BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
MINUTES
January 2, 2008

Present: Philip J. Miller, First Selectman
Norman M. Needleman, Selectman
Vincent A. Pacileo III, Selectman

Philip Miller called the meeting to order at 4:35 pm.

Approval of Agenda:

Motion was made by Philip Miller to approve the Agenda with two additions under New Business, Item E-Essex Land Conservation Trust Tax Abatement and Item F-Town Hall Closure February 5, 2008, Presidential Primary. Vincent Pacileo seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. Motion carried.

Approval of Minutes:

Motion was made by Philip Miller to approve the December 5, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes. Norman Needleman seconded the motion and it was approved with Vincent Pacileo abstaining. Motion carried.

Communications and Correspondence:

Philip Miller read into the record the following correspondence with regard to the proposed Property Tax Exemption for Hybrid Passenger Cars:

The first from Town Attorney David Royston:

Dear Phil:

This letter is in response to your request that I review a proposed draft Ordinance to provide for a property tax exemption for hybrid passenger cars.

The proposed draft Ordinance is designed to implement the provisions of Section 19 of Public Act 07-242. That section provides as follows:

"Sec. 19. (NEW) (Effective January 1, 2008) Any municipality may, by vote of its legislative body or, in a municipality where the legislative body is a town meeting, by vote of the board of selectmen, provide a property tax exemption with respect to motor vehicles that are exempt from sales and use taxes under subdivision (110) or (115) of section 12-412 of the general statutes, as amended by this act."

The pertinent provisions of this act are that the tax exemption may be adopted by the Board of Selectmen. Thus, the statute itself allows the Board of Selectmen to adopt the Ordinance and does not require a Town Meeting for adoption of the Ordinance.

The Public Act allows you to provide a property tax exemption for motor vehicles that are exempt from sales and use taxes under subdivision (110) or (115) of section 12-412 of the general statutes. The proposed Ordinance only authorizes a property tax exemption for hybrid passenger cars under subdivision (115). I am uncertain as to the basis for selecting only subdivision (115). However, if the selection was based upon the assumption that the word "or" limited the Board of Selectmen to one of the subdivisions, rather than both of the subdivisions, I think that interpretation would be incorrect. In other words, the Board of Selectmen may provide the exemption for both classification of vehicles.

Under subdivision (110), the exemption would be applicable to "any passenger car that has a United States Environmental Protection Agency estimated city or highway gasoline mileage rating of at least 40 miles per gallon."

On or after October 1, 2004 and prior to October 1, 2008, Subdivision (115) provides an exemption for "the sale of any hybrid passenger car that has a United States Environmental Protection Agency estimated highway gasoline mileage rating of at least 40 miles per gallon. For purposes of this subdivision, "hybrid passenger car" means a passenger car that draws acceleration energy from two onboard sources of stored energy, which are both an internal combustion or heat engine using combustible fuel and a rechargeable energy storage system, and, for a passenger car or light truck with a model year of 2004 or later, certified to meet or exceed the tier II bin 5 low emission vehicle classification."

As you can see, subdivision (115) has a more restrictive definition for the passenger car eligible for the exemption. Also, it is only effective until October 1, 2008 under the current version of the statute. Accordingly, the Board of Selectmen needs to make the policy decision as to whether it wishes to limit the exemption to hybrid cars only. If you choose to do so, that exemption will apply only to the October 1, 2008 assessment year, unless Connecticut General Statutes 12-412 (115) is amended. Prior to making this decision, you may wish to determine how many vehicles would qualify under the amended subdivision (110) which applies to any passenger car. Please note also that the exemption under subdivision (110) is applicable until July 1, 2010.

The proposed draft Ordinance makes the exemption applicable to the 2008 assessment year "and all subsequent assessment years". Since the exemption ties into Connecticut General Statutes 12-412 which has limits on the effective date, language needs to be added to the proposed draft Ordinance stating "provided the exemption under 12-412 is extended to include said subsequent assessment years/'

I would recommend that once the Board of Selectmen has made the policy decision as to whether to include subdivision (110), subdivision (115) or both, that you so advise me in order to provide you a redrafted proposed Ordinance.

The second from Maureen Butler:

I was happy to note that you are not just going with the flow and offering tax exemptions for hybrids without having all the facts. I have been looking into purchasing a hybrid for the last couple of years, to replace my mini-van (20mgp) and one of my concerns is the environmental impact of producing hybrids, after-life disposal, and the true miles-per-gallon (mpg) ratings of these cars, especially as they age. I have tried to find as much information as possible on the internet regarding these issues, for all the technologies: hybrid, gasoline engine, bio-diesel, electric only, hydrogen etc.). Considering that many of the sites that provide information are the producers of the vehicles (e.g., Toyota, Honda, etc.), it is hard to find real unbiased facts. One of the impacts I am wary of is the production and disposal of the batteries for the hybrids. You probably have heard and seen that the mining is extremely destructive for the products necessary to create the batteries, much more so than for the standard car batteries.

My suggestion is to wait until more information is available and not to rush into giving tax exempt status to hybrid cars. Also important is to wait until the federal guidelines for the actual mileage that these cars are getting is adjusted to real highway driving. The last few articles I have read state the mpg for the hybrids are for when they are driven no more than 55 mpg on the highway, which is totally unrealistic in CT. I tried driving 55 mph on 95 (in the slow lane) for a month and it was extremely scary as I was beeped at, tailgated and people were very rude to the point of scary (getting in front of me and slamming on their brakes). Until the Federal Government mandates maximum of 55 mph on all federal roads, it is unrealistic to use 55 mph as the testing speed limit for hybrids, electric, etc. vehicles. Another item to consider is as hybrid cars age, their batteries are no longer as strong as when they are new. It will be interesting to see what the actual gas mileage is when this occurs.

Although I expect to be the owner of a hybrid within the next two years, I do not think town tax exemptions are the way to go. Hybrid owners are already getting state sales tax breaks when they buy the cars, and supposedly spend less money to fill up due to "high" mpg. Hybrid owners are currently getting parking perks in the bigger cities where there are parking meters and can drive 1 person per vehicle in the HOV lanes (which is ridiculous, as this defeats the purpose). Instead of giving money back to hybrid owners as tax rebates, towns should be investigating how they can support other technologies that are now becoming available. For example, supporting locations that can be used to recharge batteries for totally electric cars in store parking lots, or hydrogen filling stations (when these vehicles become a reality). I would love to have an all electric car versus a hybrid for daily commuting back and forth to work. I would be willing to drive Rt. 156 to Waterford versus I95 and drive slower. But, I would like to know there are charging stations around that I could use in the event I couldn't do the round-trip without a boost.

Finally, I recognize the need to give tax breaks to senior citizens on limited fixed incomes (not those with large investment income). I also understand giving tax breaks to veterans. However, enough is enough! Driving a environmentally friendly vehicle is something we all should try to do. Our reward is that we are doing something to help the environment, not making others pay our share of taxes.

However, since car manufacturers are charging more for hybrid vehicles, an adjustment to the tax applied to hybrids should be made so that the assessed value is based on the price for a similar non-hybrid car. For example, a Toyota Camry with the most expensive option package costs less than the same hybrid Camry with the same most option package. Essex should assess the hybrid at the same value as the lesser priced non-hybrid Camry with a similar option package (i.e., the assessed value should not be higher for the hybrid even though it cost more).

Thank You

The third from Samuel Rogers:

Just to let you know I am opposed to giving tax breaks to people who have hybrid vehicles that get 40 miles per gallon or better. I do not believe the rest of the tax payers should subsidize the purchase of high mileage cars. What about people who have a small conventional car that gets 35 miles per gallon. They are certainly doing more to help the environment than someone who owns an oversize SUV.

Basically, I am opposed to using the tax code to accomplish environmental and social objectives. There are lots of good causes that theoretically would be helped by modifying the tax code butI am opposed to such action.

Philip Miller stated that he had spoken at length with Trevor Hillar, who is a professional driver, with regard to the Prius. Mr. Hillar assured him that the batteries from the Prius' are completely recyclable. Frank Hall, a member of the Citizens for Clean Energy Committee, stated that in his investigations with the Assessor's Office that the overall financial impact to the Town is approximately $2,700. Norman Needleman stated that the Board had been requested to consider property tax abatements in the past for a new commercial building. He further stated that while he is not opposed to trying to influence behavior in a positive way, he is not quite certain what this would achieve. Mr. Needleman asked if the goal was to convince someone to buy a hybrid. Vincent Pacileo stated that he had learned, by conducting a little research that the hybrid cars are exempt from State Sales Tax and there is a Federal Energy tax credit. Mr. Pacileo stated that conceivably there is already over $4,300 in tax credits being offered. There was discussion with regard to the mining with regard to the batteries as well as other alternatives.

Mr. Miller reported to the Board that a memo had been issued to department heads and boards and commissions with regard to the proposed Town of Essex Energy Policy that had been drafted by the Clean Energy Committee and that he has asked for feedback by March 1.

Public Comment: None

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:

Philip Miller informed the Board that we have received correspondence from the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management and that they are once again seeking applications for STEAP funds. Mr. Miller indicated that representatives of Harbor Management and Economic Development continue to work toward an application. The information was to be presented to Planning Commission at their December meeting but it was cancelled due to the weather. He will be attending the January meeting. The application will include the Ivoryton sidewalk, the Main Street boat launch and the Novelty Lane public access point.

OLD BUSINESS: None

NEW BUSINESS:

A. Presentation by Eddy Shelter:

Philip Miller reported that he had received updated statistics that show that there have not been Essex residents using the facility this year. There was discussion with regard to their funding.

B. Presentation by Tri-Town Youth Services Board:

In attendance at the meeting were Gail Onofrio the Executive Director, John Proctor the Board Chairman, and Board members John Bogeart and Rose Vantmilla. The provided the Board with a copy of their form 990 tax return as well as current financial information. They reviewed with the Board many of their programs such as Homework Hangout, Breath Express, the Stranger You Know, Positive Youth Development and Peer Advocate Training. They emphasized that they provide services to the entire family.

John Proctor reviewed with the board their goal to receive additional funding from the three member Towns. Their goal is to provide more financial stability. The three Towns each presently contribute about the same amount. Last year Essex contributed $23,804. They would like the Town to consider increasing the funding to $43,161 which translates into Essex having 45% of the population of the three Towns.

Norman Needleman thanked them for taking the time to share the information with the Board and complimented the organization for the good job they do for the community. There was discussion that some of their grants are phasing out which they are attempting to reconcile to the reductions. Mr. Needleman stated that in his coming from another non-profit organization that he understands the pressure they are under. He would like to see all three Towns be unanimous in this effort, suggesting that it might be accomplished by a show progressive increase as is being done for the Essex Library. Ms. Onofrio indicated that they will be making presentations to the other Towns. Mr. Miller stated that is a good cultivation effort.

C. Waiver of Permit Fees for Essex Library Association Repair Work:

Motion was made by Norman Needleman to waive the permit fees for the Essex Library Association repair work. Vincent Pacileo seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. Motion carried.

D. Traffic Authority Update:

Philip Miller reported that we have engaged Bruce Hilson to conduct a traffic study on Lynn Road. He will keep the Board informed.

E. Essex Land Conservation Trust Tax Abatement Request:

Philip Miller reviewed with the Board the Essex Land Trust request to exempt property taxes on the Pond Meadow Property that was formerly owned by the Platt family, as it relates to the Grand List of October 7.

Motion was made by Philip Miller to waive the October 1, 2007 property taxes for the Pond Meadow property that was recently acquired by the Land Trust. Norman Needleman seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. Motion carried.

There was additional discussion with regard to the information provided by the Assessor Jessica Graves and the actual Land Trust request. The Board wanted further clarification on the actual intent of the Land Trust and the waiver of property taxes. The Board asked Philip Miller seek additional clarification.

Motion was made by Vincent Pacileo to rescind the original motion to waive the property taxes for the Pond Meadow property that was recently acquired by the Land Trust until such time a clarification of the actual waiver and amounts can be determined. Philip Miller seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. Motion carried.

F. Town Hall Closure February 5, 2008, Presidential Primary:

Philip Miller recommended to the Board that the Town Hall be closed on the day of the Presidential Primary. The recommendation was based on traffic volume and limited parking. The Registrars and Town Clerk support the closure of the building and we have done in the past for other primaries.

Motion was made by Philip Miller to close the Town Hall on Tuesday, February 5, 2008 the day of the Presidential Primary. Norman Needleman seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. Motion carried.

The coordination of the traffic pattern and police coverage was discussed. Mr. Miller will coordinate with our Resident Trooper Mark Testoni.

SELECTMEN GENERAL DISCUSSION:

There was discussion with regard to the pre-kindergarten issue and that information sessions were being scheduled to discuss the issue. Vincent Pacileo stated his concern of informational sessions after the fact. Norman Needleman indicated that he is unsure, depending upon what develops, what the role of the Board of Selectmen may be, further indicating it may be more of a Board of Finance role as it relates to financial impact. The Board of Selectmen will meet with the Board of Finance on Thursday, January 17th to discuss further.

Motion was made by Vincent Pacileo to adjourn at 5:50 pm. Philip Miller seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. Motion carried.

Respectfully submitted,

Cindy Varricchio
Board Clerk