Researcher: RP Page 1 6/26/24
OLR Bill Analysis
SB 501
Emergency Certification
AN ACT CONCERNING MOTOR VEHICLE ASSESSMENTS FOR
PROPERTY TAXATION, INNOVATION BANKS, THE INTEREST ON
CERTAIN TAX UNDERPAYMENTS, THE ASSESSMENT ON
INSURERS, SCHOOL BUILDING PROJECTS, THE SOUTH
CENTRAL CONNECTICUT REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY
CHARTER AND CERTAIN STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
OFFICER PROCEDURES.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
SUMMARY
§§ 1-12 — MOTOR VEHICLE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS
Changes various laws on motor vehicle assessment and property tax billing procedures set
to take effect on October 1, 2024, including (1) adjusting the depreciation schedule
assessors must use to value motor vehicles, (2) eliminating a requirement that OPM
define a class of motor vehicles to be treated as personal property for taxing purposes, (3)
specifying how assessors must value commercial vehicle modifications and attachments,
and (4) eliminating certain statutory deadlines for supplemental motor vehicle tax bills
§ 13 — MOTOR VEHICLE MILL RATE
Requires municipalities and districts that impose a motor vehicle mill rate that differs
from the mill rate for other taxable property to impose the lower rate on motor vehicles;
explicitly authorizes them to set the motor vehicle mill rate as low as zero mills; requires
OPM to send specified notices to municipal CEOs about the municipality’s option to
reduce its mill rate
§§ 14-29 — INNOVATION BANKS
Replaces a current type of Connecticut-organized bank (“uninsured bank”) with a
substantially similar type under a different name (“innovation bank”)
§ 30 — INTEREST ON CERTAIN TAX UNDERPAYMENTS
Exempts taxpayers from paying interest on underpayments of corporation business, pass-
through entity, and personal income taxes if the underpayment was due to an amended
return filing necessitated by IRS guidance on the federal employee retention credit
§ 31 — GENERAL INSURANCE ASSESSMENT
Changes the basis for calculating the annual general assessment that domestic insurers
and HMOs pay the Insurance Department
§§ 32 & 33 — SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGERS
Prohibits construction managers on school construction projects from bidding on project
subcontracts 2024SB-00501-R00SS1-BA.DOCX
Researcher: RP Page 2 6/26/24
§§ 34-42 — SOUTH CENTRAL CONNECTICUT REG IONAL WATER
AUTHORITY (RWA) AND CREATION OF AQUARION WATER
AUTHORITY
Amends RWA’s charter to contemplate the acquisition of Aquarion Water Company or its
subsidiaries, including giving RWA specific authority to borrow or bond for this purpose;
upon such acquisition, creates a state-chartered regional water authority and generally
gives the new Aquarion Water Authority the same powers and structure as RWA,
including giving both authorities the same governing board
§ 43 — SHPO PROJECT REVIEW
Codifies in statute procedures for SHPO reviews to determine a proposed project’s impact
on historic structures and landmarks; requires SHPO to make a determination within 30
days and develop a mitigation plan with the project proponent under certain
circumstances; allows a project proponent to request that DECD review the proposed plan
SUMMARY
This bill makes various unrelated changes. A section-by-section
analysis follows.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Various; see below.
§§ 1-12 — MOTOR VEHICLE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT S
Changes various laws on motor vehicle assessment and property tax billing procedures set
to take effect on October 1, 2024, including (1) adjusting the depreciation schedule
assessors must use to value motor vehicles, (2) eliminating a requirement that OPM
define a class of motor vehicles to be treated as personal property for taxing purposes, (3)
specifying how assessors must value commercial vehicle modifications and attachments,
and (4) eliminating certain statutory deadlines for supplemental motor vehicle tax bills
The bill changes laws on motor vehicle assessments and property tax
billing procedures that, by law, take effect October 1, 2024 (see
Background — Changes to Motor Vehicle Assessment Laws in 2023 and 2024).
Principally, the bill does the following:
1. adjusts the depreciation schedule, increasing the taxable portion
of each vehicle’s manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) by
five percentage points and making corresponding changes to the
increments over the 20-year depreciation schedule (§ 3);
2. eliminates a requirement that the Office of Policy and
Management (OPM) define a class of motor vehicles that would
be treated as non-vehicle personal property for certain property
tax purposes (§§ 1-2, 4-5 & 7); 2024SB-00501-R00SS1-BA.DOCX
Researcher: RP Page 3 6/26/24
3. requires assessors to determine whether to value modifications
and attachments to commercial vehicles, as well as the vehicles
to which they are affixed, as motor vehicles or as non-vehicle
personal property (§§ 3 & 4);
4. restores a provision in the underlying law specifying that
registered motor vehicles are not to be listed on a personal
property declaration (§ 4); and
5. eliminates certain statutory deadlines for supplemental motor
vehicle tax bills and re-establishes prior law’s time limit for
taxpayers to apply for certain credits (e.g., for stolen or totaled
vehicles) (§§ 8-10).
With respect to how vehicles are assessed, the bill additionally:
1. requires OPM to annually establish valuation guidelines, in
consultation with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), that
assessors must use to determine vehicles’ use for property tax
purposes (§ 2), and
2. requires assessors to value tax-exempt commercial trucks, truck
tractors, and tractors and semitrailers used exclusively to
transport freight for hire in the same way as other vehicles (i.e.,
using their MSRP subject to depreciation or assessor-determined
values, as applicable), rather than using their purchase cost
subject to depreciation (§ 10).
The bill also explicitly authorizes taxpayers to contest the MSRP used
to assess their vehicles in the same way existing law sets for appeals of
the current valuation method (i.e., at the next board of assessment
appeals meeting after the tax bill becomes due and then to the Superior
Court) (§§ 3 & 8). It also makes numerous minor and conforming
changes.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2024, and applicable to assessment years
starting on or after October 1, 2024, except for a conforming change in §
11, which is effective July 1, 2024, and a technical correction in § 12, 2024SB-00501-R00SS1-BA.DOCX
Researcher: RP Page 4 6/26/24
which is effective upon passage.
Depreciation Schedule (§ 3)
Beginning October 1, 2024, current law requires vehicles to be valued
for property tax purposes as a percentage of their MSRP, based on a 20-
year depreciation schedule. The bill increases the taxable portion of
vehicles’ MSRP by five percentage points, as shown in the table below.
Additionally, under the bill, vehicles that are at least 20 years old must
be assessed, rather than valued, at no less than $500.
Table: Motor Vehicle Valuations Under the Bill
Vehicle Age
(in years)
% of MSRP
Current Law Bill
Up to 1 80 85
2 75 80
3 70 75
4 65 70
5 60 65
6 55 60
7 50 55
8 45 50
9 40 45
10 35 40
11 30 35
12 25 30
13 20 25
14 15 20
15-19 10 15
20+ ≥ $500 ≥ $500
Commercial Vehicle Modifications and Attachments (§§ 3 & 4)
Beginning October 1, 2024, the bill requires assessors to determine
whether to value commercial motor vehicles with modifications or
certain attachments (i.e., those designed, manufactured, or modified to
be affixed to the vehicle) as motor vehicles or as personal property. It
requires assessors to do the same for the modifications and attachments.
(By law, motor vehicles and other, non-vehicle personal property are
valued differently (e.g., using different methods and depreciation
schedules).) Under the bill, the assessor must determine the valuation of
any modifications or attachments to these vehicles based on whether 2024SB-00501-R00SS1-BA.DOCX
Researcher: RP Page 5 6/26/24
they are intended to be permanently affixed to the vehicle.
Under the bill, non-permanent modifications and attachments are
considered personal property, which taxpayers must list on their annual
personal property declarations. (Presumably, attachments and
modifications that are intended to be permanently affixed are valued as
part of the motor vehicle, not as personal property.)
Personal Property Declarations (§ 4)
Under current law, starting by October 1, 2024, OPM must annually
define a schedule of motor vehicle plate classes to be treated as non-
vehicle personal property and taxpayers must list those vehicles on a
personal property declaration. In addition to eliminating the OPM-
established schedule of plate classes, the bill restores a provision in the
underlying law specifying that registered motor vehicles are not to be
listed on a personal property declaration. (However, as described above,
the bill also requires the assessor to determine whether to value a
commercial motor vehicle with modifications or attachments as
personal property listed on a personal property declaration.)
Supplemental Motor Vehicle Tax Bills and Credits (§§ 8-10)
Late Additions to the Grand List. Under current law, when an
assessor receives notice from the DMV commissioner about a taxable
vehicle that is not already on the town’s taxable grand list, he or she
must assess the vehicle and add it to the town’s grand list for the
immediately preceding October 1. Under the bill, beginning October 1,
2024, the assessor must instead add the vehicle to the town’s taxable
grand list. (It is unclear to which grand list this refers.)
Supplemental Tax Bill Due Dates. By law, until October 1, 2024, tax
bills for vehicles (including replacement vehicles and temporarily
registered commercial vehicles) registered after the start of the
assessment year (October 1) are due the following January 1 in a
supplemental tax bill, and interest on delinquent payments begins
accruing February 1. Starting October 1, 2024, current law creates a
second supplemental tax bill due date (July 1) and, in doing so, generally
advances the payment date for vehicles registered after October 1 but 2024SB-00501-R00SS1-BA.DOCX
Researcher: RP Page 6 6/26/24
before April 1.
The bill eliminates these statutory due dates and instead makes
supplemental bills payable not later than the first day of the month after
they become due. (Presumably, this means municipalities will set
supplemental tax bills’ due dates and interest will begin accruing the
first day of the next month.)
Where Supplemental Motor Vehicle Tax Is Paid. Under current
law, supplemental motor vehicle tax bills for vehicles registered after
the start of the assessment year (other than replacement vehicles) are
due to the municipality in which the vehicle was last registered in the
assessment year immediately preceding the day on which the tax is
payable. The bill instead makes these supplemental tax bills due to the
municipality where the vehicle was first registered during the
assessment year. (By law, unchanged by the bill, supplemental motor
vehicle tax bills are prorated for the number of months left in the
assessment year.)
By law, and under the bill, supplemental tax bills on replacement
vehicles are due to the municipality that billed the original, replaced
vehicle.
Deadline to Request Credit. The bill reestablishes prior law’s
deadline for a taxpayer to claim a credit against their property taxes for
a vehicle that was sold, totaled, stolen, or registered by the taxpayer in
another state upon moving. So, under the bill, the deadline remains the
December 31 following the first full assessment year after the
assessment year in which the event (e.g., sale or theft) occurred.
Background — Changes to Motor Vehicle Assessment Laws in
2023 and 2024
PA 22-118, §§ 497-509, beginning October 1, 2023, (1) required
assessors to value vehicles using their MSRPs, subject to depreciation
(rather than using a guide OPM annually selects); (2) required DMV to
give municipalities a supplemental list of vehicles it registered on a
monthly, rather than annual, basis; and (3) modified the timeline for
supplemental bills. However, PA 23-304, §§ 209-219, delayed these 2024SB-00501-R00SS1-BA.DOCX
Researcher: RP Page 7 6/26/24
changes by one year, until the 2024 assessment year.
§ 13 — MOTOR VEHICLE MILL RATE
Requires municipalities and districts that impose a motor vehicle mill rate that differs
from the mill rate for other taxable property to impose the lower rate on motor vehicles;
explicitly authorizes them to set the motor vehicle mill rate as low as zero mills; requires
OPM to send specified notices to municipal CEOs about the municipality’s option to
reduce its mill rate
Current law allows municipalities and districts to tax motor vehicles
at a different rate than other taxable property and caps the motor vehicle
mill rate at 32.46 mills. The bill (1) requires those that set different mill
rates for motor vehicles and other taxable property to impose the lower
rate on motor vehicles and (2) explicitly authorizes them to set the motor
vehicle mill rate as low as zero mills.
The bill also requires the OPM secretary to annually notify each
municipality’s chief executive officer (CEO) that:
1. the municipality has the option to reduce its motor vehicle mill
rate to less than 32.46 mills, even as low as zero mills, and
2. its motor vehicle mill rate may be different than its rate for other
taxable property, so long as it is lower.
The OPM secretary must also notify each municipal CEO, before the
municipality implements a revaluation, that the municipality has the
option to consider and evaluate reducing its motor vehicle mill rate in
the same fiscal year in which it implements the revaluation.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2025
§§ 14-29 — INNOVATION BANKS
Replaces a current type of Connecticut-organized bank (“uninsured bank”) with a
substantially similar type under a different name (“innovation bank”)
The bill replaces all references to “uninsured banks” in the state’s
banking laws with “innovation banks.” In doing so, it makes the
requirements and conditions that apply to uninsured banks under
current law apply to innovation banks instead.
The bill defines “innovation bank” similarly to “uninsured bank” 2024SB-00501-R00SS1-BA.DOCX
Researcher: RP Page 8 6/26/24
(i.e., a Connecticut-chartered or -organized bank and trust company,
savings bank, or savings and loan association that does not accept retail
deposits). However, while by definition current law does not require
“uninsured banks” to have Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC) insurance for their deposits, the bill instead expressly allows
“innovation banks” to accept nonretail deposits that are eligible for
FDIC insurance.
Separate from its definition, the bill also authorizes each innovation
bank to receive nonretail deposits (including from a corporation that
owns the majority of the bank’s shares) and to secure deposit insurance
for them, including from the FDIC.
By law, “retail deposits” are deposits by anyone other than accredited
investors as defined in federal securities regulations. Generally,
“accredited investors” include, among other entities, certain banks,
securities brokers or dealers, insurance companies, investment
companies, business development companies, qualifying retirement
and employee benefit plans, trusts with assets over $5 million, and
people with an individual income over $200,000 in each of the past two
years or $300,000 jointly with a spouse (17 C.F.R. § 230.501(a)).
Lastly, the bill makes several technical and conforming changes.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2024
§ 30 — INTEREST ON CERTAIN TAX UNDERPAYM ENTS
Exempts taxpayers from paying interest on underpayments of corporation business, pass-
through entity, and personal income taxes if the underpayment was due to an amended
return filing necessitated by IRS guidance on the federal employee retention credit
The bill exempts taxpayers from paying interest on underpayments
of corporation business, pass-through entity, and personal income taxes
if the underpayment was due to an amended return filing required by
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance on the federal employee
retention credit. It requires the Department of Revenue Services (DRS)
to treat any interest already paid on these underpayments as an
overpayment and refund it to taxpayers without interest. 2024SB-00501-R00SS1-BA.DOCX
Researcher: RP Page 9 6/26/24
EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon passage
Background — Federal Employee Retention Credit
The federal employee retention credit is a refundable credit against
employment taxes designed for eligible businesses that continued
paying employees during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible employers
were allowed to claim the credit on an original or amended employment
tax return for qualified wages paid between March 13, 2020, and
December 31, 2021. In September 2023, the IRS ordered a moratorium
on processing new credit claims due to its concerns that a substantial
share of new claims was fraudulent. It subsequently implemented
stricter compliance reviews, a voluntary disclosure program that allows
taxpayers to pay back a credit they received but were not entitled to,
and a special withdrawal program for taxpayers with pending claims
who realize they may have filed an inaccurate tax return.
§ 31 — GENERAL INSURANCE ASSESSMENT
Changes the basis for calculating the annual general assessment that domestic insurers
and HMOs pay the Insurance Department
By law, domestic insurers and HMOs pay an annual assessment to
the Insurance Department to cover the expenses of the Insurance
Department, Office of the Healthcare Advocate, and Office of Health
Strategy, among other things.
The bill changes the basis for calculating this annual assessment.
Under current law, the assessment is generally calculated based on the
amount the insurers and HMOs paid in Connecticut insurance
premiums taxes for the prior calendar year. For certain local domestic
insurers, it is based on the amount before applying the insurance
premiums tax credit allowed for these insurers. The bill instead bases
the assessment on the total amount of Connecticut insurance premiums
taxes the insurers and HMOs reported to DRS two years prior before
applying any allowable or available tax credits.
The bill correspondingly requires the DRS commissioner to report
these tax amounts in the statement he must give the insurance
commissioner annually by June 30. It also makes related technical and 2024SB-00501-R00SS1-BA.DOCX
Researcher: RP Page 10 6/26/24
conforming changes.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2025
§§ 32 & 33 — SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGERS
Prohibits construction managers on school construction projects from bidding on project
subcontracts
The bill reinstates a provision prohibiting construction managers on
school construction projects from bidding on elements of the project
(i.e., subcontracts) they are managing. PA 24-151 had removed the
prohibition and the bill repeals that provision of PA 24-151. The bill
leaves intact other changes to school construction law made by PA 24-
151.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2024, except the repealer section is
effective upon passage.
§§ 34-42 — SOUTH CENTRAL CONNECTICUT REG IONAL WATER
AUTHORITY (RWA) AND CREATION OF AQUARION WATER
AUTHORITY
Amends RWA’s charter to contemplate the acquisition of Aquarion Water Company or its
subsidiaries, including giving RWA specific authority to borrow or bond for this purpose;
upon such acquisition, creates a state-chartered regional water authority and generally
gives the new Aquarion Water Authority the same powers and structure as RWA,
including giving both authorities the same governing board
The bill establishes provisions that, under specified circumstances,
create a new regional water authority, Aquarion Water Authority
(AWA), serving the Aquarion Regional Water District. The bill
contemplates the creation of the new water authority after RWA or
AWA acquires Aquarion Water Company or one or more of its
subsidiaries (“the company”). (Currently, the company is a subsidiary
of Eversource serving customers in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and
New Hampshire.) Under existing law, unchanged by the bill, the
company’s acquisition requires Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
(PURA) approval. The bill makes the charter it establishes for AWA part
of RWA’s charter.
Identically to RWA, which the legislature chartered in 1977 to serve
the New Haven area, the bill states that the purpose of creating AWA is 2024SB-00501-R00SS1-BA.DOCX
Researcher: RP Page 11 6/26/24
to assure the adequate provision of water and disposal of wastewater at
a reasonable cost in the region and to promote conservation and
compatible recreational use of the land held by the authority. Under the
bill, AWA is overseen by a representative policy board and governing
board, as is the case for RWA.
If RWA or AWA acquire the company, the bill expands RWA’s
governing board to include members living in AWA’s jurisdiction. The
same governing board oversees both RWA and AWA. The bill also
makes RWA’s chief executive officer the same as AWA’s. The bill gives
AWA nearly identical powers and responsibilities to RWA, including
the power to purchase and condemn property, operate water supply
and wastewater systems, and issue bonds. Like RWA, AWA is subject
to regulation by the state departments of public health and energy and
environmental protection, but it is not regulated by PURA.
The bill specifies that its provisions concerning RWA and AWA
sunset on December 31, 2027, unless PURA approves RWA’s or AWA’s
acquisition and operation of Aquarion Water Company , or its
subsidiaries, by that date.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon passage
Aquarion Regional Water District’s Membership
Under the bill, the district consists of: Beacon Falls, Bethel,
Bridgeport, Brookfield, Burlington, Canaan, Cornwall, Danbury,
Darien, East Derby, East Granby, East Hampton, Easton, Fairfield,
Farmington, Goshen, Granby, Greenwich, Groton, Harwinton, Kent,
Lebanon, Litchfield, Mansfield, Marlborough, Middlebury, Monroe,
New Canaan, New Fairfield, New Hartford, New Milford, Newtown,
Norfolk, North Canaan, Norwalk, Norwich, Oxford, P lainville,
Redding, Ridgefield, Salisbury, Seymour, Shelton, Sherman, Simsbury,
Southbury, Southington, Stamford, Stonington, Stratford, Suffield,
Torrington, Trumbull, Washington, Weston, Westport, Wilton, Wolcott,
and Woodbury.
If the authority does not own property or serve customers in any of 2024SB-00501-R00SS1-BA.DOCX
Researcher: RP Page 12 6/26/24
these municipalities, then the town or city is excluded from the district.
(This was also the case, for a period of time, in the enabling legislation
for RWA.)
AWA’s Representative Policy Board
As is the case under existing law for RWA, the bill establishes a
representative policy board for the authority, consisting of (1) an elector
of each member municipality, appointed by the respective chief elected
official and approved by the legislative body, and (2) one member
appointed by the governor. The bill specifies their initial staggered
terms; their compensation is the same as members of RWA’s policy
board ($250 per day for each day of service, adjusted periodically for
inflation, with the chairperson receiving 50% more than other
members). Like RWA, the votes of the municipally-appointed members
of the board are weighted by the number of customers and amount of
authority-owned land in the municipality.
Initially, RWA’s policy board serves as AWA’s, until AWA’s is
appointed, which cannot be before PURA approves RWA’s or AWA’s
acquisition of the company.
Duties. Identically as for RWA, the AWA policy board must decide
whether to approve, after a hearing, various major authority actions,
including setting rates and charges (see below), acquiring some or all of
another water or wastewater system, most capital projects that cost
more than $3.5 million, and noncore business investments of more than
$1.5 million (as for RWA, these thresholds are adjusted every three
years). It also decides whether to approve bond issues.
Like RWA, the board must have standing committees on land use
and management, finance, and consumer affairs. The bill also specifies
public notice requirements for hearings (e.g., on land sales) conducted
by the policy board.
Appeals. If the governing board (see below) or others are aggrieved
by the policy board’s decision (e.g., its rates, siting plans, or sale of
property), they have the same recourse options as those aggrieved by 2024SB-00501-R00SS1-BA.DOCX
Researcher: RP Page 13 6/26/24
RWA’s policy board. This means, under certain circumstances, they can
appeal the decision to Hartford superior court (in the case of RWA,
filings are made in New Haven superior court). (Neither RWA nor
AWA are subject to the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act.)
AWA’s Governing Board
Under the bill, AWA is governed by 11 individuals, five of whom are
district residents appointed by the AWA policy board and six of whom
are the members appointed to RWA’s governing board by RWA’s policy
board. This governing board constitutes the authority. Board members
receive the same compensation as policy board members if the latter
board approves it. No one can be a member of both the policy and
governing boards. But the bill requires the boards of AWA and RWA to
be identical.
Initially, when AWA’s creation is first triggered, RWA’s governing
board serves as AWA’s, until its AWA district members are appointed.
The first chair and vice-chair, for two-year terms, are the same as
RWA’s, but subsequent chairs and vice-chairs are elected by the board’s
membership, as is the case for RWA under existing law.
(As discussed below, the bill makes conforming changes to RWA’s
charter to align RWA’s board with AWA’s, although it appears they
may have different chairpersons after the initial AWA chair’s term.)
General Powers
With limited exceptions, AWA’s powers are identical to RWA’s.
These include the powers to:
1. acquire real and personal property by purchase or condemnation
(but, as with RWA, it cannot acquire property by condemnation
to use for noncore businesses);
2. construct, develop, and operate water supply and wastewater
systems and set the rates and charges for these systems (see
below);
3. borrow money and issue bonds; 2024SB-00501-R00SS1-BA.DOCX
Researcher: RP Page 14 6/26/24
4. acquire real property for conservation and recreational purposes
if these uses will not harm water quality;
5. partake in noncore business activities, such as sustainable
manufacturing support or certain energy projects; and
6. employ staff (subject to the laws on municipal employee
collective bargaining) and enter into agreements with its
employees’ representatives on participating in any applicable
state or municipal employee retirement plan.
As is the case for RWA, the governing board sets rates and charges,
subject to approval by the representative policy board, and the bill
specifies ratemaking principles. Unpaid rates and charges are a lien
against the owner of the affected property, and these liens take
precedence over all other liens or encumbrances except taxes.
The bill specifically authorizes both RWA and AWA to borrow or
bond to acquire Aquarion Water Company or any of its subsidiaries.
Acquiring a Water System Outside the District. The bill makes it a
“noncore business” activity for AWA to acquire Aquarion Water
Company or its subsidiaries. (Under the bill, this is also a noncore
business activity for RWA.) For both AWA and RWA, noncore business
expenses exceeding $1.5 million require policy board approval.
For RWA and AWA, noncore business activities are generally limited
by a provision specifying that at the time of an investment in a noncore
business, the authority’s investment, less returns of or on the
investments, cannot exceed the greater of (1) 5% of the authority’s net
utility plant devoted to its water and wastewater utility businesses or
(2) a higher amount approved by the policy board. (But the bill creates
an exception for RWA, see below.)
Responsibilities
As the law requires for RWA, the bill generally requires the authority,
if it acquires a private water company operating within its district, to
retain certain employees and provide them with similar benefits and 2024SB-00501-R00SS1-BA.DOCX
Researcher: RP Page 15 6/26/24
seniority.
Like RWA, AWA also must develop land use standards and
disposition policies, subject to approval by the policy board. As the law
does for RWA, the bill requires that the policies include standards for
categorizing the suitability of its land for various uses and assessing the
impact of land transfers on the environment. In deciding whether to
approve certain transfers, the policy board must hold a hearing and
consider specified factors the bill outlines. The bill generally provides a
right of first refusal to the host municipality and state before selling
unimproved real property.
Like for RWA, the bill exempts the authority from property taxes, but
it requires AWA to make annual payments in lieu of taxes to the host
municipality, equal to the amount that would be otherwise due on the
property other than on improvements made by the authority. As is the
case for RWA, the bill specifies how property must be assessed and how
the authority may appeal assessments.
Like RWA, AWA must also reimburse host municipalities for
expenses incurred to provide municipal services to improvements on
AWA property (other than water pipes).
As the law does for RWA, the bill requires municipalities (or the
applicable water company’s governing board) to consent to AWA’s sale
of water to its customers if another franchised water company or
municipal water supply system currently serves them. Similarly, AWA
must receive local consent before it extends wastewater services into
previously unserved areas.
Applicability of Other Laws and Oversight
As is the case for RWA, the bill specifies that the charter it creates is
the controlling authority for AWA, regardless of conflicting state laws
or local ordinances, except its provisions generally do not exempt AWA
from local zoning regulations. But certain facilities and structures must
be allowed regardless of the zoning district.
While PURA does not have jurisdiction over AWA, it (like RWA) is 2024SB-00501-R00SS1-BA.DOCX
Researcher: RP Page 16 6/26/24
subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Health (which
regulates water quality and the adequacy of water supply) and the
Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (which regulates
water diversions, among other things).
As existing law does for RWA, the bill (1) requires the AWA policy
board to arrange for an annual audit, which must be made public and
shared with town clerks; and (2) specifically gives the attorney general
power to examine its books, accounts, and records. The bill also applies
the same conflict of interest provisions to AWA that apply to RWA,
including requiring board members and employees to disclose their
financial interest in proposed contracts and orders and not participate
in the deliberations or vote concerning the matter.
Conforming Changes to RWA’s Charter
As it does for AWA, the bill specifically authorizes RWA to borrow
or bond to acquire Aquarion Water Company or any of its subsidiaries.
The bill makes the acquisition of the company a noncore business
activity, but it creates an exception in RWA’s charter allowing it to
acquire the company without regard to existing law’s limitations on the
ratio of its investments in core business to noncore businesses. Still, as
under existing law, the authority cannot engage in noncore business
activities that cost more than $1.5 million without the policy board’s
approval.
The bill gives RWA’s policy and governing boards authority to act on
behalf of AWA until its boards are appointed. The bill also prohibits
AWA’s boards from being appointed until PURA approves RWA’s or
AWA’s acquisition of the company. RWA must notify appointing
authorities when this occurs.
The bill increases the governing board’s membership, if the company
is acquired, from seven to 11 members. Under the bill, six of the
members must reside in the RWA’s jurisdiction and five must reside in
AWA’s. Under the bill, as described above, the membership of the AWA
and RWA governing boards are identical. As current law does, the bill 2024SB-00501-R00SS1-BA.DOCX
Researcher: RP Page 17 6/26/24
specifies how the members’ terms are staggered and establishes quorum
requirements.
Office of Consumer Affairs
Existing law requires the RWA policy board to establish an Office of
Consumer Affairs to act as the advocate for customer interests,
including matters of rates, water quality and supply, and wastewater
service quality. The bill requires the office to also advocate for AWA
customers and gives it the same powers with respect to AWA, including
the right to participate in regulatory and judicial proceedings involving
AWA. Currently, RWA is responsible for all costs associated with the
office. The bill instead makes RWA and AWA jointly responsible.
§ 43 — SHPO PROJECT REVIEW
Codifies in statute procedures for SHPO reviews to determine a proposed project’s impact
on historic structures and landmarks; requires SHPO to make a determination within 30
days and develop a mitigation plan with the project proponent under certain
circumstances; allows a project proponent to request that DECD review the proposed plan
The bill codifies in statute and revises procedures relating to certain
project reviews under the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act
(CEPA) by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Currently,
SHPO reviews projects under CEPA to determine whether there could
be an impact on the state’s historic structures and landmarks, but
neither CEPA nor its regulations specify requirements for SHPO’s
reviews (see Background).
Among other things, the bill requires SHPO to make an initial
determination of a project’s impact within 30 days after receiving the
information that it deems reasonably necessary to do so. If SHPO
determines that there will be impact on historic structures and
landmarks, it must propose a feasible alternative or mitigation plan in
collaboration with the sponsoring agency; state entity (i.e., a state
department, institution, or agency); or state funding recipient
(collectively, “project proponent”). Under the bill, SHPO must annually
post all mitigation agreements executed during the prior fiscal year on
DECD’s website by January 1.
The bill allows the project proponent, if it declines to execute the 2024SB-00501-R00SS1-BA.DOCX
Researcher: RP Page 18 6/26/24
proposed mitigation agreement, to request that the Department of
Economic and Community Development (DECD) commissioner review
the plan and recommend revisions. (SHPO is within DECD.)
Additionally, it allows the sponsoring agency to conduct public scoping
in keeping with CEPA if no agreement is reached.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2024
SHPO REVIEW
CEPA and Historic Preservation
Generally, CEPA provides a declaration of state policy and
establishes a process by which state agencies must identify and review
their proposed actions that may significantly affect the environment
(CGS § 22a-1a et seq.). Under CEPA, “actions which may significantly
affect the environment” include individual activities or a sequence of
planned activities proposed to be undertaken by state departments,
institutions, or agencies, or funded in whole or in part by the state,
which could have a major impact on, among other things, historic
structures and landmarks (CGS § 22a-1c). The bill similarly defines this
term, except that it expressly excludes the following actions:
1. major federal actions under the National Environmental Policy
Act,
2. undertakings under the National Historic Preservation Act, and
3. those affecting archaeological or sacred sites.
By law and under the bill, “historic structures and landmarks” means
any building, structure, object, or site that is significant in American
history, architecture, archaeology, and culture or property used in
connection with it, including sacred sites and archaeological sites (CGS
§ 10-410). Archaeological sites are locations where material evidence
exists that is at least 50 years old of past human life and culture in the
state. Sacred sites are spaces of ritual or traditional significance of Native
American culture and religion that are eligible for listing on the national
or state registers of historic places. 2024SB-00501-R00SS1-BA.DOCX
Researcher: RP Page 19 6/26/24
Initial Determination
Under the bill, a sponsoring agency may request that SHPO make an
initial determination on whether a project proponent’s proposed
individual activities or sequence of planned activities could have an
impact on the state’s historic structures and landmarks (and potentially
significantly affect the environment). Although CEPA does not define
“sponsoring agency,” under CEPA regulations each agency responsible
for recommending or initiating an action is considered a sponsoring
agency (Conn. Agencies Regs., § 22a-1a-2(a)).
The bill requires SHPO to make the initial determination within 30
days after receiving information it deems reasonably necessary to do so.
SHPO must (1) consider all information the project proponent provides
in making this determination and (2) provide a written determination to
the proponent if it finds that there is no effect on historic structures and
landmarks (or the environment will not be significantly affected because
there is no impact on historic structures and landmarks). Under the bill,
SHPO’s initial determination that there is no effect or impact is final.
Determination of Effect or Impact
Feasible Alternative. Under the bill, when SHPO makes an initial
determination that a proposed activity or activities will have an effect or
impact on historic structures and landmarks, it must, if possible,
propose a prudent or feasible alternative to avoid these impacts. It is
required to do so in collaboration with the project proponent.
If SHPO and the project proponent agree on an alternative, SHPO
must provide a written determination to the proponent that the
alternative will have no effect on historic structures and landmarks (or
that it is not within the category of actions that may significantly affect
the environment because there is no impact on historic structures and
landmarks). This determination is final.
Mitigation Plan. Under the bill, if SHPO and the project proponent
do not agree on an alternative, SHPO must provide the proponent with
a written determination that the activity or activities will have an effect
or impact on historic structures and landmarks, as discussed above. 2024SB-00501-R00SS1-BA.DOCX
Researcher: RP Page 20 6/26/24
After SHPO makes this determination, it must propose a mitigation plan
requiring the project proponent to mitigate the impact. It must do so in
collaboration with the project proponent (and regardless of CEPA
provisions on environmental impact evaluations (EIEs)).
In creating the mitigation plan, the bill requires SHPO to consider the
following:
1. all pertinent information about the activity or activities that may
affect the plan (the project proponent must submit this to SHPO,
to the extent possible); and
2. information DECD provides on the economic impact of the
proposed activity or activities and mitigation plan (SHPO must
consult with the DECD commissioner or his designee on this
topic).
The bill requires SHPO, within 45 days after receiving information
from the proponent, to memorialize the mitigation plan in a proposed
agreement that the project proponent may execute. When SHPO gives
the mitigation agreement to the project proponent, it must also notify
the proponent that it may request DECD to review the agreement (see
below).
Under the bill, if the project proponent executes the original
agreement or a revised agreement (see below), then SHPO must also do
so. Executing the original or revised agreement constitutes (1) a final
determination by SHPO and (2) that SHPO is satisfied the effect on
historic structures and landmarks will be mitigated based on the terms
of the agreement.
DECD Review. The bill allows the project proponent, if it declines to
execute the mitigation agreement described above, to request the DECD
commissioner to review the proposed agreement and recommend
revisions. If the proponent chooses to make this request, it must do so
within 15 days after SHPO provides it with the proposed mitigation
agreement. The request must be as the commissioner prescribes and
may include a request for a conference with the commissioner, SHPO, 2024SB-00501-R00SS1-BA.DOCX
Researcher: RP Page 21 6/26/24
project proponent, and any other interested party.
Within 30 days after receiving the request, the commissioner must
hold the conference (if requested) and make recommendations (if any)
for revising the proposed mitigation agreement, which SHPO must
incorporate into a revised mitigation agreement that the project
proponent may then execute. If the commissioner does not recommend
revisions, the proponent may elect to execute the originally proposed
agreement.
Public Scoping If Agreement Not Executed. The bill requires a
sponsoring agency to conduct an early public scoping under CEPA if no
mitigation agreement is executed, despite SHPO proposing a mitigation
plan as described above. Generally, public scoping is when the
sponsoring agency solicits comments from other agencies and the public
about the proposed action’s environmental effects and whether an EIE
is required (CGS § 22a-1b(b)).
Background
CEPA Overview. Generally, CEPA provides a declaration of state
policy and establishes a process by which state agencies must identify
and review their proposed actions that may significantly affect the
environment (CGS § 22a-1a et seq.). CEPA reviews have three primary
stages:
1. an initial assessment by a sponsoring agency (i.e., the agency
administering or funding the project) to determine whether
public scoping is required;
2. a public scoping process to determine whether an EIE is required
(CGS § 22a-1b(b)); and
3. an EIE, which is the most extensive level of review under CEPA
(CGS § 22a-1b(c)).
SHPO’s reviews generally occur at the first stage of the process (i.e.,
before public scoping). During this stage, agencies consult an
environmental classification document, which lists examples of agency 2024SB-00501-R00SS1-BA.DOCX
Researcher: RP Page 22 6/26/24
actions that typically require (or do not require) public scoping. If the
sponsoring agency determines that its action does not have the potential
to significantly affect the environment, then it does not proceed to public
scoping or EIE.
SHPO. SHPO is located within DECD and has responsibilities under
both federal and state law, including the following:
1. historic designations to the National and State Registers of
Historic Places;
2. regulatory review and compliance related to the National
Historic Preservation Act (i.e., Section 106 reviews) and CEPA;
3. local historic preservation programs;
4. federal and state tax credit programs; and
5. state museums.
The term “SHPO” is often used interchangeably to refer to either the
“State Historic Preservation Office” or the “State Historic Preservation
Officer.” In practice, the responsibilities of the designated officer are
fulfilled by the office as a whole.