Date: Fri 16-May-1997

By STEVE BIGHAM

Published: Aug 11, 1999 12:00 am

Publication: Bee

Author: STEVEB

Quick Words:

sewer-council-Pilchard

Full Text:

New Sewer Rules Leave Council Member With Questions

B Y S TEVE B IGHAM

The proposed sewer regulations were presented to the Legislative Council

Wednesday night, but some members of the council still have questions they

want answered.

The sewage treatment plant at the end of Commerce Road is scheduled to go on

line sometime in June or July. Last week, the council received a brief

presentation on the proposed regulations from Peter Gross of Fuss & O'Neill,

Inc.

The regulations must be in place before the plant can go on line. However,

council member Melissa Pilchard believes draft sewer rules leave too many

unanswered questions.

"There are many, many questions that need to be answered. They're too

general," Mrs Pilchard said. "It doesn't say who's going to do that or how

it's going to be paid for."

She said the regulations do not properly address where money will come from to

cover the costs of inspections and other sewer installment work. The draft

regulations also make no mention of an appeals process for users. Mrs Pilchard

presented a list of 27 questions on the regulations, none of which were

answered, she said.

"All I know is they wrote regulations and they don't know the answers to

[these questions]. We have a lot of people in town that are going to be

affected by this," she said. "And this plan is supposed to come on line in a

couple of months? It's unbelievable."

Mrs Pilchard said she heard Walnut Tree Village was planning to charge its

owners $9,900 up front. If the town gets that money, Mrs Pilchard wants to

know where it will go.

As Mr Gross explained, many of Mrs Pilchard's questions could better be

answered by the WPCA, which is still studying the regulations.

Currently, the state now reserves two-thirds of the sewer system's treatment

capacity for itself as part of an agreement with the town. But council member

Joe Borst wants to know what happens if the state sells Fairfield Hills to a

private entity. Will the town get the right to the state's reserved usage?

It's a question that still needs to be answered.

The draft regulations are currently under review by both state and town

agencies.

Nighthawk Track And Field Teams Host Meet

New Heights Vacation Bible School Returning

Next HRRA Household Hazardous Waste Drop-Off Event Scheduled In Newtown

Genealogy Club's Next Program To Dig Into 'Dissecting A Civil War Pension Record'

Choral Society Planning ‘Voices Of America’ Performance

The editorial took no position on the budget going up or down so you're reading things into the editorial that simply aren't there. The turnout is tied to the lack of passage, in that people who came out to vote last time did not this time, indicating a lack of support on their part. Perhaps it wasn't spelled out clearly enough, but that's what the editorial was driving at, people showing lack of support by not casting a vote. The editorial did address likely concerns among voters that may have led to lack of support and lack of turnout. This lower turnout also follows increasing turnout over the past four referendums in three years (meaning it is an aberration from that), and increased turnout is something that I do push for regularly in editorials. Any disappointment you might be seeing is at the break in that trend, not at whether the budget passed or not. I'd rather see more people come out and vote "no" then not vote at all.

Lower Turnout Results In Two Budget Defeats

Clearly, property owners no longer want to bear the burden of expenses while the state does not meet it’s responsibilities. Rising costs must be addressed by actions that do not include yearly increases of property owners’ taxes. The state of CT must meet its share of the educational costs, and other costs.

Town And School Budgets Fail At Referendum

This feels like an oddly misleading headline and narrative, particularly coming from the Editorial Board. The headline "Lower Turnout Results in Two Budget Defeats" pushes a misleading narrative regarding voter turnout, and then seeks to tie the outcome of the referendum to that misleading narrative. Sure, voter turn out for this year's referendum, 18%, was lower than last year's. However, last year's turnout, 25.4%, represented the highest turnout in the most recent 10 budget referendums. If you take the time to examine turnout percentages between 2017 and 2026 (2017: 19.9, 2018: 15.7, 2019: 17, 2020: 0, 2021: 8.98, 2022: 7.7, 2023: 8.8, 2024: 15.1/17.49, 2025: 25.4, 2026: 18), this year's turnout was actually the third highest in the past 10 cycles. Perhaps the headline of this article should say "Lower Voter Turnout Than Last Year", which is more accurate, rather than creating an impression that this year's turnout is some type of aberration - a narrative that the turnout numbers, in all their binary glory, simply do not support. Further, the headline of this article appears to tie the "lower turnout" to the defeated budgets. Sure, that could be true. But, perhaps, its more likely that Newtown residents are feeling the squeeze of multiple economic influences. In Newtown, we've experienced property revaluations and increased municipal spending. Eversource continues to raise rates. The state legislature gives PURA the authority to impose Public Benefit charges that benefit a tiny percentage of the public (and subsequently burdening the rest of us). At the national level, inflation has run rampant for years and many of those costs remain high to this day. In short, the data tells a far less dramatic—and far more honest—story than the headline suggests. This wasn’t an electorate vanishing in apathy; it was a fairly typical turnout delivering an verdict that, perhaps, some at the Editorial Board didn't like. At some point, it’s worth considering that residents aren’t confused, disengaged, or misled by turnout; they’re simply doing math at their kitchen tables and concluding that “no” is the only responsible answer left.

Enjoyed the forum which only confirmed my support for Brandon Moore as the Democratic candidate to run for the state representative position. Brandon Moore did not waiver about his duty to all the people, if elected, when an issue presents itself that requires that he voice a difference of opinion for the wellbeing of Newtown residents. If Michelle Ku’s 16 years have led to her loyalty being to other elected officials, as she implied, then Newtown is going to continue to witness actions that do not protect its residents. She could not unseat republican, Mitch Bolinsky, during a Blue Wave, and once again, will not do it now. Winning that seat is critical for all. That explains why her previous campaign committee now campaigns for Brandon Moore. It explains all the endorsements he has received from local elected democratic officials. It’s why we need Brandon Moore to be the democratic candidate to run for state representative.

Second Newtown DTC, League Of Women Voters Candidates Event Planned

Appreciated the opportunity to hear from both candidates as we were present for the College Dems forum but only heard from Brandon Moore. It was an opportunity to see who can unseat the Republican incumbent and there is no doubt that Brandon Moore should be the Democratic candidate. One concerned parent posed a question about discrimination unaddressed by the school district and interestingly enough, Michelle Ku, who proudly speaks of her Board membership years, said little, while Brandon Moore passionately addressed the issue along with his experience as an Apache Helicopter Commander. This family is supporting Brandon Moore. We need change and someone who is not afraid to disagree, especially about the rising costs of living in Newtown.

<< May 2026 >>
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
26	27	28	29	30	1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31	1	2	3	4	5	6

Log In

Date: Fri 16-May-1997

Leave a Reply Cancel reply