Wednesday, June 28, 2017

UCONN's Decades Long Housing & Environmental Crises - Their Impacts on Mansfield: A Chronology of Key Events

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." 

Lord Acton

In the space of fifty years the University of Connecticut has acquired a substantial range of governmental powers and fiscal authorities that have overpowered the relatively limited municipal authorities delegated to the town of Mansfield by the state legislature.  Since UCONN is not governed by Mansfield's land use, housing or environmental laws, town residents have been challenged to find means to hold the university accountable for its decisions - especially those that have had significant adverse impacts on the town. 

To fully understand the extent to which Mansfield's housing and environmental problems have been influenced by UCONN, the following chronology of key events is intended to illustrate some of the consequences of the disequilibrium of powers between town and gown.  Specifically, UCONN's failure to make significant investment in new dormitories to meet its ever growing student population has resulted in thousands of students living off campus in what still is a very rural town with limited public services. 

Unlike Mansfield where members of the town's governing body are elected by its residents, UCONN's administrative leadership is appointed by the Board of Trustee's and/or by the University President. Twenty one individuals constitute the Board of Trustees with 12 of the appointments made by the Governor and four other ex-officio members accountable to the Governor - including the Governor himself and members of the Governor's cabinet. The Board's makeup clearly stacks the deck in favor of the Governor and his political and economic strategies for the university.  Neither the Board of Trustees nor the President of the University can be voted out of office by residents of Mansfield or even by the students or faculty of the university.  

What are some of the consequences of this autocratic system of power? Let's take a few historic examples of UCONN's decisions that have had impacts over several generations.


Prohibiting Fraternities On Campus: the Consequences

One of the results of UCONN's autocratic form of government has been a tendency toward unilateral decision making with spillover impacts on Mansfield residents.  For example, when President Homer Babbidge prohibited fraternities from living on campus in 1969,  the immediate consequence was the emergence of off-campus fraternity houses within Mansfield's residential zones that were entirely incompatible with those seeking quiet neighborhoods to raise their children. 

Initially only a few hundred fraternity members lived off campus but over time, as fraternities became more popular, hundreds of fraternity members moved into Mansfield neighborhoods.  Fraternity membership climbed from 280 in 1979 to 800 in 1987 (Hartford Courant, June 4, 1987, p. C4B) and by 2016 had reached 2,400. Eventually the university administrators decided it was appropriate to return some fraternity members to on-campus living and, with the support of state legislation that provided bonding, UCONN became one of a handful of state universities to build fraternity housing. Opened in 2004, Husky Village represents an important compromise between the needs of the town, the university and the fraternal organization.  While on campus housing is a good thing, UCONN only accommodates 300 of the 2,400 fraternity members at its "Husky Village" fraternity dormitory complex.
UCONN's Husky Village - Opened in 2004 exclusively for fraternity members

Where are all of the other fraternity members living? Thanks to Homer Babbidge, they live throughout Mansfield.  One of the first off-campus fraternity houses was approved by the Mansfield Zoning Board of Appeals in the 1980s. While this may have been an acceptable decision at the time, the Mansfield Planning and Zoning Commission felt a town-wide approach was needed. To better control fraternities, on February 9, 1990 the Commission defined such groups as those recognized by the Office of Greek Life at UCONN or Eastern Connecticut State University and limited their locations to business zones. 

Yet even this zoning measure was not enough.  Fraternities also benefited from the loose zoning definition of "family" that existed prior to 2010 enabling up to four students to live as a family. After nearly twenty years of of unending fraternity parties and other neighborhood disruptions, the Commission decided it was time to tighten its definitions of boarding house and family. On August 5, 2010 the Commission limited families to  three (3) unrelated persons based on a series of complex criteria for what constitutes a family. 

Whether by design or accident, Mansfield's regulations are the most complicated and confusing definition of family amongst the 169 municipalities in the state of Connecticut (Vidich Zoning Study, 2017). The definition of family is also virtually unenforceable within the limits of American privacy laws. The town's efforts, while laudable, have been ineffective.  With constitutional constraints on land use enforcement options and the university's acquiescence in off campus living arrangements, thousands of fraternity students are living in an uneasy relationship with the townspeople in virtually all neighborhoods of Mansfield.  Responding to this ongoing crisis, on June 5, 2017 the Commission once again revised its definitions of family and fraternity/sorority to broaden the range of organizations that fall within their regulatory purview. Simply avoiding the label of a Greek fraternal organization is now no longer an option for those attempting to evade the claws of Mansfield's zoning regulations.

Should President Babbidge have consulted with Mansfield's governing body before making his decision to ban fraternities from living on campus? Twenty-twenty hindsight would be easy if dramatic changes in student housing occurred in relatively short periods of time. Unfortunately, because the problems of fraternity housing emerged slowly over a thirty year period few Mansfield residents took notice of the long term consequences of Babbidge's 1969 decision. Each year off-campus fraternity housing increased ever so slightly so each increase seemed innocuous enough that few of the proverbial local feathers were ruffled until the fraternity housing became a nagging public nuisance.


UCONN's Failure to Build Dormitories leads to Rise of Absentee Landlords

Fraternity housing was in reality a smaller piece of a much larger student housing crisis.  By 1967 UCONN admitted it was unable to house all undergraduates on campus (see 1967 University Bulletin, p. 70). This was a serious problem since the university had long committed itself to housing incoming students on campus. Unfortunately, lacking a Master Plan for development in the 1960s, UCONN fell far behind in building student dormitories which gradually led to the development of a vast network of absentee landlords who saw a business opportunity of buying up single family homes and renting them to students.  

UCONN's inability or incapacity to meets it's student housing needs shifted this burden to rural Mansfield which has a limited rental housing stock.  The single family homes initially most affected were those nearest to the university campus, but gradually over time, the growth of rental conversions has spread like an infection into all parts of Mansfield. In response to this crisis, in 2006 Mansfield initiated a permit program to regulate landlords renting single family dwelling units. This action came in response to widespread citizen complaints concerning the overwhelming nuisances attributable to unsupervised students living in residential neighborhoods. As can be seen by the chronology below, Mansfield's residents continue to be annoyed and outraged by the never ending parties and raucous events held throughout the town’s residential neighborhoods during the school year. 
UCONN dormitory undergoing repair work in June 2017

The ever increasing student enrollment has far exceeded student dormitory capacities virtually every year since the 1960s yet UCONN has only sporadically considered the impacts of its off campus student housing policy on the housing stock of Mansfield and surrounding towns. Today, over 400 single family residences in Mansfield have been converted into student housing.  Many of these are in neighborhoods that were formerly the residences of UCONN professors and staff who retired or felt compelled to move elsewhere due to the change in neighborhood quality. As old neighborhoods have deteriorated from deferred building maintenance, unsupervised student living and loud parties, many of the remaining town residents are now seeking ways to sell their properties while they still hold some market value.

Others, who still consider Mansfield their home, are fighting UCONN in the hope of reversing these trends.  Out of desperation, Bill Roe and Becki Shafer started the Mansfield Neighborhood Preservation Group (MNPG) in 2015 to reverse some of the most egregious activities of off-campus student living.  Hundreds of residents have joined MNPG and their efforts have been noticed by Mansfield's Town Council and UCONN officials who are now somewhat surprised that they may have stepped on the cat's tail.

Irresponsible Environmental Decision Making: Chemical Pits near Residential Neighborhoods 

Similar to the university's housing problems, the traffic, noise and chemical pollution caused by the university cannot be confined within the boundaries of the university's campus.   To understand this problem it is first important to recognize the legislative authorities granted to UCONN. In reality, UCONN functions like a small city with all of the governmental functions typically associated with a city but WITHOUT any of the checks and balances afforded to residents of all the 169 towns in Connecticut who elect their local government officials.  

UCONN has its own police force, wastewater treatment plant, public drinking water system, university road system, bonding authority and the power to collect fees and revenues for services rendered. It has complete responsibility for the health, safety and general welfare for nearly 30,000 undergraduate and graduate students who either live, work or study on campus. In contrast, Mansfield relies on UCONN's wastewater treatment plant and public water supply to meet its own needs and that of its much smaller population estimated to be about 13,600 residents - exclusive of students.

How has this unfortunate imbalance come to pass? As a state agency UCONN's leadership reports directly to its Board of Trustees which in turn is accountable only to the Governor and the State Legislature. Its powers are like those of any other state agency. For example UCONN is only subject to state environmental laws - not those of Mansfield despite its location within the town as well as its impact upon the town.
Interceptor pipe Installed at UCONN Chemical Pit - Now covered by Parking Lot C

In the case of the massive groundwater pollution created by UCONN''s chemical pits located off Hunting Lodge Road, nothing happened until several outraged citizens demonstrated the toxic characteristics of their drinking water and got the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to take action. Yet even with regulatory oversight, UCONN took nearly 25 years to take appropriate action to remediate the chemical pollution and DEP acted more like an absentee regulator than an agency with a vital mission of protecting vital groundwater resources. UCONN spent years foot dragging on issues that should have been an opportunity for it to demonstrate environmental leadership. 

Despite its reputation as the crown jewel in the state's university system, it dilly dallyed with studies while nearby residents urged action and less talk.  Eventually, UCONN contracted for the remediation of the chemical pits some 40 years after the first barrels had been buried yet even this important work did not eliminate the lingering chemicals that continue to slowly migrate along Hunting Lodge Road. While UCONN has maintained a quarterly monitoring of groundwater contamination it has recently returned to its cloak and dagger ways by stopping the publication of its quarterly monitoring reports on its public website.Who is holding UCONN accountable? More importantly, are any of Mansfield's officials concerned enough to monitor the threat these buried chemicals pose to public and private drinking water supplies?

Massive Water Withdrawals & UCONN Takes Liberties Outside its Watershed

In the early 20th century the Connecticut Agricultural College (the predecessor name of the University of Connecticut) faced a water crisis and the state legislature bailed the college out by giving it condemnation authority to take water from the Cedar Swamp Brook immediately to the west of the Storrs Campus.  Eventually, the University of Connecticut would rely on the Fenton and Willimantic Rivers to meet the drinking water requirements of its students, faculty and staff. Water requirements for UCONN are exceedingly large and fractured bedrock wells have never been sufficient to meet its needs without direct access to the stratified drift aquifers underlying the Fenton and Willimantic Rivers. 
The Fenton River runs dry in 2005 from UCONN's excessive water withdrawals

Access to water is a critical element of any survival strategy and in the case of UCONN this became exceedingly clear in September 2005 when drought conditions, coupled with highly wasteful water consumption practices and a lack of wellhead monitoring drained the Fenton River dry - killing thousands of fish.  The immediate drinking water crisis was resolved by reducing groundwater withdrawals and implementing university-wide water conservation measures.  However, lacking a sustainability vision, by 2013 the university had defiantly increased enrollment at its Storrs campus by more than 2,000 students compared to 2005 - the year the Fenton River went dry.  Rather than living within the limits of its God given water supply, the university chose to take water from another watershed immediately to the north - the Shenipsit Reservoir in Tolland.   Hundreds of Connecticut residents objected to this “water taking” but UCONN prevailed because of its political connections with the Governor and state legislature.

Much like a cancer that grows from an increased blood supply and ripe metabolic conditions, UCONN leveraged its legislative and executive connections and powers to dramatically expand its water resources - more than doubling its water capacity by linking to the Shenipsit Reservoir.  The not so unintended consequence of this state sanctioned water diversion permit, coupled with the recently approved sewer line extension from UCONN to Four Corners (2017), will be to enable a rapid expansion of business and multi-family housing opportunities at what has been called the "Gateway" to Mansfield.  For those who welcome growth, these series of events signal the "promised land". For those concerned about the rapid transformation of Mansfield into an urban world, these developments have become a rallying cry for responsible land use planning.

Mansfield as a Company Town


Despite the unceasing series of environmental and housing catastrophes that have emerged over the last fifty years, the chronology below clearly indicates that only limited progress has been made in controlling UCONN's irresponsible activities within the town of Mansfield.  Part of this reflects the divided loyalties of some Mansfield residents who work at the university by day and are town council members by night.  Caught between these two loyalties, the University's agenda has generally taken precedence over that of Mansfield.  What are some possible solutions to these divided loyalties and to the unchecked powers of the university?Those issues will be the subject of a separate blog posting to be issued in the near future.

Each Connecticut resident pays taxes to support UCONN so each of us is responsible for understanding the university's misuse of power and funds.  With this understanding, citizens can collectively suggest corrective actions to the state legislature.

Step 1:  Read the Chronology (see below)

Step 2:  Recommend legislative and strategic solutions 




Chronology of UCONN's Housing and Environmental Issues & Their Impact on Mansfield  



January 11, 1965
Homer Babbidge, President of UCONN places a 5 year moratorium on new fraternities at the UCONN campus

September 1967 

UCONN acknowledges for the first time that the vast majority of undergraduate live on campus - implying that over-crowded dormitories have pushed many undergraduate students into rental housing off-campus.

September 1968
UCONN allows seniors, 21 years of age, to live off-Campus after receiving permission from Dean of Students

October 19, 1969
Dr. Babbidge suggests optional off-campus living privileges for UCONN upperclassmen 

November 20, 1969
UCONN establishes new fraternity rules that force fraternities to move off campus 

April 5, 1972
Mansfield Zoning Board of Appeals allows a fraternity on Route 195. 

June 4, 1987
Hartford Courant reports fraternity membership nearly tripled in eight years triggering need for frat housing. 

November 12, 1987
Overcrowding on campus spurs UCONN to drop concept of guaranteed on campus housing. 

June 7, 1995
Public Act 95-230 authorizes UCONN to control its own building program & build despite zoning 

October 17, 1997
UCONN Board of Trustees approve long range plan to transform the Strorrs campus by closing roads, banning autos and converting the heart of the campus to a pedestrian mall 

November 26, 1997
Governor Rowland rejects UCONN's $107million stadium on the Storrs Campus

June 3, 1998
Mansfield residents' group asks federal government to investigate chemical contamination from UCONN's abandoned dump

June 7, 1998
Hartford Courant reports UCONN spent decades foot dragging on chemical pit remediation. 

July 28, 1998
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency refuses to take control of UCONN's chemical pit remediation from the CT Dept. of Environmental Protection

December 14, 1998
Mansfield Town Council votes 7-2 to support Pfizer/UCONN alliance without mentioning its location

March 26, 1999
UCONN proposes to locate a 90,000 square foot Pfizer animal vaccine research center on Horse Barn Hill triggering strong opposition 

April 12, 1999
Mansfield Town Council reverses itself and opposes Pfizer construction on a 5-4 vote

August 8, 1999
New York Times reports that Pfizer abandons animal vaccine research center after litigation threats. 

June 12, 2000
Mansfield Town Council authorizes outside study of Town's present and future water needs and supplies

March 17, 2002
Hartford Courant calls UCONN a “Big Bad Neighbor” riding rough shod over Mansfield 

April 14, 2002
Hartford Courant reports on newly constructed campus fraternity dormitories that will house 300 students by fall of 2003. 

January 30, 2003
Hartford Courant reports UCONN Chemical Pit can never be cleaned up through soil removal due to contamination of the bedrock aquifer 

July 26, 2004
Mansfield Committee on Community Quality of Life convenes its first meeting 

September 16, 2005
UCONN sucks the Fenton River dry killing thousands of Fish 

October 18, 2005
Office of Legislative Research releases report on UCONN 2000 Commission and need for legislation to control UCONN 

April 28, 2006
House passes construction oversight bill for UCONN 

June 8, 2006
UCONN reports start of chemical pit remediation near Hunting Lodge Road after years of delay 

September 2007
UCONN begins 10 year expansion trend with nearly 20% increase in enrollment  over the period 2007-2016

September 21, 2007
UCONN begins 10 year tuition trend with out of state tuition increasing by 52% over the period 2007-2016

March 7, 2006
UCONN Professors Recommend Reduced Withdrawals from Fenton River wells

September 21, 2006
Mansfield Requires Rental Permits for Landlords 

August 2, 2010
Mansfield Adopts Parking Rules for Residential Rental Properties 

August 15, 2010
Mansfield Changes 4-unrelated to 3-unrelated in its definition of family 

July 1, 2011
UCONN Office of Community Standards begins tracking student misconduct 

July 7, 2011
Mansfield Adopts Neighborhood Nuisance Ordinance 

July 30, 2013
UCONN Approved to Take Water from Shenipsit Lake 

June 17, 2014
UCONN releases Record of Decision to build a 750 bed STEM dormitory for science, technology and engineering students

September 25, 2014
Jonathan Pelto exposes UCONN’s waste, fraud and abuse with $6 Billion in debt & nothing to show  

November 4, 2014
UCONN buses students to vote in Mansfield and provides deciding votes on $9M Sewer referendum 

November 7, 2014
Mansfield Rental Certification Zone Expanded Town-wide 

May 2015
UCONN Campus Master Plan Proposes 460,000 square feet of new construction 

October 13, 2015
Mansfield Neighborhood Preservation Group Founded 

March 14, 2016
Mansfield Neighborhood Preservation Group urges town council to move all fraternities back on campus 

March 18, 2016
Mansfield Neighborhood Preservation Group Contends students over-populating town 

April 1, 2016
UCONN declares the 650 bed South Campus Honors dormitory will not be built since a private sector solution seems viable (see Record of Decision, p. ES-2)


April 5, 2016
Mansfield Neighborhood Preservation Group issues Off Campus Housing Impact Study 

May 9, 2016
UCONN sets new high record with 34,978 freshman applications 

August 3, 2016
UCONN approved to tear down South Campus Brown Houses 

June 30, 2016
UCONN’s long term debt increases to $1.6 Billion 

July 19, 2016
Mansfield Neighborhood Preservation Group claims 55% of town population is students 

August 25, 2016
UCONN opens a new dormitory resulting in first small increase in dormitory beds in 13 years 

September 21, 2016
Mansfield Approves 9 month moratorium on New Multi-Family Housing 

September 27, 2016
State officials let UCONN 2000 oversight panel languish for years 

October 31, 2016
UCONN forecasts declining state financial support but continues building  

December 23, 2016
Mansfield Environmental Trust, Inc. recognized by IRS as a 501(c)3 organization

January 30, 2017
UCONN Increases Price of On-Campus Housing 

February 7, 2017
UCONN Office of Institutional Research data shows shows a 31% increase in out of state students over the period 2006 to 2015

February 9, 2017
Yankee Institute points to Governor’s Malloy’s $3.6 billion budget deficit as mismanagement  

April 20, 2017
UCONN Grows and More Students Move Off Campus - Neighborhood Tension Increases 

March 21, 2017
UCONN expels Kappa Sigma Fraternity after student death 

May 1, 2017
Mansfield extends multi-family housing moratorium until December 2017 

June 2, 2017
UCONN Discloses “No Increase in On Campus Dormitories in 10 years” - despite an 18% increase in undergraduate student enrollment between 2007 and 2016

June 28, 2017
The Connecticut Mirror reports UCONN's dormitory expansion plans are on hold due to the state budgetary crisis


Research Methods:
Details on the sources and methods used in this research can be found by clicking on Notes on the Research Supporting this Blog.

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

A Chronology of Laws that Transformed UCONN from a Rural Agricultural School to an International Business Machine

A View of the University of Connecticut Campus: 2016

   Introduction

    
   This blog site summarizes forty key laws passed by the Connecticut State Legislature that have transformed the Storrs Agricultural School into the internationally recognized University of Connecticut. During the 136 years since the school's founding in 1881, the university has gradually shifted from an agricultural college to a university system offering a wide range of intellectual disciplines. During this transition, UCONN was granted many extraordinary powers that were inevitably needed as it began to function more as a major corporation yet with governmental powers akin to those of a large city. 

    Gradually over time UCONN has become less dependent upon the state legislature as a result of the fiscal authorities it has been granted over the last fifty years. It has acquired its own police force, water company, sewage treatment plant, hotel, economic development organization, and vast land holdings in the town of Mansfield. As a governmental entity it has the power of eminent domain, sovereign immunity from local land use and environmental regulations, the power to issue bonds for capital improvements without consultation with the legislature and the power to set tuition for students to any level that the market will bear. Each of these powers has been granted gradually over time with the result that no single piece of legislation became a "Custer's Last Stand" scenario.    

    To understand how this remarkable transformation occurred, this blog site provides a digest and commentary on key UCONN legislation. This is the first in a series of three critiques of the University of Connecticut and its impact on the town of Mansfield and surrounding towns. Subsequent postings will address Mansfield's off campus housing crisis and the environmental damages associated with UCONN's uncontrolled growth. 

Connecticut State Capitol - The Place where these Laws Came From


   A Legislative History of UCONN: 40 Key Laws


1.   Public Act 1881-74: An Act establishing the Storrs Agricultural School
Adopted:
April 16, 1881

Digest: This law created a six member board of trustees to manage the Storrs Agricultural School and to retain teachers and establish buildings for operating the school with an annual budget of $5,000. The Storrs Agricultural School is established for the education of boys, whose parents are citizens of Connecticut, in such branches of scientific knowledge as shall tend to increase their proficiency in the business of agriculture. 

Commentary:  This modest beginning focused on students from Connecticut and on the state’s agricultural needs.

2.   Public Act 1886-15:   Authorizing the Trustees of the Storrs Agricultural School to Accept Deed from Augustus Storrs
Adopted: April 9, 1886

Digest:  The trustees of the Storrs Agricultural School be authorized and directed to accept on the part and on behalf of the state of the deed from Augustus Storrs, dated March eighteenth, 1886, removing all conditions and reservations contained in his original deed of gift of the so-called Storrs Agricultural School property, dated April fifteenth, 1881.

Commentary:  Whatever restrictions Mr. Storrs placed on the original deed must have been unacceptable to the Board of Trustees.

3.  Public Act 19:-613: An Act making Provision for a Water Supply for the Connecticut Agricultural College and the Mansfield State Training School and Hospital
Adopted: May 21, 1919

Digest:  The sum of one hundred thirty thousand dollars is appropriated for the purpose of acquiring land or water, building a dam or dams, laying water mains and pipes and furnishing such equipment as shall be found necessary for a sufficient water supply for the Mansfield State Training School and Hospital and the Connecticut Agricultural College. This law approved the condemnation of land – if necessary – in order to achieve the water needs of the college.

Commentary:  The Connecticut Agricultural College was facing water demands that exceeded its available supplies as early as the second decade of the twentieth century.

4.  Special Act 51-320:  An Act Authorizing the State to Issue Bonds for the Construction of self-liquidating faculty housing at the University of Connecticut, Replacing Temporary Faculty Housing Facilities
Adopted: July 10, 1951

Digest:  The treasurer is directed, subject to the approval of a committee consisting of the governor, the comptroller, the public works commissioner and the commissioner of finance and control, to issue bonds of this state to an amount not exceeding one million dollars to construct faculty housing. At such time as permanent faculty housing constructed under the provisions of this act is available for occupancy, buildings numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 located in the north campus area shall be destroyed.

Commentary:  The fate of this faculty housing is not clear. The elimination of eight dormitories without a replacement strategy appears to set a pattern which has continued to this day.

5. Public Act 55-669: An Act Authorizing the State to Issue Bonds for the Construction of a Self-liquidating University Secondary School
Adopted: August 11, 1955

Digest:  This law establishes Edwin O. Smith School and authorizes $1.2 million to construct it.

Commentary:  UCONN has responsibility for the management of the school and tuition issues.

6. Public Act 55-67: An Act Authorizing the State to Issue Bonds for the Construction of a Self-liquidating University Secondary School
Adopted:  December 20, 1955

Digest:  This law enabled the creation of E.O. Smith High School by issuing $1.6 million in bonds to build a school for Mansfield and three or more surrounding towns.

Commentary: UCONN is charged with tuition and establishing the high school within Mansfield.

7.  Public Act 57-153:  An Act Authorizing the Board of Trustee of the University of Connecticut to Act as a local Board of Public Education
Adopted: May 1, 1957

Digest:  This law authorizes the University of Connecticut to serve as the local Board of Education for E.O. Smith High School for state and federal grants in aid.

Commentary:  The University was responsible for the town’s high school under a benign dictator form of government.

8. Special Act 57-671:  An Act Authorizing the State to Issue Bonds for the Construction of Educational Facilities at the University of Connecticut
Adopted:  June 19, 1957

Digest:  This authorized $6.36 Million for construction work of ten projects at the University of Connecticut. It also authorizes the University to retain an architect to complete this work.

Commentary:  UCONN is given greater authority over project and budgetary management with respect to its capital improvement program.


9. Public Act 57-423: An Act Concerning the University of Connecticut Auxiliary Services Fund
Adopted:  June 30, 1957

Digest: This law requires UCONN to get approval for any capital improvement project of $50,000 or more from the state legislature or in their absence from the finance advisory committee.

Commentary:  The State Legislature exercised enormous oversight over UCONN in the 1950s.

10. Public Act 57-14:  An Act Concerning a Bond issue for Educational Plant facilities at the University of Connecticut
Adopted:  October 2, 1957

Digest: This law authorizes UCONN to initiate 10 capital projects including a nuclear reactor for $100,000, a life sciences building for $3M and classroom facilities for $2M.

Commentary:  This law modified a 1955 law and a 1957 special act to give more flexibility to UCONN in the allocation of funds amongst the ten projects.

11. Public Act 69-530: An Act Concerning the Responsibilities of the Commission for Higher Education
Adopted:  1969

Digest:  The board of trustees of The University of Connecticut shall fix fees for tuition and for such other purposes as the board deems necessary at The University of Connecticut, subject to the approval of the commission for higher education, and may make refunds of the same.

Commentary:  This law gives the Board of Trustees authority to control tuition for its students subject to the approval of the commission of higher education.  This is a major step in empowering UCONN to control its revenue sources and be less dependent on the legislature.

12. Public Act No. 5: An Act Concerning Revenue Sources for the State of Connecticut
Adopted: July 8, 1971

Digest:  The board of trustees of The University of Connecticut shall fix fees for tuition of not less than three hundred and fifty dollars for residents of this state and not less than eight hundred fifty dollar for non-residents and shall fix fees for such other purposes as the board deems necessary at UCONN, subject to the approval of the commission for higher education. The status of a student as established at the time of application for admission at a constituent unit of the state system of higher education shall be his status for the entire period of his attendance at such constituent unit.

Commentary:  This law raised tuition for in state and out of state students and set precedent of allowing the Board of Trustees to determine tuition in Connecticut.

13. Public Act 72-119: An Act Concerning the Establishment of a Special Police Force for the University of Connecticut
Adopted: April 28, 1972

Digest: The jurisdiction of said special police force shall extend to the geographical limits of the property owned or under the control of The University of Connecticut in the town of Mansfield.

Commentary:  Growing enrollment and student issues triggered this decision.

14. Public Act 73-542:  An Act Concerning Waiver of Tuition at the Regional Community Colleges, the State Colleges, the State Technical Colleges and the University of Connecticut
Adopted:  June 15, 1973

Digest:  The board of trustees of The University of Connecticut shall fix fees for tuition of not less than three hundred fifty dollars for residents of this state and not less than eight hundred fifty dollars for nonresidents and may waive half the tuition for Vietnam veterans and the full tuition for children of POW or MIA soldiers.

Commentary:  Tuition fee threshold is lowered from 1969 but exemptions provided to encourage veterans and children of POW and MIA soldiers to go to college.

15. Public Act No. 74-266:  An Act Concerning Waiver of Tuition for Veterans
Adopted: May 31, 1974

Digest:  The board of trustees of UCONN shall fix fees for tuition of not less than three hundred fifty dollars for residents of this state and not less than eight hundred fifty dollars for nonresidents and shall fix fees for such other purposes as the board deems necessary subject to the approval of the commission for higher education.  The law modifies the 1973 law for veteran tuition waivers by requiring that they be residents of Connecticut.

Commentary:  The 1973 law was too permissive in scope and required a refocus to veterans within Connecticut.

16. Special Act No. 75-77: An Act Creating a Blue Ribbon Commission to Establish Specific Goals for the University of Connecticut Health Center
Adopted:  July 1, 1975

Digest:  There shall be a special commission to establish and detail the purposes and goals for The University of Connecticut Health Center.

Commentary:  The Health Center is a major expansion of the University of Connecticut system.

17. Public Act 75-504: An Act Concerning Representation on the Boards of Trustees of Public Institutions of Higher Education
Adopted: July 1, 1975

Digest:  This law increased the Governor’s appointees to the University of Connecticut’s Board of Trustees from two to four representatives.

Commentary: This is one of many steps in which political influence has grown over University of Connecticut decisions.

18. Public Act 81-466: An Act Establishing Tuition Funds for the University of Connecticut and the University of Connecticut Health Center and Increasing Tuition Fees at the State Colleges, the Regional Community Colleges and the State Technical Colleges
Adopted:  June 23, 1981

Digest: The board of trustees of The University of Connecticut shall fix fees for tuition (1) of not less than seven hundred fifty dollars for residents of this state and not less than one thousand three hundred dollars for nonresidents enrolled in the school of law, (2) of not less than one thousand dollars for residents of this state and not less than two thousand dollars for nonresidents enrolled in the school of medicine or dental medicine and (3) of not less than five hundred forty dollars for all other residents of this state and not less than one thousand two hundred thirty dollars for all other nonresidents and shall fix fees for such other purposes as the board deems necessary at The University of Connecticut, subject to the approval of the board of higher education.

Commentary: This law is one of many that shows the growing cost of higher education – especially for out of state students.

19. Public Act No. 82-91: An Act to Implement the Appropriations Act for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1983
Adopted:  May 6, 1982

Digest:  This law authorized the University of Connecticut to raise tuition for out of state students to meet a financial threshold set by the state legislature of $1, 837,680 for FY 1983.

Commentary:  This is one of many government sanctioned examples where out of state students are used as a cash cow to achieve the fiscal objectives of the University as well as that of the state legislature.

20. Public Act 82-463:  An Act Concerning Tuition Waivers at Public Institutions of Higher Education and Increase in Tuition for Non-Resident Students
Adopted: May 21, 1982

Digest: The board of trustees of The University of Connecticut shall fix fees for tuition (1) of not less than seven hundred fifty dollars for residents of this state and not less than one thousand three hundred dollars for nonresidents enrolled in the school of law, (2) of not less than one thousand dollars for residents of this state and not less than two thousand dollars for nonresidents enrolled in the school of medicine or dental medicine and (3) of not less than five hundred forty dollars for all other residents of this state and not less than one thousand two hundred thirty dollars for all other nonresidents and shall fix fees for such other purposes as the board deems necessary at The University of Connecticut, subject to the approval of the board of higher education, and may make refunds of the same. The board of trustees shall, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1983, implement a tuition schedules which shall increase fees for tuition for any nonresident student, except nonresident medical and dental students, provided the tuition schedule shall be designed to collect tuition revenue in an amount equal to one million, eight hundred thirty-seven thousand six hundred eighty dollars.

Commentary: This law creates incentives for the collection of tuition from non-residents as a means to achieve specific financial goals of the university.


21. Public Act 84-465:   An Act Concerning the Establishment of Tuition funds for the Regional Community Colleges and the Connecticut State University
Adopted: June 4, 1984

Digest: This law establishes the Connecticut State University tuition fund for tracking revenues generated by the state university system. The fund’s expenditures can’t exceed that authorized by the Governor.

Commentary:  This appears to be a means for greater fiscal accountability in the use of student generated funds.

22. Special Act 84-442: An Act Concerning Authorization of State Grant Commitments for School Construction Projects
Adopted: June 7, 1984

Digest: This law enabled E.O. Smith High School to receive a grant of $5M for capital improvements. It also authorized the quit claim transfer of the title to ownership of the school’s land & buildings from the UCONN to the towns of Mansfield and Ashford effective July 1, 1987.

Commentary:  The University of Connecticut had owned the town’s high school since its inception in the mid-1950s. This transfer was a major step in enabling the towns to control their own high school.

23. Public Act 85-108:  An Act Concerning the Development of a Connecticut Technology Park at Storrs
Adopted: June 7, 1985

Digest: The University of Connecticut may, enter into a lease for the total rent of one dollar with The University of Connecticut Educational Properties, Inc. (UCEPI), for all or any portion of the land under its custody and control known as the North Campus, consisting of 390 acres, more or less, situated in the town of Mansfield.  This grant of land is for the creation of a research technology park, hotel and conference center, office and residential facilities and such other use or uses as shall, in the judgment of the board of trustees, enhance and benefit The University of Connecticut as a major research institution, provide increased housing for university staff, students and others, and enable the university to participate to a greater extent in the state's program of economic development. Any such lease shall provide that the board of directors of UCEPI may oversee all aspects of such development.  The town of Mansfield was allowed to tax properties developed on this parcel.

Digest:  This law enabled the University of Connecticut to switch from an educational institution to a business development institution in coordination with UCEPI.

24. Public Act 85-544: An Act Providing funds for the Extension of Water and Sewer Services of the University of Connecticut to certain low and moderate income Housing in Mansfield and concerning factors considered by the Commissioner of Environmental Protection in Granting Diversion Permits
Adopted:  July 5, 1985

Digest:  UCONN’s board of trustees is authorized to enter into an agreement with the town of Mansfield and the Mansfield Housing Authority to permit extension of the water line and sewer system of The University of Connecticut to certain real property in the town of Mansfield on which the Mansfield Housing Authority will undertake a housing project for the purpose of developing housing predominantly for low and moderate income families.  The extension of the water line and sewer system of UCONN is for the sole purpose of providing water and sewer service for this housing, provided there shall be no cost to UCONN as a result of the extension.  This law also altered the criteria the state could use to approve a water diversion permit.

Commentary: The University’s sewer and water service have been a means of urbanizing the areas surrounding the university’s campus enabling a development pattern the university’s administration favors since it fosters off campus housing and business development supporting its business mission. Interestingly enough, this law also altered the criteria for issuing a water diversion permit to allow consideration of the interests of the towns that would be affected by the diversion. This would turn out to be a critical change in the law that enabled UCONN to obtain a water diversion permit 28 years later.

25. Special Act No. 89-36 An Act Authorizing the University of Connecticut to Convey or Lease land to the Connecticut Fraternal Housing Corporation and to the University of Connecticut Chapter of the American Association of University Professors
Adopted: June 26, 1989

Digest:  Effective June 26, 1989 and for the next five years, the University of Connecticut is authorized to building student housing for fraternal organizations on a 24.17 acre parcel owned by the University and Timothy Costello. The law allows the provision of sewer and water services to the proposed student housing.

Commentary: This represents the first effort by the University of Connecticut to return fraternities to on campus housing.

26. Public Act 90-259:  An Act Concerning Campus Safety
Adopted:  June 8, 1990

Digest:  On or before September 1, 1991, and annually thereafter, each institution of higher education shall prepare in such manner as the commissioner of higher education shall prescribe a uniform campus crime report concerning crimes committed in the immediately preceding calendar year within the geographical limits of the property owned or under the control of such institution.  This law also requires UCONN to notify all new applicants and all new employees of these crime reports.  The law also protects those who wish to report crimes to university or local police.

Commentary:  Increasing crime problems on UCONN’s campus led to the enactment of this legislation.

27. Public Act 95-230: An Act to Enhance the Infrastructure of the University of Connecticut
Adopted:  June 7, 1995

Digest: The purpose of The University of Connecticut 2000 Act is to promote the welfare and prosperity of the people of the state and the continuation and improvement of their educational opportunities by approving a special capital improvement program for The University of Connecticut and enabling The University of Connecticut to borrow money and enter into financing transactions in its own name, on behalf of the state, to expand the authority of The University of Connecticut to construct projects and to assure a state commitment to support the financing of the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement and equipping of facilities, structures and related systems for the benefit of the educational and economic development needs of the state and The University of Connecticut, all to the public benefit and good, and the exercise of the powers, to the extent and manner provided in the UCONN 2000 Act, is declared to be for a public purpose and to be the exercise of an essential governmental function. It authorizes $980,000,000 in general obligation bonds for a ten year period for projects estimated to cost $1.250 Billion.   The law indicates that as long as any securities are outstanding that the University has established, it will charge, collect and increase, from time to time, and in time tuition fees and charges for its educational services, its auxiliary enterprises, including dormitory housing, food services and sale of textbooks and use of the physical university plant and for all other services and goods provided by the university, the amount of which, together with other assured revenues or other revenues otherwise available to the university including proceeds  available from the special external gift fund shall in each of its fiscal years be sufficient to pay when due, the special debt service requirements on outstanding securities.  This law also allows UCONN to issue its own securities to fund the work of UCONN 2000.  At the request of the university, filed with the commissioner of public works, the university may assume, and thereafter shall, have charge and supervision of the design, planning, acquisition, remodeling, alteration, repair, enlargement, demolition of any real asset or any other project, which is authorized and underway as of the effective date of this act.  The law also authorizes zoning exemptions for projects in the UCONN 2000 initiative that are located in business zones.

Commentary:  This law essentially transforms UCONN from an educational institution with business responsibilities to a business institution with educational responsibilities. UCONN’s aggressive increases in tuition stem from this enabling legislation. This law also freed UCONN from the oversight of the Commissioner of Public Works enabling UCONN to be an independent contractor for its own services (see Section 14 of the Act).  This also authorizes UCONN to build in any zone that allows commercial structures without requiring compliance with Mansfield’s zoning regulations.

28. Public Act 96-244:  An Act Concerning Revision to the Education Statutes
Adopted: June 6, 1996

Digest:  Among many other items, this law exempts any hotel or mercantile property built on a 349 acre parcel in North Campus from Mansfield property tax for seven years and then gradually increases the tax rate until it achieves parity with town valuation standards after the 10th year.  This law also authorizes $868,000,000 for the UCONN 2000 projects. The University of Connecticut Educational Properties, Inc. is responsible for the development of this land under a 1985 act of the legislature.

Commentary:  This law makes it clear that Mansfield can’t tax any developments within the UCEPI domain for a minimum of 7 years and then another three years before it can be fully taxed. This economic incentive makes no sense if indeed the University has any locational advantages that would attract hotels and corporate facilities. It would prove to be a pipe dream for many years and indeed even today nothing has yet been built on the UCEPI property – although one building is near completion after over 30 years of dilly dallying around.

29. Public Act 97-293:  An Act Concerning Advancement of Public Institutions of Higher Education
Adopted: July 18, 1997

Digest:  The Board of Trustees of the Connecticut State University system shall establish a permanent Endowment Fund for the Connecticut State University system to encourage donations from the private sector, with an incentive in the form of an Endowment Fund state grant, the net earnings on the principal of which are dedicated and made available to a state university or the Connecticut State University system as a whole, for endowed professorships, scholarships and programmatic enhancements.

Commentary:  UCONN’s building program requires enormous fiscal resources and as a result the legislature is encouraging UCONN to seek alternative funding sources.

30. Public Act 98-124: An Act Concerning Interest Rate Risk Management Agreements in Connection with State Bonds and Expanding Certain Investment Options for State Bond Proceeds
Adopted: May 27, 1998

Digest: This law provides UCONN with authority to enter into flexible and innovative credit arrangements as long as they are judged to be safe by national risk management associations.

Commentary: UCONN is in desperate need of funding and is seeking flexibility to maximize its interest income and reduce debt service.

31.   Public Act No. 00-192 An Act Concerning Individual Development Accounts Among many other topics
Adopted:  May 26, 2000

Digest: This law is a pork barrel of state funded projects including a continued support for the Homer Babbidge Library project in Mansfield.

Commentary:  The library renovation project was a financial disaster.

32.   Public Act No. 06-134: An Act Concerning Construction Oversight at the University of Connecticut and the Pre-Qualification of Substantial Contractors
Adopted: June 6, 2006

Digest: Effective July 1, 2006 auditors are required to conduct annual investigation of UCONN’s building practices for a period of five years.  This was prompted by years of waste, fraud and abuse within UCONN 2000 construction project.  The law also required a construction oversight committee.  The law also required the University of Connecticut to establish the construction assurance office as a full time office to review the performance of UCONN 2000. The law also allowed for the delegation of state building code and fire code enforcement to the University of Connecticut. It also required total cost basis contracts.

Commentary: Unfortunately this authority has expired even though its need remains constant. The University of Connecticut was mismanaging millions of dollars of construction contracts and misusing state contracting procedures. The Construction Management Oversight Committee (CMOC) is now defunct as several legislators resigned resulting in an insufficient membership for a quorum. Lacking a quorum the CMOC has been rolled into UCONN's Building, Grounds and Envronmental Committee (BGE) which inevitably falls short of the intended purpose of Public Act 06-134.

33. Public Act No. 07-166: An Act Concerning the Faculty at the Public Institutions of Higher Education and Revisions to Various Higher Education Statutes
Adopted: June 19, 2007

Digest: This law covers a wide array of topics but most importantly it authorized a construction management oversight committee to monitor UCONN.  The members appointed shall have expertise in the fields of construction management, architectural design or construction project management. The construction management oversight committee shall review and approve the policies and procedures developed by The University of Connecticut to undertake any project of UCONN 2000, concerning the selection of design professionals and contractors, contract compliance, building and fire code compliance, deferred maintenance, and an annual budget for such maintenance, project and program budgets and schedules and the authorization and review of contract changes. There is no expiration date on the committee’s function.

Commentary:  This law established a long term oversight function over UCONN’s building program.

34. Public Act No. 07-108: An Act Concerning the Connecticut Higher Education Supplemental Loan Authority and the Schedule of Estimates Costs of UCONN 2000 Projects
Adopted: July 1, 2007

Digest:  This law authorized $1.348 Billion in bonds for phase 3 of University of Connecticut projects (2005 to 2015). Phases 1 and 2 authorized $1.250 Billion in bonds. The university may administer, manage, schedule, finance, further design and construct UCONN 2000, to operate and maintain the components thereof in a prudent and economical manner and to reserve for and make renewals and replacements thereof when appropriate, it being hereby determined and found to be in the best interest of the state and the university to provide this independent authority.  The law also created a body politic and corporate to be known as the "Connecticut Higher Education Supplemental Loan Authority to administer the education loan program and revenue bonds used to finance UCONN 2000.

Commentary: This law gives an enormous amount of power to an administrative agency to issue revenue bonds without state legislative oversight.

35. Public Act No. 09-7: An Act Implementing the Provisions of the Budget Concerning General Government and Making Changes to Various Programs
Adopted: October 5, 2009

Digest: While this law covers a wide range of budget issues, its relevance is that the commissioner of Public Works is given greater authority to terminate contractors and sub-contractors for cause.

Commentary: Oversight of government contractors is improved by this law.

36. Special Act No. 09-9: An Act Authorizing the University of Connecticut to Receive and Treat Sewage from the town of Mansfield
Adopted: June 29, 2009

Digest: UCONN’s Board of Trustees may enter into an agreement with the town of Mansfield to receive and treat sewage from the Four Corners area of said town. The board of trustees may grant easements over land owned by the university for the purpose of constructing a sewer system to convey the sewage from the Four Comers area to the sewer collection system of the university.

Commentary:  This law, while presumably helping UCONN is actually a tool that now allows UCONN to expand into other areas of Mansfield that are zoned for business purposes.

37. Public Act 10-104: An Act Establishing the University of Connecticut Health Network and Connecticut Bio-Science Initiative
Adopted: June 3, 2010

Digest: This law, while covering health center budget issues, also authorizes the University of Connecticut to expand its construction budget to $1.555 Billion over the period 2005 to 2018 thereby superseding previous legislation enacted by the State legislature. The bonds issued pursuant to this act shall be general obligations of the state and the full faith and credit of the state of Connecticut are pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on said bonds as the same become due, and accordingly and as part of the contract of the state with the holders of said bonds, appropriation of all amounts necessary for punctual payment of such principal and interest is hereby made, and the Treasurer shall pay such principal and interest as the same become due. Not later than June 30, 2011, the president of The University of Connecticut and the Governor's designee shall notify the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management whether not less than one hundred million dollars in federal, private or other non-state money has been contributed pursuant to section 10a-109e of the general statutes, as amended by this act. In the event the notification states that such money has not been contributed, construction on The University of Connecticut Health Center new construction and renovation shall not commence until such money has been raised, at which time construction may commence.

Commentary: The state is responsible for the debts created by UCONN if it defaults. This law forces UCONN to achieve a $100 million pledge before work can proceed.

38. Public Act No. 11-75: AN Act Concerning the University of Connecticut Health Center
Adopted: July 8, 2011

Digest: This law extends the bonding obligation of the state to $1.818 billion to cover additional Health Center construction projects. Under this law, the university shall be entitled to rely on the amount of the state debt service commitment and minimum state operating provision as and for assured revenues in any financing transaction proceeding, provided, to the extent any such proceeding includes reliance on such state debt service commitment and such minimum state operating provision, the university commits to a rate covenant and covenants, in substance, with the state and the holders of its securities to the effect that as long as any securities thereunder are outstanding that it has established and will charge, collect and increase, from time to time, and in time tuition fees and charges for its educational services, its auxiliary enterprises, including dormitory housing, food services and sale of textbooks and use of the physical university plant and for all other services and goods provided by the university, the amount of which, together with other assured revenues or other revenues otherwise available to the university including proceeds available from the Special External Gift Fund shall in each of its fiscal years be sufficient to pay when due, the special debt service requirements on outstanding securities and to permit the university to operate and maintain itself as an institution dedicated to excellence in higher education and to operate and maintain the physical university plant in sound operating condition and to otherwise permit the performance of all covenants included in the financing documents. This law raised the bond issuance authority of the state bond commission from $30M to $32M.

Commentary:  This law clearly allows UCONN to raise tuition to pay for its enormous debt without any constraints imposed by the state legislature.  This is a major transformation of the free tuition system that UCONN provided prior to 1971.

39. Public Act No. 12-156: An Act Concerning Revisions to the Higher Education Statutes
Adopted: June 15, 2012

Digest:  This law allows the University of Connecticut to establish endowed chairs if a grant of $500,000 can be raised.

Commentary:  This law authorizes the university to look for superstar professors to enhance its national reputation and attract more students.

40. Public Act 13-233: An Act Concerning Next Generation Connecticut
Adopted: July 1, 2013

Digest:  The purpose of The University of Connecticut 2000 Act is to promote the welfare and prosperity of the people of the state and the continuation and improvement of their educational opportunities by approving a special capital improvement program for The University of Connecticut and enabling The University of Connecticut to borrow money and enter into financing transactions in its own name, on behalf of the state, to expand the authority of The University of Connecticut to construct projects and to assure a state commitment to support the financing of the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement and equipping of facilities, structures and related systems for the benefit of the educational and economic development needs of the state and The University of Connecticut, all to the public benefit and good, and the exercise of the powers, to the extent and manner provided in The University of Connecticut 2000 Act, is declared to be for a public purpose and to be the exercise of an essential governmental function. This law limits UCONN’s debt for the period 1996 to 2005 to $2.034 Billion and for the period 2006 to 2024 to $3.270 Billion. The law also enables sub-committees of the Board of Trustees to have enormous power as follows: The board of trustees of the university is hereby authorized by such resolution to delegate to its finance committee such matters as it may determine appropriate other than the authorization and maximum amount of the securities to be issued, the nature of the obligation of the securities as established pursuant to subsection (c) of this section and the projects for which the proceeds are to be used. The finance committee may act on such matters unless and until the board of trustees elects to re-assume the same.  This law also increases the maximum debt service that the legislature will enable UCONN to create during the period 2014 to 2018 by over ½ Billion dollars but then allows it to resume to previously established levels after 2018. The State legislature reaffirmed its support for the university to have charge and supervision of the design, planning, acquisition, remodeling, alteration, repair, enlargement or demolition of any real asset or any other project on its campuses through the year 2024.


Commentary:  This level of debt service – an aggregate of $5.3 Billion for the two phases - is outrageous and underscores the complete recklessness of UCONN’s viral growth of the last twenty years without regard to its consequences to Connecticut taxpayers (who are responsible for paying off the General Obligation bonds) or to the students who are now experiencing dramatically higher and uncontrolled tuition.  Deferred building maintenance has been increased from $215M to $805M for the period 2005 to 2024 under this law. This law increased UCONN’s total approved capital investment strategy from $1.818 Billion to $3.369 Billion. 

Research Methods:
Details on the sources and methods used in this research can be found by clicking on Notes on the Research Supporting this Blog.