DOCKET NO. 217 - Northeast Utilities Service Company application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need for the construction of a 345-kV electric transmission line and reconstruction of an existing 115-kV electric transmission line between Connecticut Light and Power Company's Plumtree Substation in Bethel, through the Towns of Redding, Weston, and Wilton, and to Norwalk Substation in Norwalk, Connecticut.
 

At a meeting held on Monday, June 16, the Siting Council discussed what is known as the Findings of Fact for Docket 217, the proposed transmission line from Bethel to Norwalk, and began deliberations towards a decision on this docket.

Prior to the Siting Council reaching a decision on this docket four of the five towns reached a Settlement with CL&P on a suggested route, termed Configuration X.  At the meeting held on Monday the Council discussed a modification of Configuration X, named Configuration 20, or Omega.

Configuration 20 added underground 115 kV lines in Norwalk.  Configuration 20 also modified Configuration X in Bethel.  It placed more existing 115 kV lines underground, eliminated the 130 foot steel poles in the Plumtrees residential area, eliminated a transition station near the school, reduced "porpoising," and increased reliability.  It also placed the new 345 kV lines on shorter poles around the perimeter of the education park. However, the Council realizes that not everyone agrees these are improvements.

As a former Selectman I do not relish surprising or "stunning" another Selectman by having them read about our deliberations in the newspapers.  However, this Council operates under strict rules relating to ex parte communication.  As much as I would like to, I am not free to simply call up a First Selectman and say "To develop consensus on the Council we’re thinking about this configuration.  What do you think?"

Instead, we deliberate in a public forum, take the heat, and deliberate some more.  And, I emphasize on this docket we are still deliberating and do not expect to make a final decision for several weeks.

The Council expects to take some heat.  The Governor and the Legislature do not appoint members to serve on the Siting Council who are thin-skinned.  Each of the Council members who will vote on this docket has spent hundreds of hours considering the evidence in the record.  And certainly none of us harbors a hidden agenda.  The people you see sitting around this table today want to design this transmission line in a manner that is as environmentally compatible and reliable as possible to meet this important public need.

It is important to note that the Settlement between some of the towns and the utility is not a normal occurrence within our process and it effectively constrains our usual manner of seeking the best possible solution.  However, I have stated publicly and individually to each Council Member that I do not want this Settlement, even with its flaws, to implode.  Instead, I stand committed to develop consensus for a decision that embraces the Settlement as much possible.  And, in addition to the Settlement, the final decision of this Council will naturally contain consideration for Norwalk, which did not participate in the four-town agreement.

In light of these issues and more, I am today directing the Council staff to develop two different Opinions, Decisions, and Orders for deliberation at a future meeting.  One draft will be Configuration X, as agreed to by the four towns, plus consideration for Norwalk.  The other will be Configuration 20, or Omega, as previously described.  From these documents the Council will make a final decision.

Several residents present at the hearing -- including First Selectwoman Diane Farrell -- expressed concerns about the transmission line cutting through the historic neighborhood rather than continuing down Route 1.  Farrell questioned Northeast Utilities' decision to cut through the neighborhood.  Barlow Cutler-Wotton, King's Highway North Association president, said the jog to cross the Saugatuck would cut through two historic areas that are narrow, curved roads with houses close to the road.  She said it would make more sense to continue down Route 1, which is a four-lane state road.

Cutler-Wotton said she is also concerned about the impact of construction on the neighborhood's historic homes, stone walls and older trees.  Anne Bartosewicz, Northeast Utilities project director, said power company officials don't always know what the residents of the town feel on a subject and have no problem changing the route.  The plan was to run the line down Myrtle Avenue and North King's Highway in order to avoid the downtown area, she said.  If the community wants the transmission line to continue down Route 1, however, it would be possible, she said.

"We can cross the river in either place," she said.  Bartosewicz said Thursday's public hearing was an information gathering session necessary before Northeast Utilities officials submit an application to the Siting Council for the plan in August.  Between now and when the application is filed, she said, Northeast  Utilities will review the information gathered at hearings in the various communities and make a final decision on the plan.

[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at THE HOUR (Norwalk, CT) website]

"At a Special Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission held on May 13, 2002, by a vote of 3 in favor, 2 against and 2 absent, the Commission approved a request by First Selectman Woody Bliss and Town Administrator Tom Landry for a report under G.S.8-24 for the purchase of 2.09 acres at 16 Parade Ground Court as more particularly described in a Residential Real Estate Agreement, between the Town of Weston and Stephen M. Sivakoff, dated March 25, 2002, to accomodate the construction, renovation and field relocation activities on the adjoining school campus.  This approval is for acquisition of the property only.  An additional Section 8-24 report will be required for any proposed use or improvements to be located on the property."

---

"In Connecticut, local control of public schools is well established, but state government
has a constitutional responsibility to ensure that children receive equal access to educational
opportunities. In 1977, the Connecticut Supreme Court held the system of financing elementary
and secondary education, which relied primarily on local property tax revenues without regard to
disparities in town wealth and lacked significant equalizing state support, was unconstitutional
(Horton v. Meskill).

Subsequently, the legislature enacted a series of reforms aimed at equalizing the ability of
municipalities to provide students with adequate educational opportunities. In general, the state
increased school funding and weighted its distribution toward Connecticut's less wealthy
mumicipaIities. Over the last two decades, the state's share of funding public elementary and
secondary schools ranged from a low of approximately 32 percent to a high of nearly 46 percent.
In FY 00, the state's share was about 43 percent.

The two main conduits of state funding for local school operating costs are the formuIa-based
Education Cost Sharing (ECS) Grant and about two dozen categorical grants that target
assistance for specific educational purposes. The state also provides grants for local school
construction projects and funds the teacher retirement system..."

1.  Consideration/Approval of the minutes of the meeting of September 13th, 2001/done
2.  Discussion/Approval of a request by the Board of Selectmen for a Supplemental Appropriation in the amount of $11,700 for the Interfaith Housing Association, and to be taken from the Unreserved General Fund and transferred to Account No. 0110110-59802, Grants and Subsidies./done
3.  Discussion/Approval of Bond Proposals./On a 3-2 vote on first resolution, 4-0 on second, and a unanimous vote 5-0 on the third, "let the people decide" was the mood of this Board.

The First Selectman's MOVED (and received a second) a recommendation for NET numbers (as the LWV Observer heard it):

SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL-RELATED
$32,169,144 - High School renovations
$22,961,903 - NEW 3-4-5 building
$ 2,940,293 - Middle School renovations
$ 1,500,000 - relocate School Road
$59,572,140 - SUB-TOTAL

SEPTIC
$   614,000 - Revson
$  642,000 - Bisceglie
$   600,000 - Treatment Plant
$   185,000 - Conservation
$2,041,600 - SUB-TOTAL

PARKS&RECREATION ("+" is for lighted fields inclusion)
$2,340,000 - Campus fields+
$   400,000 - Bisceglie "
$4,200,000 - Morehouse Farm Park fields+
$1,000,000 - minus this amount from General Fund
$5,940,000 - SUB-TOTAL

$67,553,740 - SUB-TOTAL
$ 1,985,000 - Rolled into the Bond Issue from previously approved items from earlier Town Meeting
$69,538,340 - TOTAL NET COST

The incoming First Selectman reported that all these matters would be discussed at the Public Hearing on September 20 (8pm in the WHS Auditorium).  Stating "lack of clarity" on solution for lower grades (k-8), he advocated moving ahead immediately with the high school work, fields work and the septic project.  It remained to the last of the three present Selectmen to suggest ("Where there is broad agreement, we should move ahead...") the following figures as an alternative MOTION, which was seconded, and APPROVED (2-1):

$36 million - School projects
$ 2 millioin - Septic
$ 5 million - Parks and Recreation
$43 million sub-total PLUS $2 million for projects to be "rolled into" the long-term bond=$45 million

POWER COMPANY "PUBLIC HEARING" 8-29-01:
At Weston High School on Wednesday, August 29 (at 7pm) the CL&P position was explained "one on one" in the lobby of WHS - opponants had almost as many pieces of paper...in the auditorium, beginning at 8pm, with a Co-President and members of the LWV Board watching, the First Selectman introduced first the Town Attorney, then the Wilton Environmental Director, then our own Conservation Planner;  it was reported that the four (4) towns involved in Phase One (from Bethel to Norwalk) had retained a specialist on power supply, etc. PLUS a separate attorney to plead our side of the case before the CT Siting Council in September and on.  For a link to CT Siting Council  Year 2000 Report on transmission capability and related matters, clickHERE.  Perhaps 200 people were in the auditorium on this last Wednesday before school goes back into session, and much information was offered:

1. First Selectman reported that legal and technical aid had been retained
2. Town Attorney explained statutory requirements ("Certificate of Environmental Compatibility&Need" from CT Siting Council - who also required hearings such as this one)
3. Eminant Domain rights (yes, they would have them if "need" is proven).  "Diminution of Value" if you are only near the towers and lines would not bring you any financial relief.
4. Clearing of right of way and provision of accessibility explained (in terms of environmental damage) by Wilton environmental officer
5. Same individual reported that no information was supplied at this stage in the process to adequately assess the environmental cost
6. "Gross underestimation" of cost (same as above); existing towers will remain; going underground requires "splice boxes" (8x8x28 feet); storm drains, animals will be overwhelmed during construction
7. CL&P stated that this was "major construction"
8. "Loops" needed to make system work into the future without outages
9. 1500' per vault if underground (see above for size of vault)
10. 345kV underground is a new technology (2-5 years experience only) even in Europe (yes, they do 115kV underground).

1. Can we add to poles extra 115kV lines? (ans. "no - won't do it for long run")
2. CL&P gives lousy service - discussion of outages.
3. Is this for Long Island? ("It goes both ways")
4. More Long Island...
5. More Long Island...
6. "Keep Weston Rural" opposition and request for answers to questions ("yes, we'll give you answers in writing")
7. Redding resident on EMF's health effects?  (CL&P expert disputes that any studies separately should be considered).
8. More Long Island...
9. Technical chemical questions (no answers)

What kind of treatment plant? (Not at that point yet--Building Committee will handle this)

How many false alarms? (136 last year)

Fields--Town and Schools need fields, sprinklers--use is overload on what we have now--will be losing 5 fields because of construction for 3-4-5 and H.S.  (Question on why not Heady now, and the answer seemed to be that immediate need was closer to Schools, but that it was full speed ahead on Heady--with possible transport for use by schools.  Traffic safety considerations raised re:  Bisceglie use by school-age drivers.)

53% increase in school-aged population since 1990.

New fields at Heady offered to be built by same volunteers who did Little-League Fields (this previous work to be taken for 3-4-5 school)

Definition given for "schematic design" (only a part of architect's work--includes borings and other preliminary work to take guess-work out of estimates for construction;  includes detailed floor plans, elevations of what building will look like--i.e. windows, entrances, roof line, etc.)

Do the numbers include cost of furniture?  (Yes.)

Discussion of what spaces are used for then (1980) and now

---