Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

RIDGEFIELD HOUSING AUTHORITY v. RIDGEFIELD WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY (AC 32368)
Lavine, Beach and Dupont, Js. Argued May 20--officially released September 6, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Danbury, Ozalis, J.) Thomas M. Cassone, with whom, on the brief, were Randolph T. Lovallo and Robert S. Bello, for the appellant (defendant). Michael N. LaVelle, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion

DUPONT, J. The plaintiff, Ridgefield Housing Authority, obtained a judgment granting it a permanent injunction against the defendant, Ridgefield Water Pollution Control Authority, from ``seeking any further hookup fee payments from the plaintiff'' and an order to ``refund to the plaintiff the sewerage payments it has made that are in excess of a fair and reasonable connection fee.'' The questions to be resolved in the defendant's appeal from the granting of the injunction and the court's order are: (1) whether the plaintiff's action should have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, and (2) whether the court properly issued the permanent injunction and ordered a refund of the fees. We conclude that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to grant the permanent injunction and to issue the order, and we affirm the well considered judgment of the trial court. The parties stipulated to the relevance of certain facts and exhibits, which the trial court considered. The court also considered testimony, given at a hearing on whether to grant the permanent injunction, of three witnesses, namely, the executive director of the plaintiff, the former first selectman of the town of Ridgefield (town), and the current chairman of the defendant. The plaintiff introduced into evidence statutory histories of municipal sewer systems, the power and authority of water pollution control authorities and PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) payments by local housing authorities. Also in evidence was a 1976 PILOT agreement between the plaintiff and the town.1 In its memorandum of decision, the trial court found certain facts, which are undisputed. Beginning in 1988, the state department of environmental protection ordered the town to expand its sewerage system plant. Legal counsel to the town advised the first selectman concerning different options to raise the necessary capital to recover the costs of the sewer plant expansion. In 1992, the defendant published legal notices and heard public comment regarding various plans to allocate the costs of the loan repayment needed to fund the expansion. On April 8, 1992, the defendant adopted a plan, which provided for a yearly loan repayment of $445,850 to be paid by sewer users, plus $126,000 to be paid by future users, plus $78,150 to be paid from general revenues. Incorporated into this capital cost recovery plan was the fee at issue in this case. The plaintiff, as a public housing authority, is subject to certain legislation, referred to as PILOT, or ``payment in lieu of taxes'' statutes; see General Statutes

Download Ridgefield Housing Authority v. Ridgefield Water Pollution Control Authority.pdf

Connecticut Law