Notes from the Board of Aldermen (Oct. 7 & Nov. 7)

Electric Vehicles, Ordinances on Registrar of Voters and Traffic Cameras

Much like my previous entry, apologies yet again for this update’s tardiness. Rest assured, however, local politics has been active, to say the least, considering the 2024 State Elections. Congratulations to those who were elected — may God grant them the wisdom to serve us, the people, well.

Meanwhile, as the Christmas and holiday season approaches, be sure to make the annual “Milford Tree Lighting” a part of your festivities! You just might see ol’ St. Nick himself!

That aside, what happened during the Oct. 7 and Nov. 7 meetings of the Milford Board of Aldermen (BoA)…

October 7 Meeting

Honestly, for the Oct. 7 meeting, not too much business was conducted, comparatively speaking. Vincent Averaimo was appointed to the Fire Commission, replacing Pete Smith, who is currently serving as the City Clerk. (One more aside, Pete has started a new project called ‘From the Vault,’ exploring Milford’s rich near-400-year history.)

Initially, the most anticipated issue for the evening concerned a resolution regarding the ‘Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program.’ However, the resolution was withdrawn since Jeremy Grant, Open Space and Sustainability Manager, could not attend to answer the Board of Aldermen’s questions, which were, understandably, numerous.

On the surface, the City of Milford would receive a grant of $150,000 to purchase several electric vehicles (EVs) — but, within the contract, there were several goals to which, if passed, the City would set to achieve: switching our entire fleet to EVs and net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

We all want clean air and water. After all, we are stewards of God’s good earth — and the environment should be treated with respect since it is a gift.

But enforcing stringent environmental regulations will only harm our families at home and those abroad. I’ll start with the latter. Key components of EV batteries are often mined with child labor in African countries, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Meanwhile, our geopolitical rival, China, is exploiting these nations for wealth. Do we not think child labor like this is morally wrong? Do we also not think larger powers imperializing other nations is wrong?

At home, CNBC reported that EVs could “put a major strain on our power grid” leading to potential brownouts and blackouts like those California has experienced — a state, mind you, that is gearing to ban the sale of new gas-powered cars and trucks by 2035.

EV batteries are also “costly to replace out of pocket” ranging from $4,000-$20,000, according to J.D. Power. Compare that to a gas-powered battery that costs between $100-$325. Meanwhile, the Financial Times has predicted that EVs will be 9% more expensive than combustion vehicles by 2030. EVs are also heavier than gas cars, which will lead to increased wear and tear on roads. And not for nothing, the Milford BoA banned the installation of EV charging stations from underground parking garages because they pose a significant safety hazard.

Moreover, switching to EVs is not popular among the general population. Last year, when the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) asked for the public to weigh in on Connecticut adopting California’s emissions standards, an overwhelming 70+% of respondents opposed the regulations. Several Democrats even came out vocally opposing these standards.

And might I add (in perhaps this long-winded rationale) that taxpayers are subsidizing the more affluent who can afford EVs. To make matters worse, Connecticut residents are already suffering from some of the highest electricity rates in the nation.

This begs the question: why do this? After all, New England is responsible for less than 0.4% of global emissions. Ultimately, this grant money may seem like “free” money but it came with many strings attached of which we had no idea of what the costs we would’ve been imposing on our hard-working families and businesses — and to do so with relatively no effect toward a cleaner environment.

Bottom line: if it came to a vote that night, I would have voted ‘no’ for the aforementioned reasons.

The other items on Oct. 7 were relatively uncontroversial — and by that I mean they were unanimously passed, including a sign on the railroad overpass by River Street and a grant for Early Voting expenses ($16,511.36) to cover costs for implementation.

November 7 Meeting

The Nov. 7 meeting’s public comment featured much support for compensating the Registrars for Early Voting operations, and opposition to a new road near Founders’ Walk (i.e., behind the Milford Public Library) for safety concerns.

The latter first: the Founders’ Walk beautification project has been in development for the past few years. The first phase was remodeling Shipyard Lane, the walkway from New Haven Avenue, adjacent to the Fowler Memorial Building, down to the Pavilion. The second would, primarily, make a new traffic through-way between the parking lots next to the basketball courts to the tennis court parking lot (the crudely drawn red line below is approximately where the road would go). As you can imagine, this road raises safety concerns for children playing at the playground and the ballfield, especially since speeding has become a hot topic nationwide. Rightly so, parents and coaches voiced these concerns (which I happen to agree with).

Why did they address the BoA then? Initially, the BoA was to approve the ‘City of Milford Urban Act Grant’ application for $1 million. However, the vote was postponed. If it ever comes up again, I am inclined to vote ‘no’ for safety concerns. More on safety in a moment…

To the former, regarding the Registrars, I voted ‘no’ because, even though they deserve more pay due to Early Voting, the percentage increase was much in a year of tax increases. Prior to the meeting, Registrars were paid around $41,000; however, Kerri Rowland (Democrat) and Debra Fellenbaum (Republican) asked the BoA for a 45% increase. Again, they worked 525.75 hours more than the 1,040 hours expected on the part-time, 20-hours-per-week schedule, per information from Rowland. However, when asked by the BoA, Tania Barnes — Director of Human Services for the City — noted how registrars in other districts have received pay of nearly $50,000, with the caveat that those positions are full-time.

Despite the Registrars’ good work during Early Voting, I could not justify a 45+% increase with a tax increase this year. However, I do lament these unfunded mandates from the State of Connecticut.

Yet the topic that preoccupied most of the BoA meeting was an ordinance related to ‘Motor Vehicles and Traffic’ and Automated Traffic Enforcement Safety Devices (ATESD) — i.e., speed/red light cameras at nearly ten, high-traffic locations, which are listed below:

• Route 1 near 1-95 exit 39

• Route 1 intersection of Boston Post Road & Bridgeport Avenue

• Route 1 near I-95 exit 34

• Orange Avenue near Platt Tech & Orange Avenue School

• Merwin Avenue near Live Oaks School

• Gulf Street between the Milford Academy and Gulf Beach

• Boston Post Road & Bridgeport Avenue

• Route 1 intersection of High Street

• Route 1 intersection of North Street/Orange Avenue

• Route 1 intersection of Cedarhurst Lane

Chief Keith Mello reminded the BoA this is Phase Two of a four-phased plan to curb crime in Milford. (The first was an ordinance stating that all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, mini bikes, mini-cycles, motor-driven cycles, pocket bikes etc., are “not allowed to be operated on residential streets.”) He also highlighted the steps for Phase Two:

1. Conduct a highway safety analysis on Milford roadways. Using the data, the police department will prepare a Comprehensive Traffic Safety Plan, which among other things, will identify recommended locations for ATESD.

2. Submit and seek approval for the Comprehensive Traffic Safety Plan at a public meeting of the Board of Police Commissioners. – Completed on October 15, 2024

3. Adopt an ordinance at the Board of Alderman meeting to authorize the use of ATESD’s on Milford roadways.

4. Hold a public hearing to allow the public to be heard regarding the establishment of the program and the locations of the ATESD’s.

5. Finalize the Traffic Safety plan, including the location of the ATESD’s (The plan may be modified based upon information learned at the public hearing).

6. Present the final plan for the use of ATESD’s in Milford to the Board of Alderman for adoption.

7. Submit an application to the CT DOT for approval to use ATESD’s in Milford.

8. Upon approval, select a vendor and install the camera hardware.

9. Test/calibrate the equipment and go live with the system.

10. All violators will only receive written warnings during the first 30 days following “go live” implementation.

If implemented, the traffic cameras will turn on if a motor vehicle is traveling greater than 10 mph beyond the posted speed limit or if a vehicle “clearly fails to stop for red traffic signals,” according to a packet the chief presented to the BoA. For a first offense, the fine will be $50; subsequent offenses will be $75.

Ultimately, the purpose is to “reduce traffic fatalities, injuries, and address specific safety concerns in various locations.” And there is an issue: there has been a 140% increase in fatal motor vehicle accidents in Milford over the past three years, and there are nearly 4,000 crashes per year, with 1,000+ injuries. Clearly, there is a problem.

However, my initial hesitation is with the cameras. Personally, I am skeptical of placing more cameras around the community, which, in the wrong hands, could transform into over-surveillance (think China or heck, even the United Kingdom). But Chief Mello told the BoA that police have been hampered by the state to not chase those speeding, among other regulations enacted since 2020. Essentially, police lack the tools they need to do their duties.

Meanwhile, he also assured the BoA that this plan is not final because there will be a public hearing, allowing Milford residents to voice their concerns. With that assurance, regarding the plan’s flexibility, I voted ‘yes’ for the ordinance. After the public meeting is held, the BoA will be presented with Phase Two’s measures once again — which, at that time, I may be a ‘no’ considering the surveillance issue and even costs.

However, I would like more public opinion on the traffic camera plan. Do you believe it is a good idea? Please respond in the comments below.

In other business, Ray Kirmaier was appointed a member of the Harbor Management Commission, and the Fire Department will be utilizing American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds, which total $600,000 at present, to purchase a boat and a jet ski for a combined $160,000.

As always, if you have any questions, comments or concerns, feel free to contact me.