Planning & Development Committee Testimony on HB6647 (2.15.23)
Testimony: House Bill 6647
AN ACT CONCERNING THE STATE PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Chairs Rahman, DeGraw, Ranking Members Fazio, Zullo, and Members of the Planning and Development Committee:
I am John Board, a Commission on Connecticut’s Development & Future’s Municipal Statutory Plan Process Working Group member. I am here to testify today favorably on House Bill 6647: An Act Concerning The State Plan of Conservation and Development.
I first want to thank Representative McCarthy Vahey for leading our working group and fostering compromise on different approaches for us to come to a consensus and make these legislative recommendations for this committee’s consideration.
Connecticut’s C&D Plan should reflect a shared vision for the future of the State and chart a clear direction for action and investment over a five-year horizon. It should direct the path forward with both confidence in leadership and a recognition of the numerous and diverse stakeholders across all levels of government and partners. It should be a document that is consulted repeatedly when decision-makers face questions about matters of policy and expenditure.
While I am supportive of the bill, I believe it’s important to provide some insight into some of the concerns as we forged this proposal, which amends section 16a of our general statutes.
Under our working group recommendations, we shorten both the public engagement period and the legislative review periods. While it was concerning that we are recommending shortening public feedback (lines 102–108); during deliberations, I was less concerned about this and more concerned about the change in the legislative review timeline (lines 126–137) to within four (4) months after submission from the continuing legislative committee.
A vote on approving or denying a plan would make more sense if extended a full six (6) or seven (7) months to ensure that the Assembly can review any proposed C&D plan, and enables your leadership teams flexibility on scheduling votes like this and those similar. While I recognize I was in the minority on this point, as a matter of transparency, accountability, and problem solving the extended timelines make the most sense.
One final item which I would like to highlight from our working group’s report (section 3AB) was amending the growth management principles, which is the inclusion of the “fiscal impact of land use” language: [“The current Growth Management Principles should be reviewed and amended, and used to frame the vision and outcomes in areas such as economic development, fiscal impact, housing, transportation, infrastructure, environmental conservation, and resilience.”]
Adding this language ensured that PoCDs and C&D plans are truly holistic and interdisciplinary. I would strongly urge this committee to examine the fiscal impacts of land use moving forward.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to any questions that members might have.
