Ridgefield Housing Authority v. Ridgefield Water Pollution Control Authority, 131 Conn. App. 251

Ridgefield Housing Authority sought a permanent injunction prohibiting Ridgefield Water Pollution Control Authority from seeking further hookup fee payments and from collecting or refunding payments in excess of a fair and reasonable connection fee.
PILOT statute § 8-119gg caps payments by housing authorities in lieu of taxes, assessments, and sewer charges; the PILOT agreement with Ridgefield incorporated that cap.
Defendant imposed a $5,700 per unit hookup/connection fee to fund 14% of a sewer expansion; plaintiff paid installments and obtained occupancy certificates.
The trial court treated the fee as an assessment, not a true connection fee, and held it subject to the PILOT cap; it ordered a refund for excess payments.
Plaintiff argued the fee functioned as a special benefit assessment subject to the PILOT cap, making the injunction and refund proper; defendant argued the fee was a legitimate connection fee under § 7-255 not subject to the PILOT cap.
The appellate court upheld subject matter jurisdiction and affirmed the injunction and refund order, finding the fee improperly shifted costs in contravention of PILOT provisions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies under § 7-255	Plaintiff argues § 7-255 does not deprive court of jurisdiction and applicability depends on PILOT implications, not timing	Defendant argues plaintiff failed to exhaust under § 7-255 because the 1992 charge schedule required appeals within 21 days	§ 7-255 exhaustion not required; court had jurisdiction to hear merits
Whether § 7-246a applies to bar the action	§ 7-246a does not apply to this dispute over PILOT cap and hookup fees	§ 7-246a applies to agency decisions; plaintiff did not pursue administrative appeal	§ 7-246a did not deprive trial court of jurisdiction; jurisdiction proper; merits reviewed on statutory interpretation
Whether PILOT cap exempts plaintiff from the disputed fee and supports injunction and refund	PILOT cap exempts housing authorities from sewer charges related to capital costs; fee was effectively a special benefit assessment	Fee was a connection charge under § 7-255 not subject to PILOT cap; naming does not control outcome	PILOT agreement and § 8-119gg exempt plaintiff from the fee; injunction and refund proper

Forest Walk, LLC v. Water Pollution Control Authority, 291 Conn. 271 (2009) (exhaustion of administrative remedies and scope of review for agency action)
O & G Industries, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 232 Conn. 419 (1995) (exhaustion of administrative remedies and subject matter jurisdiction)
River Bend Associates, Inc. v. Water Pollution Control Authority, 262 Conn. 84 (2002) (limits of agency review and appeal procedures)
Carpenter v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 176 Conn. 581 (1979) (independent action cannot substitute for statutory appeal)
Cyr v. Coventry, 216 Conn. 436 (1990) (alternative funding methods for sewer projects; funding mechanisms)
Shoreline Care Ltd. Partnership v. North Branford, 231 Conn. 344 (1994) (special benefit assessments; increase in property value)
Bridge Street Associates v. Water Pollution Control Authority, 15 Conn.App. 140 (1988) (limits of special assessments vs. another funding method)
Bridgeport v. New York & N.H. R. Co., 36 Conn. 255 (1869) (principles of special assessments and local improvements)