discharges. If sewers and a treatment plant were not put into operation due to smaller lot sizes, there would be a detrimental effect on the quality of water available to the residents. The affordability of housing is mainly dependent upon the price of the construction which in turn is dependent upon the size of the home. Allowing construction on one (1) acre of land does not assure one of a smaller dwelling. One only needs to look at the communities of Deep River (just off of Rte.145), Avon, Farmington, and Simsbury to see that large dwellings are placed on one (1) acre lots or less. By maintaining our two (2) acre soil based regulations, we will also preserve our much desired open space. Realizing that this is a Planning & Zoning matter, we, as your elected representatives, would welcome an exchange of ideas concerning this matter, however, we would not support a move to one acre zoning in subdivisions.

Rick Albrecht

Our current Zoning Regulations already address this issue, and the Planning and Zoning Commission is focusing on additional remedies in their current draft of the new Plan of Conservation and Development.

We now have two subdivisions designed to allow one acre lots provided that a certain number of the homes fit into the State-defined 'Affordable' category. (We must remember that 'Affordable' in Middlesex County is different from, for example, New Haven County.) The lots still have to have the required suitable area of Class 1 soils that can support on-site septic systems so not every property would be suitable. These 'Affordable' houses may also be constructed with accessory apartments; otherwise P & Z only allows accessory apartments in home five years old or older - a restriction that could be modified. Current P & Z regulations also allow for duplex (two-family) houses; however they must be on larger lots and have individual septic systems. This might be changed to save money by allowing a single larger septic system (which probably would be the same as some of the larger homes in town).

I have previously said that I would like P & Z to adopt regulations that include an 'Active Adult - 55 & older' zoning category. Chester and Haddam have enacted these types of regulations and have actually attracted away some of our vital residents.

The Housing Partnership Committee has made some thoughtful recommendations after their review of the proposed undated Plan of Conservation and Development. Comments have been made that we need to provide 'Affordable' housing for our children and the generation of volunteers needed to maintain our volunteer Fire and Ambulance services. This has been partially addressed by a Tax Abatement Program - presently, if they can get in to a reasonably priced starter or 'Affordable' home they may receive a $1000 tax abatement which could be a significant portion of their annual bill.

The current economy and the situation with the existing housing market might actually be creating more 'Affordable' housing units than could be created through regulations. P & Z has researched the current number of listings for homes that are moderately priced.

In summary, this is a complex issue. I believe a more comprehensive approach than some additional one-acre-lot subdivisions is needed to address housing needs to maintain a viable multifaceted and multi talented community.