cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
1
April 26, 2012
CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY
SENATE
April 26, 2012
The Senate was called to order at 12:12 p.m., the
President in the Chair.
THE CLERK:
The Senate will convene immediately.
convene immediately.
The Senate will
THE CHAIR:
Senate please come to order. Members and guests
please rise and direct your attention to Rabbi
Lazowski who will lead us in a prayer.
ACTING CHAPLAIN RABBI PHILLIP LAZOWSKI:
Our thought for today is from the book of Job Chapter
12, verse 13. “With God is wisdom and strength, He has
counsel and understanding.”
Let us pray. Almighty God, we ask your blessings of
our Senators, for its leaders and advisors, and for
all who exercise just and rightful authority. Teach
them the insight of our constitution, that they may
administer all affairs in our beloved state fairly.
That peace and security, happiness and prosperity,
justice and freedom may forever abide in our midst.
As we work together for the people of this State of
Connecticut, may we do what is right and pleasing in
Your sight. Lead us in trust and integrity. Today is
Israel’s independence. We pray for peace in Israel
and peace in the whole world and we ask to bless our
President, our nation, our state and our leaders. Keep
our defenders of freedom in your safe care.
Hear our prayer as we pray and let us all say Amen.
THE CHAIR:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
2
April 26, 2012
Thank you, Rabbi.
Senator Maynard would you come and lead us in the
Pledge of Allegiance sir?
SENATOR MAYNARD:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you both very much.
And now I can move on to points of personal privilege
and right now I thought I had Senator Meyer -- no I
guess not -- then I’ll go to Senator Boucher.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Thank you, Madam President.
Good morning to everyone.
THE CHAIR:
Good morning.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
I have a point of personal privilege.
I’m very --
THE CHAIR:
Please proceed, Ma’am.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Thank you, Madam President.
I’m very proud to introduce a Connecticut artist,
Connecticut resident and master sculptor Peter Rubino.
He’s been creating art for over 40 years and has
achieved international acclaim with numerous private
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
3
April 26, 2012
and corporate commissions. Among his many works,
Mother of All Life, a ten foot historic monument that
graces the Boyko Research Center at the Ben-Gurion
University in Israel and today being the birth of -of 65 years of this amazing country, our great friend
and ally in the Middle East, it’s very apropos to
introduce Peter.
He also has another sculpture, Angel, a 35 foot
feature -- figure created for the Walt Disney Company.
Mr. Rubino is the author of two Random House
publications, The Portrait in Clay and Sculpting -the Figure in Clay, both books are distributed
world-wide and have been translated into numerous
languages.
As an educator of art and fine art he’s worked with
prestigious institutions such as the Brooklyn Museum
of Art, School of the National Academy Museum of Fine
Art in New York City as well as our own Silvermine Art
Guild in New Canaan, Connecticut.
He currently conducts sculpture workshops throughout
the United States and Italy and 20 years ago Peter
developed an original extreme sculpting presentation
called Symphony in Clay for those art aficionados and
music aficionados. Typically performing for fund
raising events, he swiftly transforms 250 pounds of
clay into a monumental bust of Beethoven in just 20
minutes, choreographed to the composer’s music,
amazing.
Mr. Rubino exhibits extensively in the United States
and specializes in portrait sculpture. He also
skillfully captured the like -- likeness of such
luminaries as our own Wilton resident David Brubeck,
he’s international jazz musician, baseball legend Babe
Ruth, which I have one of those luckily, and the 44th
president of the United States, Barack Obama, just to
name a few.
Peter is also a veteran and as such he is deeply
connected to his latest creation which is called
Remembrance and a small replica of it is right here in
our own Chamber. The full size is now and can be seen
right outside the House Chamber here in the
Legislature. This is dedicated to honoring
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
4
April 26, 2012
Connecticut’s fallen heroes and it was created in
association with the Connecticut Foreign Heroes
Foundation and was unveiled by Brigadier General
Barrye Price at the 8th annual Connecticut Fallen
Heroes Memorial Tribute in Trumbull.
The foundation is seeking to establish permanent
memorial sites in Connecticut with a monument of Mr.
Rubino’s sculpture Remembrance as the central element.
Remembrance and the bust of Barack Obama are currently
on display as I said in front of the House Chambers
and I think we should all take a moment if we can
before it leaves our area to view it and hopefully you
can also invite Mr. Rubino to come to your district
and to your veterans’ post to discuss this beautiful
Remembrance of all -- which we are all proud and I
hope that you will all stand and give Peter a rousing
welcome to our Chamber. We’re very proud of him as a
resident of our own Connecticut.
Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
Peter it’s wonderful to see you again. Thank you so
very, very much and your work -- if you haven’t seen
it outside the House Chamber please go down and see
it, it’s absolutely magnificent. Thank you so much.
Points of personal privilege?
Senator Meyer.
SENATOR MEYER:
Thank you, Madam President.
Indeed a point of personal privilege. This is a first
for me. I don’t know about other members of the
Circle but we have in our presence today a winning
mock trial team of eighth graders from Our Lady of
Mercy School in Madison. They’re sitting actually
right up there in the corner. They -- they’ve had
seven state championships. They had a championship
season this year. Their team, a mock trial team,
consists of six attorneys and three witnesses and this
year’s case was a criminal case that involved a gang
related robbery.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
5
April 26, 2012
As I said they -- they actually won the middle school
mock trial state championship a month or so ago and
they -- they won it at the Connecticut Appellate Court
right here in Hartford. This is a remarkable group of
young people. Those of us who are attorneys are going
to urge you to think about the legal profession but I
just want to ask the Circle to give them a warm
welcome and support.
THE CHAIR:
As the Senator says we hope that you do become lawyers
but we prefer you to be Senators some of us. So
please look to that also and congratulations. We know
how difficult that must have been for you but keep up
the good work. Thank you for coming and visiting us.
At this point are there any other points of personal
privilege?
Seeing none, Mr. Clerk is there any business on your
desk?
THE CLERK:
Madam President, there is no business on the Clerk’s
desk.
THE CHAIR:
Good afternoon, Senator Majority Leader Looney.
are you this afternoon?
How
SENATOR LOONEY:
Good afternoon, Madam President.
Madam President, we will begin by marking several
calendar items and will then return for additional
markings thereafter.
First beginning propitiously, two items to place on a
Consent Calendar to begin and those are under Matters
Returned From Committee on calendar page 31, Calendar
184, Senate Bill Number 94. Madam President, move to
place that item on the Consent Calendar.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
6
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
So ordered, sir.
SENATOR LOONEY:
And also, Madam President, calendar page 32, Calendar
185, Senate Bill Number 190, would move to place that
item on the Consent Calendar.
THE CHAIR:
So ordered, sir.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
Now to mark some items as go, returning to Favorable
Reports, first calendar page 2, Calendar 116, marked
go. Then moving to calendar page 10, Calendar 318,
Senate Bill 137, marked go. Also calendar page 10,
Calendar 319, Senate Bill Number 177, marked go.
Calendar page 12, Calendar 336, Senate Bill Number
141, marked go. Calendar page 13, Calendar 344,
Senate Bill 143, marked go.
In addition, Madam President, like to mark on Calendar
-- under Matters Returned from Committee, calendar
page 30, Calendar 134, Senate Bill 289 also marked go
and, Madam President, under Matters Returned from
Committee calendar page 33, Calendar 220, Senate Bill
351 marked go.
So we will begin with those items, Madam President.
Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Clerk, please start with the Calendar.
THE CLERK:
Calling from today’s calendar, page 2, Calendar 116,
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
7
April 26, 2012
Substitute for Senate Bill 282, AN ACT CONCERNING THE
RETURN OF A GIFT TO A PERSON IN NEED OF LONG-TERM CARE
SERVICES, favorable report of the Committee on Aging.
THE CHAIR:
Good afternoon, Senator Prague.
SENATOR PRAGUE:
Good afternoon, Madam President.
Madam President, I move the Joint Committee’s
favorable report and passage of the bill.
THE CHAIR:
The question is on adoption and passage.
remark, Ma’am?
Will you
SENATOR PRAGUE:
Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, the Clerk has in his possession
Amendment LCO 3080. Would he be -- please call I be
allowed to summarize?
THE CHAIR:
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
LCO 3080 will be designated Senate Amendment Schedule
A.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Prague.
SENATOR PRAGUE:
Thank you, Madam President.
I move adoption.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
8
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
The question is on adoption.
Will you remark, please?
SENATOR PRAGUE:
Thank -- thank you.
The underlying bill is from the Department of Social
Services and it says that if somebody has transferred
assets within a five year period before they applied
for Title 19, that there is a penalty period for the
amount of money that was transferred. When somebody
applies for Medicaid, that penalty period has to be
acknowledged before the application from Medicaid can
be certified.
What the bill does -- what the amendment does it says
that if part of that gift that was transferred is
returned, then whatever part of the penalty period
that gift that was -- that part of a gift that was
returned will pay for will be deducted off of that
penalty period.
For instance if somebody gives 50,000 to a family
member, for round figures let’s say it costs $10,000 a
month and -- for the care of somebody in a nursing
home. It doesn’t cost that much. It costs somewhere
a little over six but just for round figures let’s use
ten. There would be a five month penalty period
because ten times five is fifty before that person
could have the benefits under Medicaid.
But if part of that 50 was returned, say 30,000 was
returned, then the penalty period would be reduced by
three months. So the penalty period can be reduced if
there is partial return of that transfer of assets and
let’s remember that in any transfer of assets there
has to be a recognition of the fact that that elderly
person was not transferring those assets to avoid
paying for nursing home care, that the person was in
good health and was enjoying life and then all of a
sudden they became ill and wound up in a nursing home.
It’s then that this transfer of asset problem arises.
But if you can prove that there was no intention of
defrauding the system by transferring assets, then,
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
9
April 26, 2012
you know, that’s another situation where there would
not be a penalty period.
But be that as it may right now with the transfer of
assets within that five year period that the gov -federal government says is required, that if you do
transfer those assets trying to avoid paying your care
in a nursing home and going on Medicaid, then there is
this penalty period and this amendment would allow
partial payment to reduce that penalty period.
Again, Madam President, I move adoption. This is a
very important issue in the growing nursing home
population.
Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark?
sir.
Senator Kelly.
Just (inaudible),
Senator Kelly please.
SENATOR KELLY:
Thank you, Madam President.
And thank you, Senator Prague, for your leadership on
this issue. It is an important issue with regards to
long-term care because under the current rules unless,
as -- as Senator Prague has indicated, there is what’s
known as a look back period when we have a Medicaid
application of five years and if an applicant makes a
transfer within that five year period for
uncompensated value, it results -- it’s deemed
improper and results in a penalty period of
ineligibility.
Now what we might have in the using the $50,000
example that Senator Prague used, let’s say I’ve got
two children, one is graduating from college and
getting married and we have a wedding and we pay for
that wedding with $25,000, we give them a gift and
they spend it on the wedding. Another child uses the
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
10
April 26, 2012
$25,000, buys a home.
Unbeknownst to me four years later after those
transferred occurred, I have a stroke. I need nursing
home care. I go back to my two children and say look
I made an improper transfer. I didn’t know that at
the time that I made the transfer but now that I’m
looking at nursing home care they say I need to return
the gifts.
So I go to my son who bought the house and say can you
scare up the cash and thank God he’s paid his
mortgage, he’s on top of things, his property has
appreciated and he can get the equity out of the home
and he gives me back the $25,000.
However my daughter, whose wedding we gave the $25,000
due -- to, used the money for the wedding. Doesn’t
have the -- the money to give back and under the
current rules -- so I don’t get the money back. Under
the current rules unless I return all 50, I cannot
reduce the penalty period. So I’m going to face a
five month period of ineligibility even though I could
put 25,000 back into my healthcare costs.
So what in essence happens is an impediment to current
individuals placing their assets back into the system
which we want them to do. Instead, if I don’t get all
the money back, it’s beneficial for me to get no money
back because I’m going to have the penalty period
either way.
So what this amendment will do it will encourage at
least a partial return of the asset for that
individual going into a nursing home to use towards
the cost of their care. For those reasons I think
this is a good amendment. It’s a good bill and once
again I’d like to thank Senator Prague for her
leadership on this issue.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark?
Will you remark?
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
11
April 26, 2012
Senator Welch.
SENATOR WELCH:
Thank you, Madam President.
I -- I just have a question or two to the proponent of
the amendment.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Prague, prepare yourself.
Please proceed, sir.
SENATOR WELCH:
Thank you, Madam President.
I’m very unfamiliar with this part of the law and so I
just -- I’m hoping for some clarification and my
question, through you, Madam President, is the penalty
determined by federal law and then, if so, are we
allowed under federal law to make this kind of partial
provision?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Prague.
SENATOR PRAGUE:
Through you, Madam President, Senator Welch it’s my
understanding that we are allowed to make this
provision. Yes it is under federal law but we are
allowed, as a state, to make this adjustment.
SENATOR WELCH:
Great, thank you.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Welch.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
12
April 26, 2012
SENATOR WELCH:
And that’s all I have, Madam President.
Thank you very much.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark?
Will you remark?
If not, all in favor of the amendment please say, aye.
SENATORS:
Aye.
THE CHAIR:
Opposed?
The amendment passes.
Would you like to remark further on the bill?
you like to remark further on the bill?
Would
Senator Prague.
SENATOR PRAGUE:
Madam President, if there’s no objection, I would ask
if this could be placed on Consent.
THE CHAIR:
Seeing no objection, so ordered.
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
On page 10, Calendar 318, Substitute for Senate Bill
Number 137, AN ACT CONCERNING FEAR OF RETALIATION
TRAINING IN NURSING HOME FACILITIES, favorable report
of the Committee on Public Health.
THE CHAIR:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
13
April 26, 2012
Senator Prague.
SENATOR PRAGUE:
Thank you, Madam President.
I’m a little slow this morning.
THE CHAIR:
That’s okay.
We have plenty of time.
SENATOR PRAGUE:
I move the Joint Committee’s favorable report and
passage of the bill.
THE CHAIR:
The motion is on -- on passage.
Will you remark?
SENATOR PRAGUE:
Madam President, it is hard to believe that people in
nursing homes live in the fear of retaliation for
something they might have said or for some request
they might have made. I have always said that every
senior’s nightmare is to wind up in a nursing home and
when this information about fear of retaliation came
to the attention of the Aging Committee I am
completely convinced that we must do everything we can
to keep people in the community at home where they are
comfortable and where they can be loved and respected.
This fear of retaliation issue came to our attention
from a very reliable source and that’s our state
ombudsman. There is a Patient’s Bill of Rights that
every nursing home has to abide by and every year they
offer training to their staff about the Patient’s Bill
of Rights. This bill will mandate that included in
that training -- it’s an annual training that’s
required, is this issue of the fear of retaliation.
Staff has a big job. The staff in nursing homes are
responsible for the care of these frail disabled
people and dis -- and -- and elderly people and
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
14
April 26, 2012
sometimes an elderly person or a disabled person may,
you know, say something about gee you left my tray too
far away I can’t reach it or gee I had to wait an
awful long time for you to answer the bell and they
live in fear that they will be retaliated against for
complaining about some of these issues.
So I want to read what the state ombudsman said when
she asked for this bill. Issues of fear of
retaliation for long-term care residents are well
documented in the work of the long-term care ombudsman
program and are born out in research conducted by the
University of Connecticut. As individuals become more
frail and dependent on their caregivers, and the
longer they reside in a long-term care facility, the
more prevalent are their concerns and fears about
retaliation when voicing grievances.
We have learned that in fact sometimes staff do not
recognize that their actions and behavior are
perceived as retaliation by the resident. So it’s
important that in the resident’s rights training that
the fear of retaliation is included so that the staff
people will better understand the patients that they
are responsible for.
There is an amendment, Amendment 3966, that the Clerk
has. Would he please call and I be allowed to
summarize.
THE CHAIR:
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
LCO Number 3966, Senate A, offered by Senators Prague
and McKinney.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Prague.
SENATOR PRAGUE:
I move adoption.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
15
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
The motion is on adoption.
SENATOR PRAGUE:
Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
Will you remark?
SENATOR PRAGUE:
This amendment says that any employee of a nursing
home who retaliates in any manner against a resident
of such nursing home because the resident filed a
complaint or voiced a grievance relating to the care
or services provided shall be guilty of a Class B
misdemeanor. This is serious behavior and the care of
the residents in nursing homes depends on the staff in
that nursing home.
And if there is retaliation, then this amendment would
make it a Class B misdemeanor and having said that I’d
like to yield to Senator McKinney.
THE CHAIR:
Senator McKinney will you accept the yield, sir?
SENATOR McKINNEY:
Yes, Madam President, thank you.
Very briefly I want to thank Senator Prague for
supporting the amendment. I think, you know,
listening to Senator Prague on the underlying bill you
understand that the -- there are -- the need for
education is important because you -- there are even
instances where the staff themselves aren’t aware that
actions they’re taking may be seen as retaliatory.
And -- and so the underlying bill is very important
for that information and education. But sadly there
-- there may be and I’m sure have been some instances
where the retaliatory action is intentional and
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
16
April 26, 2012
purposeful and I think as Senator Prague mentioned I
-- I can’t think of many things worse than -- than an
elderly person being in a nursing home having some
type of retaliatory abusive action taken against them
because of what they’re doing by a staff member.
Maybe your family comes to visit you and you reach out
and tell them what’s happening but the bottom line is
your -- your family’s going to have to leave and
you’re still going to be in the facility by yourself
with that staff person and -- and the position in the
inequities of the power from the staff person to the
older person in the nursing home is enormous.
And so this says that this is serious that we want you
to know about what residents in nursing homes think is
retaliatory but moreover, if you take that intentional
retaliatory action, you will be held accountable for
it.
So thank you, Senator Prague, for the amendment.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you, Senator McKinney.
Will you remark?
Senator Welch.
SENATOR WELCH:
Thank you, Madam President.
I -- I too rise in support of the amendment. I
remember distinctly the debate in the Public Health
Committee about this bill. There were two, maybe
three no votes, I can’t recall, but the no votes
weren’t against the concept that -- as put forth in
the underlying bill, essentially it was that this bill
doesn’t go far enough. If we want to get rid of the
fear of retaliation, we need to get rid of retaliation
and I think the amendment goes a long way to -addressing that underlying issue so I too rise in
support.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
17
April 26, 2012
Thank you.
Will you remark?
Will you remark?
If not, all in favor please say, aye.
SENATORS:
Aye.
THE CHAIR:
Opposed?
The amendment is adopted.
Senator Looney.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, would move that the bill, as amended,
be referred to the Judiciary Committee.
THE CHAIR:
Seeing objection, so ordered.
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
On page 10, Calendar 319, Substitute for Senate Bill
Number 177, AN ACT CONCERNING NOTIFICATION TO
POTENTIAL AND EXISTING NURSING HOME OWNERS, favorable
report of the Committee on Public Health.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Looney.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
If that item might be passed temporarily, I believe we
are waiting for a consensus amendment on that item.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
18
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
So ordered.
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
On page 12, Calendar 336, Senate Bill Number 141, AN
ACT CONCERNING SENIOR SAFETY ZONES, favorable report
of the Committee on Judiciary.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Prague, it’s your day today Ma’am.
SENATOR PRAGUE:
Thank you, Madam President, we’re making up for lost
time.
I move the Joint Committee’s favorable report and
passage of the bill.
THE CHAIR:
Acting on a -- a passage of the bill, will you remark?
SENATOR PRAGUE:
Thank you.
This bill comes to us because of the fear of the
seniors living in the town of Montville. There
recently was a facility attached to Corrigan-Radgowski
Prison for sex offenders and the facility is to house
these sex offenders and help them become
rehabilitated.
The seniors were very fearful that when some of these
people who are registered sex offenders were out that
they might come to the senior center or they might go
into elderly housing and so what this bill does is to
prevent that.
It says that they can’t go into elderly housing unless
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
19
April 26, 2012
there is a relative there that they’re going in to
visit and they can’t go into the senior centers for
the functions that are going on in the senior centers.
THE CHAIR:
Will you remark?
Will you remark?
Senator McKinney.
SENATOR McKINNEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, I -- I rise in support of the bill
and, in fact, in screening as one who’s not on Aging
or the Judiciary Committees, thankfully with respect
to the second of those two committees, I -- I asked
whether or not the policy which is good for our
seniors is not something that we should also apply to
our children and so with that, Madam President, I
believe the Clerk is in possession of an amendment,
LCO 3773. I ask that he call the amendment and seek
leave to summarize.
THE CHAIR:
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
LCO Number 3773, Senate A, offered by Senate McKinney.
THE CHAIR:
Please proceed, sir.
SENATOR McKINNEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
I move adoption of the amendment.
THE CHAIR:
Motion is on adoption.
Will you remark, sir?
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
20
April 26, 2012
SENATOR McKINNEY:
Thank you.
Madam President and members of the Senate this
amendment would simply, as the underlying bill,
prohibits a registered sex offender from entering a
senior center, elderly housing or elderly congregate
housing with exceptions. This bill -- this amendment
would similar -- similarly prohibit that person from
entering a school building. Obviously there would be
exceptions if they’re employed in the school, if they
have a child who attends the school or if the school
was being used, you know, as a polling place which
many of our schools are.
Again I -- I think the underlying bill is a good one.
If we’re concerned about sex offenders and the
potential for harm to our seniors, I think we would
equally be concerned about harm caused to our
children. I -- I think many people may ask, you know,
if you’ve done your crime and you’ve paid your
punishment, why would we do this whether it’s on the
underlying bill or on the amendment and I think the -the simple and sad answer is because sex crimes have
an extraordinarily high recidivism rate.
We know perhaps, and that’s why we have a sexual
offender registry list. We don’t have an offender
registry list for, you know -- for other types of
crimes and -- and it because sex crimes and sexual
predators are sadly of a unique nature or they
continue to repeat and repeat and repeat their crimes.
So again, Madam President, I -- I think this is a good
amendment. I think it’s very consistent with the
underlying bill. I don’t think it hurts the
underlying bill. All of the protections that are in
place on the underlying bill are in place in the
amendment and I would ask for the Senate to support
this amendment.
And, Madam President, I would ask that when we vote we
vote by roll call.
Thank you.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
21
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
A -- a vote -- a roll call vote will be called.
Senator Gerratana.
SENATOR GERRATANA:
Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, I have some questions to the
proponent of the amendment.
THE CHAIR:
Senator McKinney.
Please proceed, Ma’am.
SENATOR GERRATANA:
Thank you.
Senator McKinney, could you tell me how this person is
defined under the sections that you have in the
amendment, 54-251, 252, 253 and 254?
THE CHAIR:
Senator McKinney.
SENATOR McKINNEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
To Senator Gerratana, my understanding is those are
our criminal statutes that deal with our sexual
offender registry list. So again it is someone who
would come underneath those statutes who’s on a -- a
sexual offender registry list as in the underlying
bill as well.
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Gerratana.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
22
April 26, 2012
SENATOR GERRATANA:
Thank you, Madam President.
This amendment, if I understand it correctly, would
prohibit an individual, and under those sections I
will take a look in the statutes regarding those
sections, from entering a school building and another
question for you because I do serve on the Judiciary
Committee.
Did this bill have a hearing in Judiciary or in our
Legislature?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator McKinney.
SENATOR McKINNEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
To the good Senator, Senator Prague’s bill obviously
had a -- an -- a public hearing and passed the
Judiciary Committee. This amendment to include
schools did not and I -- I can understand and
appreciate the question. My -- my argument would be,
Senator, that all of the -- all of the arguments or
evidence in support of prohibiting people on the
sexual offender registry list from entering senior
housing would equally apply to -- to entering schools
and -- and lastly, although it’s a little bit off the
mark of your question, all of the exceptions that
would allow someone to go into the senior housing if
they have a family member there or they work there or
if they have business there would apply to schools as
well.
In other words if you’re on the sexual offender
registry list and your job is as a -- as a delivery
person and your route is to deliver something to the
schools, you would not be prohibited from making that
delivery.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
23
April 26, 2012
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Gerratana.
SENATOR GERRATANA:
Thank you, Madam President.
I will look at the various statutes as they are cited
in this amendment. I have some other concerns
regarding the amendment, the conditions that are set
down, and I will look at the underlying bill also. But
at this time, because my -- all of my questions are
not still fully formed, I will be recommending that we
not vote for this amendment. I certainly will not
until I fully understand.
I thank you very much, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Looney.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, if this item might be passed
temporarily.
THE CHAIR:
Seeing no objection, so ordered, sir.
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
On page 13, Calendar 344, Substitute for Senate Bill
Number 143, AN ACT INCREASING ELIGIBILITY FOR THE
ALZHEIMER RESPITE CARE PROGRAM, favorable report of
the Committee on Appropriations.
THE CHAIR:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
24
April 26, 2012
Senator Prague.
SENATOR PRAGUE:
Madam President, I move the Joint Committee’s
favorable report and passage of the bill.
THE CHAIR:
Acting on approval of the bill, will you remark
further?
SENATOR PRAGUE:
Madam President, we all know that particularly here in
our State of Connecticut we have a very large elderly
population that is growing in leaps and bounds and
with that, as wonderful as it is, there are problems
with health issues and Alzheimer’s disease.
And if anybody has ever tried to take care of an
Alzheimer’s patient we know how difficult that is. So
what the bill does is to increase the income and asset
eligibility for the Alzheimer’s Respite Care Program
and the Respite Care Program is really for the
caregiver to give that caregiver some respite time.
The maximum amount of money that can be used in the
Respite Care Program, on an individual basis, is
$3,500 and the caregiver can use that to get somebody
to come in to the home and help with the care of the
Alzheimer patient or use adult daycare or use any
other kind of help they can get in order to give them
some relief.
The Alzheimer Respite Care Program actually came to
this General Assembly from a legislator who herself
was in a wheelchair, serving in the House, whose
husband had Alzheimer’s disease and she was trying to
take care of him and realized the difficulty that
people were having. As a result of her own experience
she initiated the Respite Care Program to begin with.
Madam President, that legislator’s name was
Representative Elinor Wilber. I don’t know if you
served in the House the same time she did. She was a
very effective legislator and this whole program
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
25
April 26, 2012
started with her understanding the problems that
caregivers were having in trying to take care of
Alzheimer patients.
So I’d like to ask for a roll call vote on this
please.
And Madam President, perhaps I would ask if this could
be put on Consent if there’s no objection.
THE CHAIR:
Will -- will you remark?
Senator Kane.
SENATOR KANE:
Thank you, Madam President.
I -- I’m not rising for objection, I’m actually rising
in support of the bill and before it was moved on
Consent I just wanted to make a remark or two, if I
may.
I’ve long time been a supporter of the Alzheimer’s
Respite Care Program, especially in the Appropriations
Committee and beyond, and I remember sharing a stage
with Senator Prague at the Alzheimer’s Association
receiving a Legislative award with Senator Prague on
this very subject and have always been a supporter of
this program and I look forward to passage of the
bill.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Senator McKinney.
SENATOR McKINNEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
I too rise in support of the bill and was going to
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
26
April 26, 2012
rise to -- to recognize the good efforts and will rise
to recognize the good efforts of -- of a good friend
of mine, Elinor Wilber, former state Representative
from Fairfield, and I want to thank Senator Prague for
mentioning her and all of the good work she’s done.
She comes up here every year to talk to us and lobby
us about the budget and not cutting money to
Alzheimer’s Respite Care.
When I first ran for the state Senate in 1998, Elinor
was then an advisor to me and still is to this day.
She’s a wonderful woman and I -- I want to thank -thank Senator Prague for brining the bill out.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you, Senator McKinney.
Senator Kissel.
SENATOR KISSEL:
Thank you very much, Madam President.
you this afternoon.
Great to see
THE CHAIR:
Same here, sir.
SENATOR KISSEL:
I also -- thank you -- I also stand in strong support
of this particular piece of legislation and commend
the proponents for -- for moving on it, Senator
Prague, Senator Kelly.
I’m sure for those of you who have been here long
enough you remember the fact that one of the things
that I championed when I was on the Select Committee
on Aging were initiatives that touched upon those
lives that had Alzheimer’s visited upon them.
For those of you that may have a family member that
has Alzheimer’s or had Alzheimer’s you understand it’s
sometimes called the Long Goodbye. In our family it
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
27
April 26, 2012
was my wife’s grandmother, Rose Verdina and I always
remember the time probably close to 18 years ago now
where she was first designate -- diagnosis rather with
Alzheimer’s.
I remember speaking with her in the backyard of her
house and I said well what do you think and she said
it’s -- it’s scary but at that time she was lucid and
then the little steps towards progression occurred,
leaving the burners on on the stove, misplacing items
and it got to a point where my wife’s parents and
uncle said we want to do whatever we can to allow Rose
to -- to stay at home but we need to take some
precautions and that -- that -- what that meant was
that someone sort of had to be there and you can only
do that for so long.
And then you see what kind of resources are available
in your community and luckily in Enfield we have not
one but two adult daycare centers and one run by the
wonderful Felician Sisters and the other one by the
Town of Enfield itself.
And they were able to -- to get some relief from
trying to take care of Rose and they availed
themselves of the Felician adult day center and they
did a marvelous, marvelous job. But as the years
progressed, and indeed Alzheimer’s is a progression of
years, eventually Rose ended up in a -- a nursing
facility and eventually without any impetus, and I’m
very proud of them, without any impetus she just
passed and then for those who were there that evening,
I had gone home with my son Nathaniel earlier that
day, they said the entire visage of -- of Rose changed
when she passed because the -- the -- Alzheimer’s
takes a tremendous toll on the individual as well.
This is a disease that is growing exponentially in our
state and nation. It’s one of those things where it
just doesn’t get the visibility I believe that it
should have. I know in our neck of the woods, and I
haven’t receive any awards from the Alzheimer’s
Association and I commend Senator Kane and Senator
Prague, but over the years I’ve been participant in
many memory walks where you go and simply walk through
a community to try to raise the visibility.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
28
April 26, 2012
And a couple of years ago in Enfield there were
thousands upon thousands of people involved in the
memory walks. It wasn’t that long ago, probably about
a decade ago, when the number of people in Connecticut
that had Alzheimer’s was around 45,000, that’s the
entire population of the Town of Enfield, the largest
community between Hartford and Springfield.
It’s my understanding that that number has now
dramatically escalated and it’s far beyond that. So
to the extent we are grappling with issues that are
confronting our state not only do we have an aging
population, as Senator Prague is so acutely aware of,
but we have an aging population that when they hit a
certain age Alzheimer’s sets in.
When it’s someone on the younger side, such as Ms. -I believe the coach down in Tennessee, people take
notice and I -- I -- I’ve often seen this too. For
some reason the media gravitate away from Alzheimer’s
and try to use the word dementia but Alzheimer’s is a
specific disease and I think that we need to confront
it head on.
And so to this extent that we’re giving a little bit
of an additional lifeline to those loved ones that
want to take care of their loved one that is stricken
with this disease, I think this is a tremendous bill
and I strongly support it.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark?
Will you remark?
Senator Kelly.
SENATOR KELLY:
Thank you, Madam President.
I rise also in support of this bill. Once again, like
we’ve heard, this is a very good initiative. As we
know Alzheimer’s is a cruel disease. But what’s also
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
29
April 26, 2012
difficult is the role of the caregiver in this. It’s
a daunting task for those who have undertaken this
responsibility and when we look at what we’re
appropriating up to $3,500 annually in a program that
is not an entitlement, it’s not a lot of money.
I believe the -- the budget line is about $300,000 in
a $20 billion budget but yet this is a key component
to allowing, to affording, our seniors of Connecticut
to age in place.
And what it does is not provide great benefits to
caregivers, it’s a respite. What it affords them is
the opportunity to go to their doctor appointment or
to go shopping or to pick the kids up and get them
back home so that they can continue to take care of
their parent or loved one in the community.
As we heard Senator Prague say before, I think our
worst nightmare is going to a nursing home and in the
years I’ve practiced in this area I can count on one
hand the number of individuals of the thousands that
I’ve talked to that said they wanted to be in a
nursing home.
This is a great program that allows people to age in
place. I think this is a great bill. I think we
could do more but I think this is a start and I
support this.
Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you, Senator Kelly.
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Thank you, Madam President.
I also rise in support of the legislation. I had the
honor as Chair of the Appropriations Committee in the
past to work with Representative Wilber on the initial
funding for this program and it’s such an insidious
disease and approaching to inflict younger people
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
30
April 26, 2012
sooner than we ever expected.
And it’s unfortunate that many of
here, Madam President and members
aren’t communicated to the public
that we should all be proud of in
supporting this legislation.
the things we do
of the Circle,
but this is one area
regards to
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you, Senator.
Will you remark?
Will you remark?
There was a motion on the floor to put this on the
Consent Calendar.
Seeing no objection, so ordered.
Senator Looney.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, having placed that item on the
Consent Calendar, we have one change removing one item
from the Consent Calendar and that was the item on
calendar page 2, Calendar 116, Senate Bill Number 282,
if that item might be removed from the Consent
Calendar and marked passed temporarily.
THE CHAIR:
So ordered, sir.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, I also -- I believe that now the
Clerk is in possession of Senate Agenda Number 1 for
today’s session.
THE CHAIR:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
31
April 26, 2012
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
Madam President, the Clerk is in possession of Senate
Agenda Number 1, copies have been made and they’re
placed on Senators’ desks.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Looney.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, I move all items on Senate Agenda
Number 1, dated Thursday, April 26, 2012 to be acted
upon as indicated and that the agenda be incorporated
by reference into the Senate Journal and the Senate
Transcript.
THE CHAIR:
Seeing no objection, so ordered, sir.
Senator Looney.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, as the -- the next two items to take
up I think we will be inverting the order. The first
is the item on calendar page 33, Calendar 220, Senate
Bill 351 and that item, Madam President, to be
followed by the matter on calendar page 30, Calendar
134, Senate Bill 289.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Meyer.
SENATOR MEYER:
Thank you, Madam President.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
32
April 26, 2012
I move acceptance of the Committee’s Joint and
favorable report -THE CHAIR:
Sorry -- Mr. -- Mr. Clerk you do have to call the -the bill, sorry.
THE CLERK:
On page 33, Calendar 220, Senate Bill Number 351, AN
ACT CONCERNING CERTAIN CEMETERY EROSION MITIGATION
EFFORTS WITHIN THE COASTAL BOUNDARY, favorable report
of the Committee on Planning and Development.
THE CHAIR:
Now, good afternoon, Senator Meyer, sorry.
SENATOR MEYER:
Sorry, I’ve been here long enough to remember.
THE CHAIR:
It was my fault, sir.
SENATOR MEYER:
Early Alzheimer’s.
THE CHAIR:
God forbid.
SENATOR MEYER:
Madam President, I do move acceptance of the
Committee’s Joint and favorable report and move
passage of the bill and request the opportunity to
briefly summarize.
THE CHAIR:
The -- the motion is on adoption.
Please remark sir.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
33
April 26, 2012
SENATOR MEYER:
Thank you.
Colleagues this bill is in two parts. The second part
of the bill is an amendment. The Clerk has LCO 3817
and I’ll ask please if he will call that amendment.
THE CHAIR:
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
LCO Number 3817, Senate A, offered by Senator Meyer.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Meyer.
SENATOR MEYER:
Yes, Madam President, I move adoption and seek leave
to summarize.
THE CHAIR:
The motion is on adoption.
Please proceed, sir.
SENATOR MEYER:
Colleagues this amendment was requested by the
Connecticut Bar Association. Right now when there is
a -- a permit has been requested under our Water
Pollution Act, there’s a determination made by the
Commissioner of the Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection and the Bar Association
pointed out to the Environment Committee that -- that
that permit does not require a hearing. The applicant
is not entitled to a hearing and furthermore the
appeal from the determination of the Commissioner is
limited to the applicant and not to all aggrieved
parties.
Consequently what this small amendment does is it adds
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
34
April 26, 2012
the right to -- in a permit application it -- it
grants to the application -- applicant the right to a
hearing and then it -- it grants to any aggrieved
person the right to appeal.
So that’s -- that’s the amendment and I do move it.
THE CHAIR:
Will you remark? Will you remark?
Seeing none, all in favor of the amendment please say,
aye.
SENATORS:
Aye.
THE CHAIR:
Opposed?
The amendment passes.
Senator Meyer.
SENATOR MEYER:
Thank you, Madam President.
The -- the remainder of the bill deals with a problem
in -- in Stonington. Under current Connecticut law,
within the coastal boundary, you actually have to have
a statutory right to construct within the coastal
boundary and cemeteries within the coastal boundary
are not -- the protection of cemeteries are not
included.
So what this bill simply does is it adds cemeteries
and burial grounds to the list of land uses that can
be protected by structural solutions within the
coastline. It’s -- it’s that simple and I urge its
passage.
THE CHAIR:
Will you remark?
Senator Maynard.
Will you remark?
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
35
April 26, 2012
SENATOR MAYNARD:
Yes, thank you, Madam President.
In support of the bill I thank the Chairman of the
Environment Committee, Senator Meyer, for brining this
forward. It has been an issue in my district but I
know that a great many of our cemeteries along the
coastline are equally subject to deterioration by
natural phenomena.
In our case it’s a cove in Stonington that has
significant sheeting action and on an annual basis
when we’ve had colder winters than the last year that
sheeting action has significantly impacted the
embankment and it has placed at peril some cemetery
plots that are adjacent to the shoreline and before we
have, you know, exposure of those plots we were eager
to have this additional protection offered.
It simply adds cemeteries to the list of already
approved infrastructure elements like public roads and
-- and the like as a protected area and so I urge
passage of the bill and thank the Senator for bringing
it forward.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark?
Senator Witkos.
SENATOR WITKOS:
Thank you, Madam President.
If I may, just a question to the proponent of the
bill.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Meyer, prepare yourself.
Please proceed, sir.
SENATOR WITKOS:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
36
April 26, 2012
Thank you, Madam President.
Through you, what is the current procedure now if
erosion didn’t just happen this year? So if some -if a cemetery or a burial ground is located within a
coastal boundary, were we just kind of skirting the
law previously to maintain it so it remains its
structurabililty and then now we want to do it the
right way so we’re passing this law? Why is this
before us I guess?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Meyer.
SENATOR MEYER:
Through you -- through you, Madam President to Senator
Witkos, yeah remarkably the -- the Coastal Management
Act refers to very specific things that -- that can be
done within the coastline and if you’re not on that
list you -- you can’t do it, you’re prohibited, so
that’s what this bill is for because of the appearance
of this cemetery erosion in -- in Stonington we’re add
-- we’re adding cemeteries and burial grounds to it.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Witkos.
SENATOR WITKOS:
Thank you, Madam President.
I -- I understand the intent of it. Did -- in the
past have we been maintaining it and somebody filed a
complaint saying you’re not allowed to do that? Is
that why this is here?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator -- Senator Meyer.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
37
April 26, 2012
SENATOR MEYER:
It’s my understanding from the public hearing and
reading of the law that -- that you just are
prohibited from building on the coastline unless
you’re within the definition of a -- of a protection
and -- and cemeteries were not within that definition.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Witkos.
SENATOR WITKOS:
Thank you, Madam President.
That raises another question. Is this building a
cemetery or maintaining a cemetery?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Meyer.
SENATOR MEYER:
Through you, Madam President, the bill would actually
-- relates to ma -- maintaining or restoring a
cemetery as Senator Maynard described, that’s what the
purpose of the bill is.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Witkos.
SENATOR WITKOS:
Thank you.
So this wouldn’t be giving authorization to some -somebody to buy a -- a plot of land and now create a
cemetery or burial ground. This would be for existing
structures that are there and we just want to maintain
and give it its -- its proper due.
Through you, Madam President.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
38
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
Senator Meyer.
SENATOR MEYER:
Right it does not give a license to build a new
cemetery on the coastline. What it does is gives a
license to have a structural protection or restoration
of an existing cemetery or burial ground.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Witkos.
SENATOR WITKOS:
Thank you, Madam President.
I thank the gentleman for his answers.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark further?
Will you remark further?
Senator Meyer.
SENATOR MEYER:
Madam President, if there’s no objection I’d
appreciate this going on the Consent Calendar.
THE CHAIR:
Are there any objections?
ordered.
Seeing no objections, so
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
On page 30, Calendar 134, Senate Bill Number 289, AN
ACT CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TOLLS FOR THE
EXTENSION OF ROUTE 11, favorable report of the
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
39
April 26, 2012
Committee on Finance.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Maynard.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
Thank you, Madam President.
I move the Joint Committee’s favorable report and
passage of the bill.
THE CHAIR:
Motion is on adoption of the bill.
Will you remark?
SENATOR MAYNARD:
Yes, Madam President.
This bill, Senate Bill 289, concerns the completion of
a very valuable artery that is incomplete at this
point, Route 11 to southeastern Connecticut. It’s the
main transit from Route 2 from the highway -- from the
Capital down Route 2 and to the New London area and
indeed all of southeastern Connecticut.
What the bill proposes is an -- a method that the DOT
may utilize to identify a -- a specific funding stream
for the completion of the -- the roadway. It’s about
an 8 -- 8.4 mile stretch of incomplete road and this
would allow for the limited use of electronic tolling
only on that portion of the highway to allow for its
completion and then the removal of those tolls at such
time as the funding has -- has been completed.
THE CHAIR:
Will you remark?
Will you remark?
If not -- oh sorry -- Senator Suzio.
Tried, sir.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
40
April 26, 2012
SENATOR SUZIO:
I’m sorry I’m a little slow today.
THE CHAIR:
That’s okay, something in the Chamber today, sir.
SENATOR SUZIO:
Well good afternoon, Madam President, and thank you
for recognizing me belatedly.
Yes I have -- the Clerk has in his possession an
amendment, LCO 3576. Will the Clerk please call the
amendment.
THE CHAIR:
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
LCO Number 3576, Senate A, offered by Senator Suzio.
SENATOR SUZIO:
Thank you.
Madam President, I move adoption of the amendment and
move to waive the reading. I would seek leave of the
Chamber to summarize.
THE CHAIR:
The motion is on adoption?
Will you remark further, sir?
SENATOR SUZIO:
Thank you, Madam President.
This is a -- an add on amendment. Basically it’s to
-- intended to correct an oversight when the
Legislature amended Title 14, Section 66 of the
Connecticut General Statutes two years ago. That
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
41
April 26, 2012
section of the statute pertains to licensed wreckers
and it omitted, or overlooked at that point in time,
certain segments of the industry that are engaged in
towing between dealers and other segments of the
industry that are authorized to -- for towing
operations.
And I would call your attention to, in particular,
Subsection F of that statute which -- this would
add-on and -- and acknowledge the existence of these
other operators who operate either on a contract or
subcontract basis between dealers and other -- other
entities that are already licensed to operate under
the provisions of this statute.
So the Department of Motor Vehicles, I’ve had
discussions with them, they have acknowledged that
this was an inadvertent omission in the original
legislation two years ago and this is a proper
correction. They’ve reviewed the drafting of the
amendment and have approved it.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark?
Will you remark?
Senator Maynard.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
Yes, thank you, Madam President.
I am cognizant of the desire to have this amendment
pass. We’ve had some discussion about it and I’m
eager to assist the gentleman but I would urge, at
this time, on this particular bill, rejection of this
amendment and look forward to another opportunity to
resolve this issue.
Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
42
April 26, 2012
Will you remark further?
Will you remark further?
All -- I’m sorry -- oh Senator Boucher I’m so sorry.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman -- Madam President.
I rise to support our good Senator’s amendment. I
think he has study this issue long and hard. This has
been language that has been supported in the past and
this sounds like a good bill that this could be added
to without any changes in any way to the underlying
bill and so I rise to support the amendment.
Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Senator Maynard.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
Madam President, my -- thank you. I would ask that
when the vote does come it -- it be conducted by roll
call.
THE CHAIR:
It will be -- it will be by roll call.
Will you remark?
Will you remark?
If not, Mr. Clerk, will you call for a roll call vote
and the machine will be open.
THE CLERK:
Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate,
Senators please return to the chamber. Immediate roll
call has been ordered in the Senate.
Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate,
Senators please return to the chamber. Immediate roll
call has been ordered in the Senate.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
43
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
If you all members have voted, the machine will be
locked. Mr. Clerk will you call the tally please.
THE CLERK:
Senate Amendment Schedule A.
Total Number Voting
Necessary for Adoption
Those Voting Yea
Those Voting Nay
Those Absent/Not Voting
35
18
14
21
1
THE CHAIR:
Amendment fails.
Will you remark?
Will you remark?
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
Madam President, the Clerk is in possession of an
amendment, LCO Number 3613.
THE CHAIR:
Mr. Clerk, will you please call the amendment?
THE CLERK:
LCO Number 3613, Senate B, offered by Senator Markley
and Representative Betts.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
I move adoption of the amendment, ask that the reading
be waived and beg leave to summarize.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
44
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
The motion is on adoption.
Please remark, sir.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
Madam President, a year ago roughly at about this time
at the end of the session I -- I attempted to offer an
amendment concerning the construction of the New
Britain to Hartford Busway. It’s an issue that I
first became aware of early on in my term, not
previous to that and it struck me immediately as a
undertaking of significance to the state, if for no
other reason because of the extreme price tag attached
to it, nearly $600 million as it stands today.
Living in that part of the state almost all of my life
growing up around the corner from New Britain I simply
couldn’t understand the necessity or the benefit that
such a busway would bring to us at such a cost and I
have to say that the more I looked into it the more
dubious the entire project seemed to me.
When I say $600 million nearly for a nine mile busway,
we’re talking about a project that costs very close to
a $1,000 an inch for construction. In fact, a cost
comparable to that which would be incurred to complete
the multi-lane Route 11 project that the underlying
bill refers to. And that also invol -- involves an
ongoing cost to the state, and according to the
Department of Transportation, of over $20 million a
year after the project is completed.
I found in looking into it that there were serious
questions about the maintenance of the busway.
There’s only $200,000, according to the Department of
Transportation, allocated for that ongoing maintenance
but there appears to be problems in snow removal, for
instance, which require payloading snow out of the
busway because of the high walls constructed along
many stretches of it that seem to make that small
allocation largely irrelevant.
We also have questions raised by the neighbors that
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
45
April 26, 2012
live in the area. I -- a few weeks ago I was in
Cottage Place in New Britain, a fine neighborhood, one
of these kind of comeback neighborhoods where people
have bought up houses, restored them, attempted to
start a new kind of quality of life for themselves and
in their area, and all of a sudden have discovered
that a busway is going to be running just a few feet
behind their homes in the -- in the neighborhood.
We’ve also heard from businesses in the area who will,
because of loss of property, will be forced to either
go out of business or remove themselves and the
question is what is accomplished by this. And I found
in the discussion of the busway that there were
multiple reasons offered for why it ought to be built
and it’s been my experience in life to feel that when
you are given a number of different reasons for
something frequently it’s because none of those
reasons really holds water. You simply jump from one
to another.
Obviously the first reason and the main reason offered
for the construction of the busway is for the service
of mass transportation. It was for that purpose that
the proj -- the examination of the project began
roughly 15 years ago. I think the state was looking
for a mass transit project that could be used for -for the purpose of obtaining federal mass transit
funds. They had available to them railroad right of
ways, some of it used and some of it not used, and I
think based on the availability of the land more than
the need for transportation between the two cities,
the project was undertaken.
And it moved forward largely as a bureaucratic
process, not so much driven by the Legislature, as by
the people at DOT who were working to satisfy federal
regulations. The DOT estimates that this project
would account for 16,000 rides per day. That’s not
necessarily riders but boarding. So a round trip
boarding, for instance, would be two separate
boardings. Currently there’s -- they count 11,000
boardings on the same route, so we’re talking about an
increase, as a result of the construction of this $600
million project, of 5,000 boardings a day which really
runs down, by their own estimates, probably to a
couple of thousand riders a day additional if we -- if
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
46
April 26, 2012
we count them as round trips.
It doesn’t seem to me sufficient for the expense
involved in the construction or for the on-going
expense of the project of over $20 million a year. I
don’t buy it. I don’t think it’s going to help reduce
congestion and again I speak as somebody who has
commuted along that stretch of road both as a
legislator and as a teacher for many years on and off.
It certainly can be a difficult commute at times, not
always, but I don’t think that this is going to divert
a sufficient number of -- of commuters to make the
project worthwhile on those grounds. It’s also been
proposed, as it was a couple of weeks ago when I was
at a press conference concerning it, that it is to
serve the needs of people who cannot afford to drive
their own cars back and forth on this stretch.
I would say that bus service already exists for that
purpose between New Britain and Hartford. There’s a
bus that runs twice an hour from the center of New
Britain through the same towns serve New Britain,
Newington, West Hartford and Hartford. I’ve ridden
that bus. It’s $1.25 for a round trip. I’d say that
the bus, when I’ve been on it, is -- has 15 people, 25
people, something in that range. I’ve never seen it
full. I’ve never seen it completely empty. But if we
say that it’s serving 50 people an hour possibly, I’d
say these people are being served and the addition of
the busway is really going to reduce the time of their
commute very little, I believe it’s ten minutes that
the -- the trip from New Britain and Hartford would be
cut down.
I can’t imagine that the dedicated busway itself is
going to produce more riders and yet the plan is to
increase the number of buses run on this route from
two buses an hour to 20 buses an hour and to increase
the service on this route to begin at 4:30 in the
morning and end at 1:30 in the morning. So we’d have
close to round the clock service on this busway.
I don’t think it’s going to work. I honestly don’t
think it’s going to work and I don’t think it’s going
to be maintained if we do it. In other words I think
that if we start bus service on such an ambitious
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
47
April 26, 2012
scale in a short time, the low ridership will cause
the state to revisit it to cut back on the number of
buses and the end result will be a underutilized
extremely expensive structure.
We’re also told that the busway will add to economic
development and I’ve been accused of -- of not caring
about the future of New Britain. You know it’s -- I
won’t -- I’m not going to wrap myself outrageously in
-- in concern about these cities but I will say,
growing up in Southington with Waterbury on one side,
New Britain on another, Meriden on another, those were
the places I went when I was a child shopping before
-- before the malls, before the shopping centers.
I saw New Britain and Meriden when they were vibrant
downtowns full of retailers. I think that day is
going to return. I think that these cities, these -these medium size cities, are a natural and vital part
of the tapestry of the state and I think there were
good reasons for the clustering of population and of
industry and of businesses and shops in a city which
had a lot to do with a walkable community.
Waterbury I think has -- has done relatively well.
New Britain and Meriden perhaps have struggled more
and if we look at the reason for their struggles,
again as a -- as a witness to this over 50 years, I
think one of the largest reasons for was the mistakes
that government made in large scale projects which
were intended -- undertaken at great expense and with
the best intention on the part of the people who did
them, but which history has shown us were wrong
headed, not simply useless but in fact destructive.
Nothing has hurt New Britain more than the decision to
put Route 72 through the middle of it in my opinion.
Nothing hurt Meriden more than the decision, through
urban renewal, to -- to knock down basically half the
city, replace it with -- with low income high rise
apartments and a -- and a mall that never worked. I
think that’s the kind of thing that urban planners
today would look back at and say well of course that
was a mistake we can see it in retrospect.
I think we are involved right now in making a similar
mistake in building this busway and counting on it to
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
48
April 26, 2012
bring economic development and I say one of the
reasons I think that I’m suspicious, one of the
reasons I’m a conservative. One of the reasons I
believe in limited government is because I see
government having the capacity to make enormous errors
of a sort that private industry simply can’t -doesn’t have the resources to do and I think this may
well be another one of those errors.
Let me say about economic development, my friend Mike
Nicastro from the Central Connecticut Chamber who
knows more about this project I think than -- than
anybody else, at least anybody in opposition to it,
has pointed out that the Brookings Institute has done
studies of bus rapid transit and its impact on
economic development and has not found any evidence
that busways have created economic development.
Light rail does do it. I think light rail will be a
better option. That’s not what we’re talking about
here today and it’s not what I’m proposing today but,
right or wrong, people do not have the interest, the
affection they’re not drawn to this kind of bus rapid
transit as a reason to move into an area, to set up a
business in an area or whatever. And although the
busway project has continued to inch forward over the
years, large downtown revitalization project which was
billed as being tied to this -- to this has fallen by
the wayside in New Britain, I don’t think that -- that
it will -- I don’t think it will have the effect on
New Britain that has been promised.
If I thought it did I would -- I would support it.
The last thing I’d say is -- again was brought up at
the press conference recently is the question of jobs.
The fact that we have construction workers who are
anxious to be back to work and I sympathize with them
and I want to see them back at work and that’s why
with this invent -- amendment what I propose is that
as much of the money as can be shifted, which is a
considerable amount of the money, away from the busway
project be instead reassigned to the crying need for
the reconstruction of our existing roadways and our
existing bridges.
Again gray beard that I am becoming, I remember very
vividly the collapse of the Mianus River Bridge and I
think a lot of us share Commissioner Redeker’s fear.
He said his worst nightmare is the state of bridges
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
49
April 26, 2012
here in Connecticut. Not simply the state bridges,
which are a direct responsibility, but also the local
bridges which the state has not even -- admits it
doesn’t even have the capacity to stay on top of.
I think that in the essence of conservatism maybe in
its -- in its fundamental sense is to take care of
what we have, not to start out on new projects until
we make sure that we secure what we already have in
place. The purpose of this amendment would be to do
that securing. To do the rehabilitation, to put to
work on worthwhile projects the expertise and the
dedication of the construction workers and the
construction industry and even let me say the experts
at the Department of Transportation. I’ve -- I’ve had
the experience now of many times being at meetings
with Mike Sanders who’s in charge of this project. I
have confidence in his -- in his intelligence and his
capability. I would love to see it put to work on a
project that I think would be more useful, beneficial
to the state.
And I think that there are no end of projects which
would be no -- more useful and beneficial to the
state. Now since I began trying to bring attention to
this and trying to figure out a way to stop it, almost
from the first day I was told you can’t do it. It’s
-- it’s a -- it’s a done deal. It’s -- it’s moved
forward through -- through bureaucratic channels here
and in Washington both and there’s nothing that can be
done about it.
What can be done about it is what we can do about it
today. And I would -- I -- I honestly believe that
there’s a lot of people on both sides of the aisle
that agree with me on the prospects for success of
this busway. I think it’s irresponsible for us,
whatever the political pressures we’re under, to go
ahead with something which we know in our minds and
perhaps even in our hearts is a mistake when we have
the opportunity to spend the money more effectively.
And we’re not talking about $600,000, $6 million, even
$60 million but $600 million dollars, an enormous
amount of money. People may say it’s federal money.
Let me remind you that first of all the state has a
substantial stake in it in bonding money, well over
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
50
April 26, 2012
$100 million. I’d also point out that insofar as it
runs over its price we are responsible for every
single dollar of additional spending on this project.
Given that the project started out with a price tag
under $100 million and now has a price tag very close
to $600 million, I think there’s every reason to
suspect that the price is going to go higher and
there’s going to be more state money involved.
Another thing I’d say about it is we’ve got funds that
we are allocating from our own flexible transportation
funds, money that is given to us by the federal
government out -- out of highway taxes, which we have
-- we can use on whatever kind of transportation
projects we want to which we are assigning to this
busway project in lieu of the bridges that need to be
fixed and this includes bridges in almost every one of
our districts.
So to say it’s state -- to say it’s federal money is,
in itself, let’s say it’s not completely accurate.
The second thing I’d say about it, and I’ve said from
the first, is all of that money is our money. The
fact that it’s -- that it’s the U.S. government as
opposed to the State of Connecticut, to my mind,
doesn’t make it any less our -- our money nor does it
make the responsibility for stending -- spending it an
-- intelligently any less our responsibility.
I would hate to see us waste this money. I know that
the people of the state share my skepticism about the
project and I would urge the members of the Circle to
support this amendment to end this project to use the
money more intelligently and to address the crying
need we have to put the good men and women of the work
-- of the construction industry at work on the
projects which really need to be accomplished.
Thank you, Madam President.
And thank you all.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
51
April 26, 2012
Will you remark?
Senator Gerratana.
SENATOR GERRATANA:
Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, I do rise in opposition to this
amendment. But first I want to thank Senator Markley
for his concern about central Connecticut and
certainly my community of New Britain. I too share
the concern about the future, the future of this very
region. And you know Senator Markley is speaking
about what is and I do want to speak about a vision, a
vision of the future that I see associated with the
busway project.
But first I want to give a little bit of history. I
was in this Chamber in the House back in the other
century, in the 20th century, and at that time I
discussed this project, this potential project, with
then Mayor Linda Blogoslawski. Linda was very
enthusiastic about this project and I talked with her
and subsequently went on to vote in favor of the
busway project way back in the 1990s. That’s how long
this particular proposal has been around.
We thought at that time that it would address some of
the concerns that we had, concerns regarding
transportation system in this area, the economic well
being and the financial soundness of this particular
plan. And also, so the Chamber knows, we also looked
at, and I think it’s still in my basement, a plan for
-- for a light rail and rail transportation in the
central Connecticut region.
And I thought at that time that would also be very
appropriate. But this is the one that my community
indicated to me would be appropriate. So back then I
did vote for it. I was a little bit surprised to
discover when I was elected last year that the project
still hadn’t go -- gone forward. So I asked many
questions of my predecessor, former Senator, State
Senator Don DeFronzo, as well as some of my former
colleagues in the House and current colleagues and
asked for some of their opinions also on the project.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
52
April 26, 2012
And I was brought more or less up to date. Well many
things happened and what has happened in central
Connecticut is truly awesome and magnificent and I’ll
tell you why because it is a vision. It’s a vision
for the future of my constituents for the children
that are growing up in New Britain and indeed in
Farmington and Berlin, towns that I also represent
because we also made an investment just this past
session in the UConn Health Center and in our city of
New Britain we also have a magnet school that will
educate our children in the healthcare field.
This is a vision of the future for the people not just
living there now, an economic future, but for future
generations. So I feel very strongly that this is
appropriate.
I also took some time because I have many friends who
live in Cleveland, Ohio and, in fact, just this past
weekend I visited Cleveland and they have a busway now
that goes down Euclid Avenue. Euclid Avenue was once
the center and heart of Cleveland. There are
hospitals along the route as well as other businesses.
There are educational institutions but unfortunately
as time went on in Cleveland most of the retail and
businesses went out of business and left Cleveland.
That city, and I got a chance to talk with the
regional planner in the city and an advocate for a
busway in Cleveland, I was happy to do so, was very
enthusiastic about putting a busway down Euclid Avenue
and they did and here it is four, five years later
businesses are coming back to Cleveland to the
downtown area and indeed we have economic development
that Cleveland has not seen in many, many years.
And I reflect upon the past a little bit knowing about
the history of New Britain and the central Connecticut
area and how magnificent it was in terms of the
manufacturing and the industrialization that brought
certainly my ancestors to the area and the promise of
jobs and I feel that the busway will do so also.
At this point of time I just want to say that there
was an article recently that talks about the
Connecticut busray -- way already leading to
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
53
April 26, 2012
investment close to stations and this -- in this
article they quote Gerry Amodio, who is head of our
downtown district and someone who has been an
enthusiastic supporter of the busway going through our
area and he said that there are plans for $35 million
mixed use development near the proposed Cedar Street,
that’s in Newington, bus station and he also spoke
with developers in New Britain who are purchasing and
upgrading property near future busway stations.
The article goes on to talk about other developments,
restaurants and other retail businesses who are
looking forward to and are coming into our city and
indeed in the central Connecticut area. We also will
be able to access a grant through the Federal Transit
Administration, a bus livability grant. This will be
coming to us in our area in July.
So you know this is indeed what I believe the future,
the future of our region, the future for our children.
Now if you drive I84 into Hartford every morning as I
do, the congestion and the pollution is significant
and indeed I know that the cons -- League of
Conservation Voters I believe is a big proponent of
this because it will have an impact on our environment
and, you know, in reviewing some of the information
about the air quality in our area I am hopeful that
this will reduce the impact of pollution in our
environment and in the central Connecticut region.
So all in all, Madam President, and to members of the
Chamber here I urge you to vote down this amendment.
This is the future of our area and I believe that it
is -- should and will continue to provide the hope
that we need and the economic development we need.
Thank you so much, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark?
Senator Suzio first.
SENATOR SUZIO:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
54
April 26, 2012
I’m going to be much quicker this time, Madam
President.
THE CHAIR:
I would appreciate that sir thank you.
SENATOR SUZIO:
Thank you, Madam President.
If I may, through you, Madam President, I have some
questions for the proponent of the amendment.
THE CHAIR:
Please proceed, sir.
SENATOR SUZIO:
Thank you, Madam President.
Through you, Madam President, Senator Markley if you
could just kindly recap the cost of the -- to build
the busway, the capital cost. I’ve read different
numbers and I’d like to make sure and for the record
that I’m right. Can you recap what the total cost to
construct is?
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
I -- I -- Senator Suzio, through -- through you, Madam
President, I believe the cost is $567 million
currently estimated.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Suzio.
SENATOR SUZIO:
Thank you.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
55
April 26, 2012
And through you, Madam President, it’s -- it’s my
understanding that once the busway is built that it
will not be a self-sustaining pro -- project or
facility that it will need some subsidies.
Through you, Madam President, is that true and, if it
is, do you have any idea of what the annual subsidies
will be required to sustain the -- the proposed
busway?
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
My understanding is that the Department of
Transportation estimates the subsidy starting out at I
-- I think it’s $12 million a year for the first year
of operation and rising each year subsequently. I
think in the tenth year out it’s $22 or $23 million
dollars. I -- I don’t really understand why their
estimates show an increase in the cost of the subsidy.
One would think that if the ridership increased, the
subsidy would be reduced because I don’t see any plans
to run a larger number of buses but certainly one of
the things that concerns me is the fact that we’re not
only assuming an enormous cost for construction but we
then are going to take on an ongoing cost.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Suzio.
SENATOR SUZIO:
Thank you.
And through you, Madam President, and if I may I
understand that there currently is bus service
available between New Britain and Hartford and I think
I heard the good Senator point out that it’s only
$1.25 per round trip. Could -- could you confirm that
and could you elaborate on the frequency or the
capacity of the current bus service?
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
56
April 26, 2012
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
Yes it’s a $1.25 round trip -- $1.25 regardless but
the ticket is good for one way or round trip within a
certain amount of time and when I’ve ridden it myself
I have found it to be -- I don’t think I was ever on
it when there were fewer than a dozen or 15 people.
I’ve never been on it when -- I never was on it when
people had to stand either. It’s -- it seems to run
at -- at something like a dozen to 30 some people.
And that’s twice an hour. It does not run as long as
the -- the proposed busway would run until 1:30 in the
morning or starting at 4:30. It’s more on the
business hours side.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Suzio.
SENATOR SUZIO:
Thank you.
And through you, Madam President, so as it now stands
the current bus service between New Britain and
Hartford is not running anywhere near its capacity if
I understand correctly.
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
Yes, thank you.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
57
April 26, 2012
No it’s -- of course it’s not near capacity and of
course the capacity could easily be increased without
necessitating the construction of a dedicated roadway
for that purpose and I think one of the limits to my
mind to the capacity -- or the demand for the busway
is the way we live now.
There’s -- there’s discussion about the fact that for
instance Southington residents could -- buses could
pick people up in Southington, go to New Britain, use
the busway and bring people to Hartford. Again living
in Southington I think one of the problems is you ask
yourself where would -- where would they pick the
people up? There’s no center really anymore. If you
-- the downtown is not a residential area to any
significant regard.
I imagine Meriden is similar in this way. So you’d
have people -- you do it at a commuter lot presumably
but that means people have to get in the car, drive
some place, get on a bus, go somewhere and then not
their car and be able to walk or take another bus to
get to their destination.
That’s -- the way we have developed the country since
the Second World War into the -- into a vast suburban
landscape with -- without density, with sprawl as
people say I think makes any mass transit alternative
difficult to use effectively.
I have a conviction that over time rising fuel prices
are going to force us back into more -- into denser
populations and, at that point, inter-urban
transportational makes sense. I’ve -- I’ve lived in
Europe, I’ve ridden -- I’ve lived over there for years
without ever owning a car and ridden buses and ridden
even more so trains but almost always you’re going
point to point. You get on in one city, you get off
in another city and there’s nothing in between because
the only people living in between are farmers.
That’s just not the way it is here and I don’t think
that creating a mass transit system is going to lead
to new living patterns. Only external factors like
the cost of transportation will drive us back into it
and when it happens I think it will be train service
that will be the preferred manner of transportation if
that answers your question.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
58
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
Senator Suzio.
SENATOR SUZIO:
Thank you.
And through you, Madam President, so -- so basically
though the present system is -- appears to be adequate
in terms of the demand for service and is measured in
terms of boardings and I think you cited boardings.
There were 16,000 boardings a day was it?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
Currently 11,000 boardings a day. The estimate with
the busway is that -- it would increase to 16,000.
This seems to me editorially like a very small
increase for a very large investment.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Suzio.
SENATOR SUZIO:
Thank you.
And through you, Madam President, and -- and the
proposed busway would not only alter the route between
New Britain and Hartford but it would dramatically
increase the frequency of bus service itself. I’ve
heard from a few dozen bus rides a day to hundreds.
Would -- could the good Senator elaborate on that?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
59
April 26, 2012
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
Yes as -- my understanding is that it would go on that
particular -- the basic New Britain/Hartford route
would increase from two to 20 buses per hour and I
don' see how even -- even their estimates on the
increase in boarding would not seem to justify a
ten-fold increase in the number of buses that would be
used.
I might point out too they’re planning on buying a new
fleet of articulated buses for the purpose of running
on the -- on the busway which is another investment
involved in the project.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Suzio.
SENATOR SUZIO:
Thank you.
And again through you, Madam President, if we use the
figure of let’s say 16,000 boardings a day just for
argument sake, most of those boardings I would assume
would be round trip which means that we’d be talking
about serving approximately 8,000 commuters per day.
Would that be a reasonable inference from the
projected numbers?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
That would be my guess as well, Senator Suzio.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Suzio.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
60
April 26, 2012
SENATOR SUZIO:
Thank you.
And so through you, Madam President, so basically
we’re talking about spending $560 million to construct
a facility to serve 8,000 people and we will subsidize
it to the tune of tens of millions of dollars going
out indefinitely.
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
That is my understanding and the basis for my
opposition.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Suzio.
SENATOR SUZIO:
Thank you.
And through you, Madam President, Senator Markley, as
you propose this amendment, would the funds that -- if
-- if it should be approved, if the amendment should
be approved, would the funds that would have been used
for the busway would they -- would they be potentially
available for construction of Route 111 -- I’m mean of
Route 11 in lieu of using the tolls that have been
proposed in the underlying bill?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
Yes, there’s certainly a good percentage of the
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
61
April 26, 2012
funding would be available to the state for whatever
transportation purposes we want to spend them on.
Remember the state has bonded over $100 million for
the purpose of the busway, money that insofar as it
has not already been expended, and most of -- most of
that bonding has not been expended, could be
reassigned to other purposes.
We also receive highway funds every -- every year from
the federal government to the tune I believe of about
half a billion dollars. Something like 150 million of
that is going to be diverted into the busway. That
money otherwise would go specifically to addressing
what strikes me as a crying need for bridge repair at
all levels of -- of our existing transportation
system, bridge repairs on our interstate system,
bridge repairs on -- on local roads for
municipalities, resurfacing, all the different needs
we have.
There’s other federal money which, as time has passed
on, I will admit has become -- becomes harder and
harder for us to either reassign or to otherwise get
but certainly some of it could go -- we could go
through a federal -- we -- we could go through the
federal procedure to get the money sent to us for
other purposes.
My suspicion is that -- that over half of that money
in the end, when you talk about I think 110 million of
the bonding -- 150 billion -- million on the -- on the
highway funds, it’s half of it right there. I think
over half of it in the end could be used for other
projects and, as I said before, I also feel like -- I
-- I think that even the money that we get -- that we
wouldn’t otherwise get that we spend on this is going
to be money wasted. It’s going to money that we wish
we hadn’t spent.
Again in my -- in my sense of -- of age and the
passage of the time I can remember, as I’m sure some
of you can, the people mover project at Bradley
Airport that Senator -- that Governor Meskill
initiated. I think one of the things that made Ella
Grasso a popular leader in Connecticut was the fact
that when she came into office she said let’s just
tear it down and -- and forget about it. I’m not
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
62
April 26, 2012
going to spend good money -- I’m not going to throw
good money after bad.
That’s my goal with this. I don’t -- I know we’ve
already expended nearly $90 million on the busway on
land acqusa -- acquisition and so forth. Some of that
land could be resold and we could recoup the money.
Some of it is gone but I would rather take the loss of
tens of millions of dollars and save hundreds of
millions of dollars of state and federal money.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Suzio.
SENATOR SUZIO:
Thank you.
And through you, Madam President, just want to
clarify, too, I’ve heard quoted publically that the
cost of constructing the busway is tantamount to
approximately $10,000 per foot which to me sounds like
it’s im -- pre -- preposterously high. Are -- are we
going to be paving the busway with something like gold
as opposed to tar or asphalt?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
I guess you want to answer that, Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
I -- I -- that may be a somewhat rhetorical question
and I’ll -- I’ll give a somewhat rhetorical answer.
Obviously we’re -- the intention is to pave it in the
normal way. I -- a thou -- it’s almost a thousand
dollars an inch. I have to say when I saw that -when I did that calculation, I thought aha I’ll -- I
can beat it with that number because it doesn’t seem
reasonable to me.
I don’t -- again I don’t fully understand why the cost
is so high. I know that the cost of land accusation
-- acquisition has been high on this project in some
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
63
April 26, 2012
cases but it’s a -- it’s a very expensive project. I
think that we saw estimates that indicated that the
rail service could be extended through New Britain
from Hartford, through New Britain down to Waterbury
for a cost of something less than $100 million.
Again in terms of relative value, I think we’d have a
lot more going for us to have a continuous system like
that that would tie Hartford on a route that could
bring you down to Bridgeport and into New York City as
opposed a -- a busway that basically dead ends on
either -- on either side.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Suzio.
SENATOR SUZIO:
Thank you.
Madam President, I have no more questions for the
proponent. I will just say -- make a couple of quick
comments. First of all in a day of fiscal austerity,
which certainly the State of Connecticut is confronted
with right now, it’s important to prioritize our
public projects and whatever the merits of the
proposed busway it seems difficult for me to believe
that there aren’t higher priorities for our hard
earned taxpayer dollars in terms of transportation
projects.
When I look and I see that even using the estimates
associated with the busway of 16,000 boardings a day,
we’re going to be spending, when you start looking at
the subsidies, over $600 million for 8,000 commuters.
It just seems ludicrous that we’d be spending that
kind of money when there are thousands of miles of our
bridges and roads which are in sad need of repair and
maintenance and I would say that we’d be far better
off in benefitting millions of Connecticut commuters
not a few thousand between New Britain and Hartford
and, therefore, it would be a better priority to take
that money and allocate it for general road and bridge
maintenance and repair.
I would also point out too that I -- I have a daughter
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
64
April 26, 2012
who lives in Santa Fe, New Mexico and there’s a
fabulous project that was built by the State of New
Mexico between Albuquerque and -- and Santa Fe. It’s
called the Road Runner. It’s a high speed train.
Cost the state a fortunate. It’s barely used today.
As attractive and as beautiful as it is and as fast as
it is, it’s so -- used so little that they’ve cut back
dramatically on the -- on the scheduled train
departures between Albuquerque and -- and Santa Fe.
In fact, when my wife and I were last visiting our
daughter in Santa Fe we thought let’s get on the Road
Runner and take the -- the train down to Albuquerque
where the airport is. But we found out that there was
four hours in between train boardings and there was
nothing that was convenient for us to get to the
airport once we were in Albuquerque.
So it was a plan that on paper looked dramatic and
looked impressive but it turns out that it’s a
tremendous waste of taxpayer money and, while it might
be appealing in terms of high speed rail service, in
the end the cost benefit relationship wasn’t there.
It cost the taxpayers far too much money with far too
little benefit and I think Senator Markley and those
of us who are concerned about the busway project
between New Britain and Hartford are looking at a
project that costs way too much, benefits far too few
people and should be far lower down on the priority
list as far as all the demands that we have for our
transportation dollars here in Connecticut.
There are many more projects that could benefit far
more people as a better use of this money and I would
urge support of this amendment as proposed by Senator
Markley.
Thank you very much for your time, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Senator Cassano.
SENATOR CASSANO:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
65
April 26, 2012
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I rise to speak against the amendment. I don’t want
to get into debating the busway. We all have our
opinions on the busway itself. It’s a plan that’s
been in effect since 1996, had tremendous support from
the Governor’s office at the time all the way down.
It was an integral part of the planning process of the
six pillars connecting the two cities together.
Unfortunately it has lingered for years and the cost
has almost doubled and we’re left with that today.
But I rise because I am deeply concerned about what
the amendment means. It is a terrible precedent for
this Body, for this Body, for federal government or
local government. Who are we to suggest that somebody
gets a grant and then we’re going to go after and take
a piece of that grant for something that we want.
And what grant agency is going to allocate money to us
for grants knowing that the State of Connecticut would
be able to take -- well we’ll take -- they got 50
million, we’re going to take 26 million and put it
over in this project. Scary, scary because it takes
away the -- the whole basis of applying and putting
money together in a project. It takes years to put
that money together, to fund something and the idea
that once you have that done that we can just pass a
law and say we’re going to take 30 percent of that and
put it somewhere else we will never, never have a
project funded if that’s the way we’re going to do
business in the State of Connecticut.
And so that frightens me and I am deeply opposed
against that process and will not support the
amendment.
Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Frantz.
SENATOR FRANTZ:
Thank you, Madam President.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
66
April 26, 2012
There is a gentleman in the room today who has
arguably one of the most difficult jobs in the entire
state and that job, if anything, is going to get
dramatically more difficult over the course of the
next few years and next few decades and that’s the
Commissioner of the Department of Transportation.
As our infrastructure grows older and older and we
start to see some of the newer statistics coming out
relating to the ages of some of our bridges, we have
many bridges -- railroad bridges in the state that are
over 106 years old. I think there are three of them
and there are at least another four that are over 100
years old. The average life span of a bridge, both
railway and also roadway, is approximately 50 years
depending on how heavily it’s used but averages about
50 years.
There are several thousand bridges that have far
exceeded the life span of these bridges including some
of these railroad bridges by a factor of two.
So
there are two reasons why this amendment is a good
one. Number one it ferrets out the utility of this
busway project as well as the price, the cost
effectiveness of the proposal, and number two what it
does is it suggests that, after stopping the project,
which I understand your concerns, Senator Cassano,
about that, but agreements can be reached. It’s -it’s happened before.
On a field trip in my earlier days in serving at
Bradley International Airport in Senator Kissel’s
district there is a place on the campus at the airport
which we happen to stumble across. I can only compare
it to a bone yard and you drive into this clearing in
the middle of some deep thick woods and in the middle
of it are these amazing concrete pre-stressed
structures and you sit there and you wonder what is
that all about.
And it was explained to me this was a project that was
started under an -- an administration at least five or
six administrations ago and they pulled the plug on it
because, after putting a lot of work and money into
it, because they knew it simply wasn’t going to work
and this was the proposed monorail -- actually just
not proposed, it was actually in process of being
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
67
April 26, 2012
built, the monorail system from downtown Hartford to
the airport with stops along the way and I believe
there were plans for it to continue on either for the
south of Hartford and possibly north of the airport.
So things can be stopped and there’s no question
because there isn’t one other monorail project in the
country, other than Disneyland, that has paid for
itself and justified itself. It has been tried many,
many times so the precedent is there and we should be
paying very close attention to what the overall value
to the people of Connecticut, particular in this area,
is in this proposed project.
We know that the costs will go up. There isn’t one -or I take it back there are very, very few projects in
the State of Connecticut that end up coming in under
budget and ahead of schedule. It has happened but it
is extremely rare and I wouldn’t be surprised if by
the time this gets done it’s closer to $1 billion.
Now if -- if we had a roadway, Route 84 specifically,
but also a part of 91 as it converges on Hartford, the
downtown area, if that didn’t get shrunk down to two
lanes, or in some cases one lane, we’d have
essentially alleviated this congestion problem and
there would be really no need for this busway because
-- because the -- the demand wouldn’t be there.
It would be just as quick, if not quicker, to jump in
your car and drive up and yes there would be -- there
would be savings in gasoline and there would be less
pollution and so on and so forth but my contention, as
a result of this amendment being introduced, is
shouldn’t we be looking at just simply widening I84 to
three if not four or five lanes in that very short
area in downtown Hartford and doing the same thing
with 91. No road is any better than its weakest link
or its most choked off point.
It’s just a fact of life. It’s fluid dynamics at the
end of the day. If you have four lanes, as we do with
91 coming into Hartford and I believe 84 as well going
down to two lanes with all these confusing exits and
entrances, guess what’s going to happen. The water
molecules are going to slow down, the cars, the trucks
are going to slow down and -- and then you add the
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
68
April 26, 2012
human factor and that’s going to slow things down even
more.
So wouldn’t it be better to take a look at what the
prospects are in widening those entry roads to the
Hartford area? It might completely obviate the need
for this bus project and lastly everybody is kind of
running out of money. We know the state is running
out of money. We know we’re running out of bonding
capacity. The federal government isn’t necessarily
going to have all the money in the world for states
such as Connecticut to do the infrastructure repairs
and maintenance that we are desperate to do. And the
Commissioner of -- of the Department of Transportation
really has his hands full. He needs every little dime
and nickel and penny to do the necessary repairs.
I know what it’s like to have a bridge come down.
It’s practically in my backyard when the Mianus River
Bridge fell down. That was frightening. To show up
on scene at about 5:30 in the morning because there
were helicopters flying around all over the place from
the National Guard. What’s going on, are we being
attacked? Got to get up and see what’s going on. Go
out and see a -- a bridge had actually fallen down on
I95 and there was a tractor trailer, the -- the
trailer part of it sticking up vertically out of the
mud. Cars in the mud, fatalities, it was horrible.
It can happen. It happened a couple of years ago in
Minnesota. It can happen and it will happen unless we
address those things. Good luck Commissioner and
thank you very much for the time on the floor, Mr.
President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Kissel.
SENATOR KISSEL:
Thank you very -- thank you very much, Mr. President.
About three weeks ago I had a nice opportunity to sit
in on a meeting on behalf of my constituents in the
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
69
April 26, 2012
town of Enfield. Enfield’s been working very, very
hard as a community to try to create a transportation
area where it would have a train station but also
other modalities to help bring people from one section
of town to another.
And they’ve actually been very good about targeting
grants and other funding streams and trying to be
ahead of the curve and I would like to thank the folks
from the Office of Policy and Management and the
Department of Transportation that attended that
meeting.
One of the things that the town is trying to do is to
try to be ready as much as possible for when this New
Haven to Hartford to Springfield rail system is up and
running but one of the things that is readily apparent
to me and was explained to us by other folks from the
different agencies is that there is a fierce fight for
railway funding on the federal level.
My understanding is that there were certain amounts of
funding put in by the Senate, very little by the
House, and in the compromise the most high watermark
you’re ever going to have on the federal level is what
one Chamber has put in.
Also while I think their rail experts would suggest
that maximizing or leveraging those funds in the
northeast corridor would be optimal, for political
reasons as well as any others, those funds are doled
out geographically. Connecticut is a slam dunk state
quite often for democratic candidates on federal
level. Battleground states like Ohio not so much. If
you’re going to be doling out federal dollars,
sometimes that hand comes into play and all of a
sudden maybe a project that may not be as valuable in
Ohio gets a certain percentage of the pie and a state
like Connecticut that may not be so much in flux gets
less of the pie.
I’m not saying that’s what’s taking place, I’m saying
that’s a possibility. I do know that Governor Malloy,
to his credit, did try to get some rail funds from the
federal government that weren’t taken up by Florida
but we didn’t come up with that much unfortunately.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
70
April 26, 2012
So what we have is a rather small pool of funds, not
too much light on the horizon and yet we still want to
create this New Haven to Hartford to Springfield line
and I’ve got a community that wants to benefit from
that and -- and has gotten other state and local
grants all lined up and we’re ready for the next step
and -- and my community, the people that I represent,
have said we’re sorry, you’re going to be waiting
until 1213, 1215, 1218 -- 12 -- 2020, rather, 2013,
2020 to get this money. Forget about next year or the
year after that, you’re -- it’s going to be a long
time.
All right, let’s set that conversation aside now.
Because one of the things that myself and my other
dele -- delegation from Enfield said was we’re willing
to fight in the Finance Committee to try to get
additional bonding but if we don’t get the other funds
lined up then we’re not going to have the Department
of Transportation and the Office of Policy and
Management ready to move forward on what we need.
Now talking to my other constituent towns, and by the
way the surrounding towns would benefit from what
Enfield is proposing, but the singular item that
business leaders, town leaders, regular constituents
that I talk to all the time, died in the wool
Democrats, Republicans, unaffiliated, they all point
to, at least in my neck of the woods, the seven
communities that I represent in north central
Connecticut, they do not for the life of them see any
benefit in a busway from New Britain to Hartford.
They have said they do not begrudge Governor Malloy
trying to create jobs through transportation projects.
As Senator Frantz so aptly noted there is an aging
infrastructure out there and I have first selectmen
and boards of selectmen and mayors saying you want a
laundry list of how this money could be given out
creating jobs, we can give it to you.
We will create, in -- in fact if you challenged my
seven towns to come up with a list creating more jobs
than will be created by the busway, they would do it.
They could do it. This is what I think is sort of
going on here. I don’t have proof positive but I do
sort of see what I think may have happened.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
71
April 26, 2012
Nothing against Governor Rell, but in the end of the
last administration it was brought to my attention by
people in the know that Connecticut did a horrible
job, a horrible job in grant applications to the
federal government for transportation dollars.
People that have folks in Washington, D.C. said I
wouldn’t say Connecticut was a laughing stock but the
folks in the federal government that review these
things said what the heck was going on with that
state. Connecticut you did not dot your I’s, did not
cross your T’s.
Not our transportation commissioner now, no way, a
previous transportation commissioner that has left
years ago. But I’m just talking about a couple of
years ago. So when you come into a new administration
and you’ve got a bad reputation now with the federal
government and see that was the first two years of the
Obama administration, what I think happened was is
that there was some real question marks regarding this
busway.
THE CHAIR:
Excuse me, Senator Kissel.
Senator Looney for what purpose do you rise?
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you, Mr. President and apologize to Senator
Kissel but would ask that this matter be passed
temporarily and that there be a call for an immediate
Democratic Caucus.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you, Senator.
The bill will be passed temporarily and there will be
an immediate Senate Democratic Caucus.
THE CLERK:
There will be an immediate Senate Democratic Caucus,
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
72
April 26, 2012
an immediate Senate Democratic Caucus.
There will be an immediate Senate Democratic Caucus,
an immediate Senate Democratic Caucus.
There will be an immediate Senate Republican Caucus.
All Republican Senators please report to the Caucus
room. There will be an immediate Senate Republican
raucous Caucus. All Republican Senators please report
to the Caucus room.
(Chamber at ease)
THE CHAIR:
The Senate will come back to order.
At this time are there any points of personal
privilege?
No points of personal privilege? Oh I’m so sorry,
Senator Kane. I usually look to my left.
SENATOR KANE:
Well that’s okay.
THE CHAIR:
Sorry, sir.
SENATOR KANE:
You’re going to the right, Madam Gov -- Madam
President, all right.
THE CHAIR:
Please proceed.
SENATOR KANE:
A move to the right. Madam President, I -- I do rise
for a point of personal privilege if I may.
THE CHAIR:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
73
April 26, 2012
Please proceed, sir.
SENATOR KANE:
Well somewhere in the crowd as -- as we’re all excited
about UConn day and all the Huskies being here this
morning -- or this afternoon I should say, I have with
me from -- from Watertown Sam and Diane Sirica who
actually bid to be with me today if you can believe
that and actually paid for the opportunity to visit
with us.
THE CHAIR:
I’ll talk to her later, sir.
SENATOR KANE:
Well -- you know visit with us this afternoon so if
you -- you wouldn’t mind I’d just ask the Senate to
give them a warm welcome.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you so much for coming. We are glad that you’re
here and he is a pretty nice guy sometimes.
Senator Slossberg.
SENATOR SLOSSBERG:
Thank you, Madam President and good afternoon to you.
THE CHAIR:
Good afternoon.
SENATOR SLOSSBERG:
Members of the Chamber I am very pleased and proud to
introduce to you my dear friend Dr. Laurie Harkness.
Dr. Harkness is the founder and director of the VA
Hospital’s Errera Community Care Center in West Haven.
The Errera Center serves as a single point of entry
for a diverse range of needs experienced by our
veterans. Dr. Harkness’s work has been recognized at
the local, state and national level. Over two decades
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
74
April 26, 2012
ago Dr. Harkness pioneered an integrative psychosocial
and biomedical approach to mental health recovery and
rehabilitation. Today her model serves as the
official national model used in VA hospitals across
the nation.
We are so proud to have her leadership directing the
care of over 3,500 Connecticut veterans annually. To
help educate the next generation of mental health
practitioners Dr. Harkness mentors the best and the
brightest post-graduate students as part of the
post-doctoral residency program in psychosocial
rehabilitation.
Today I am honored that the four students of the 2012
program have joined us in the Chamber. I have with us
Samuel Ada -- Adelman who is an MSW from UConn. Mr.
Adelman has been a long-time Connecticut resident
serving the community through AmeriCorps and a
previous position at the New Haven Family Alliance
Rebecca Gordon has a PhD in psychology from Ueshiba
University. Dr. Gordon has spent the past several
years completing her graduate training at the VA and
the Institute of Living.
Abigail Tischler has an MSW from Smith School of
Social Work. Ms. Tischler is train -- is a trained
art therapist and an artist herself.
Jamie Wright has an MSW from the
Social work. Mr. Wright is also
of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The
fellowship is to increase access
college veterans.
Smith School of
a U.S. Army veteran
focus of his
to VA services among
Megan (inaudible) is another Fellow who joined us
earlier. She has a PhD in psychology from American
University. These young professionals dedicated a
year to studying evidence-based models and values in
treating our veterans struggling with serious mental
illness, substance abuse and homelessness.
Like so much of Dr. Harkness’ work the success of this
program has inspired other veteran organizations
throughout the country to implement their own
fellowship programs to train and inspire the next
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
75
April 26, 2012
generation of expert caregivers.
I would ask that the Chamber please rise and give a
warm traditional welcome to these extraordinary folks
who are doing such wonderful work for our veterans’
community.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you all so much for being here today. We really
do appreciate it and thank you for all the work that
you do. I know our veterans truly appreciate it.
Thank you all.
Thank you.
At this time -- oh Senator McLachlan.
SENATOR McLACHLAN:
Thank you, Madam President.
I rise for a point of personal privilege.
THE CHAIR:
Please proceed, sir.
SENATOR McLACHLAN:
Thank you, Madam President.
Just very briefly I’m very pleased also to see Dr.
Laurie Harkness here from the Veterans Administration.
Dr. Harkness and her team at the VA were very
instrumental in bringing to the City of Danbury
Housing for Heroes which was a program that we
developed in Danbury which is an interim housing
program for homeless veterans.
We are grateful to the collaborative efforts of the
Veterans Administration in Connecticut and all of the
efforts that they brought and resources that they
brought to Danbury to create a successful program.
Thank you, Dr. Harkness.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
76
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
It’s a wonderful program, Dr. Harkness, thank you
very, very much.
At this point do we have any other points of personal
privilege?
If not, well this is a great afternoon for us. It’s
our Husky Day and we’re really glad to have the men’s
basketball team in the Chamber but first I’m going to
have the privilege of introducing our Senate
President, Don Williams, to do the introductions.
SENATOR WILLIAMS:
Thank you, Lieutenant Governor Wyman, and it’s our
privilege to have Husky Day and the men’s Husky
basketball team join us. You know we’re spoiled in
Connecticut because we have a world-class university,
the University of Connecticut, and we have a men’s
basketball program that is always among the top in the
United States.
So it’s our privilege and pleasure to have the team
join us here today. They always make us proud. Each
season they give their best and they take the time to
come and join us here at the Capitol right when we’re
in the midst of our -- our session so we appreciate
that.
And I want to introduce the folks who have joined us
today. DeAndre Daniels, freshman forward from Los
Angeles, California; Andre Drummond -- Andre Drummond,
a freshman center from Middletown, Connecticut; Niels
Giffey, sophomore guard and forward from Germany;
Shabazz Napier, sophomore guard from Roxbury,
Massachusetts; Tyler Olander, sophomore forward from
Mansfield, Connecticut, my districts.
You know Lieutenant Governor told me that his mother
teaches in Tolland. That was her former district when
she was a state Representative and she lives there now
too so -- and we all keep learning.
So, Enosch Wolf, sophomore center from Germany; the
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
77
April 26, 2012
team manger, Ben Rennert is here; another team manger,
Rob Spiesman is also here; George Blaney the Associate
Head Coach; Glen Miller, Assistant Coach; Karl Hobbs
the Director of Basketball Administration; Kevin
Freeman the Assistant Director of Basketball
Administration.
Now Jim Calhoun could not be here with us today but
Assistant Coach Kevin Ollie is here and will address
us.
Coach Ollie.
KEVIN OLLIE:
Coach couldn’t be here. He said this is the first
time in 26 years he didn’t participate in Husky Day so
he’s here in spirit. He had some family issues that
he had to take care of but just to speak on behalf of
him, our team, our wonderful coaching staff, our
president, our athletic director, we really want to
thank you for this Husky Day. We want to thank you
for recognizing us as a -- as a team that worked hard,
that played hard throughout this whole season with
some ups and downs, like you all have in life, but
they always fought together. They love one another
and they play for one another and they played for what
was on the front of their jersey not what was on the
back.
And we really want to thank them for being special
student athletes, not just basketball players, but
student athletes and getting their job done on an
academic arena also. So I just want to thank you for
coming out. I really appreciate it and just continue
to pray for us, continue to have our -- have our back
and pray for us for us going through this difficult
time.
But a lot of people see the mountains
vast opportunities that are out there
and we’re going to stay together as a
going to fight and we’re going to get
every day.
Thank you again.
but we see the
on the horizon
team and we’re
better each and
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
78
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
Thank you all very, very much. It really is an honor
for us to have you in this Chamber. You have brought
Connecticut to the forefront. You know people look at
us and we say -- they say ah you must be from UConn,
yeah not too far away. But we’re really very, very
proud of all of you and thank you. Keep that fight
going and remember it really is a family and it’s all
of us that’s part of your family. We really, really
do love your leadership. God bless you all and thank
you.
Senator McKinney, Senator McKinney.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate right now as you
can see where -- our guests are coming and I’m really
proud to welcome them here. These -- these are our
UConn football team and we are so glad to have you
here. Today I’ve got the honor of introducing the
Senate Minority Leader, John McKinney, to introduce
our football team.
Senator.
SENATOR McKINNEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
And if I -- if I have trouble up here, you know, as
the Minority Leader, don’t know my way around this
podium, maybe you could help me out a little bit.
THE CHAIR:
Just don’t get used to it, sir.
SENATOR McKINNEY:
It -- it is a -- a great honor to introduce the
members of our great University of Connecticut
football team but to do that I’m 5’10” and probably
about ten pounds overweight but we have two members of
the Senate here who actually played football for the
University of Connecticut and I would like those two
Senators to come up to introduce the players we have
with us, Senator Tony Guglielmo and Senator Joe
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
79
April 26, 2012
Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Well thank you, I -- I have the honor of introducing
John Delahunt, Dwayne Gratz, Ryan Griffin, Jory
Johnson, Jesse Joseph and Adam Masters.
SENATOR GUGLIELMO:
Hey guys just wanted to tell you that Joe and I were
on teams that won conference championships too but it
was the Yankee Conference and we didn’t get invited to
the State Senate. We didn’t even get invited to the
Student Union. But hey we’ll let that go.
I just wanted to tell you I -- we’re all very proud of
you and the way the program has come how far in such a
short time is truly amazing to those of us who have
been around the program a little bit.
We’re -- Joe and I are part of the football alumni.
Coach Baylock treats us real well, brings us up for a
dinner, we have a good time. We’re proud to be a part
-- even a small part at what you’ve done. I think, if
I’m not mistaken, it’s the second fastest team to make
the transition from -- or to Division I to get to a
bowl game and I went to several of those bowls games,
three of them, we had a great time. Won two of the
three I went to so you might want to invite me again.
I’m a lucky charm.
But I just wanted to say we -- we’re very proud of you
and -- and the work that you put in is absolutely
phenomenal. I mean when Joe and I played it took
nowhere near the commitment and the effort on both the
-- well academically probably was the same but not the
same on -- on the athletic end.
So I -- I just want to say you’ve brought us a great
deal of pride and I -- and I know for myself, I’ll
stop talking here in a minute, but to see a UConn team
a few years back beat the University of Notre Dame in
South Bend and look up at that scoreboard at the end I
never thought I’d live to see the day that would
happen so thank you.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
80
April 26, 2012
Okay I’m having the privilege to introduce our last
year’s starting quarterback Johnny McEntee, a real
hard nose linebacker Sio Moore, one of the best
(inaudible), probably the best kick return guy in the
nation Nick Williams, a lineman who runs like a
running back Trevardo Williams, and I watch the second
half, I couldn’t watch the first half of the spring
game, but Ryan Wirth had himself an afternoon that
most of us would be happy with and then senior corner
back Blidi Wreh-Wilson, great hitter. I didn’t get it
right.
Thank you, guys.
SENATOR McKINNEY:
Thank you Tony, thank you Joe.
Let me introduce, now that I guess spring football is
over you’re probably a little -- on better term with
your coaches than you were during the practices, but
some of the staff. We have Michael Digman, a graduate
assistant coach for offense; Jordon Orlovsky, graduate
assistant for defense. We have Dave Wilcaewski,
recruiting assistant; Tim Pendergast, our director of
football administration, Tim; defensive coordinator
for cornerbacks Don Brown; and last but certainly not
least it’s with great pleasure that I get to introduce
and invite up here to speak on behalf of the team the
coach of UConn football and a -- and a man who -- as
someone who has a -- a son in high school who has
probably given up his football career because he has
my athletic genes and not your size and speed, but you
hear from all of the high school football coaches
around the State of Connecticut how excited they are
to have a -- a real partner in football in the State
of Connecticut in Coach Pasqualoni and we keep the Dan
Orlovskys in the world from going out of the state and
keeping them in Connecticut and UConn football is
going to continue to be on the rise.
Coach thank you for being here.
PAUL PASQUALONI:
Thank you. We’re really honored to be here today with
you and we know how busy you are and how many things
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
81
April 26, 2012
you have going on so this is a pretty special few
minutes for us to have the opportunity to be here at
the State Capitol. Very, very proud to be at the
University of Connecticut, we all are. Very proud of
what this team has done, as was mentioned in such a
short period of time with the rise to I-A football.
A lot going on in sports today, really are. Nothing
bigger than the NFL draft which will start here a
little bit later on this evening. We’re excited for
our senior players, Kendall Reyes who may have a
chance to be drafted today and when you stop to think
that we have a player at the University of Connecticut
who can go in the top 32 players in the United States
of America that’s something that we all should be
really, really, really proud of -- really proud of.
We have -- we have several other seniors who are
hopeful in the next three days, Kashif Moore he’s
hopeful, David Teggart who made that big kick at South
Florida to put us in the Fiesta Bowl two years ago,
David is very, very hopeful. Harris Agbor is hopeful.
The great thing that I want everybody here to know is
that our players -- these players have all graduated.
They have graduated. They have gotten their degrees.
They’re outstanding young men and they are the type of
people that any NFL team would want to have, any owner
would want to have in their organization. Terrific,
terrific guys and we’ll all be very, very proud of -of what they do regardless of whether they make it in
the NFL or they just go on and go to work like the
rest of us and we’ll be proud of them.
We had our culmination of spring practice on Saturday
at Rentschler Stadium. It was telecast live by SNY,
you know, home of the Huskies. I thought SNY did one
fabulous job with the game. What everyone here should
know is that Rentschler Stadium was beautiful, looked
beautiful, came across the telecast.
I can’t tell you in the metropolitan area, New
York/New Jersey, the State of Connecticut, how many
complements I’ve received since Saturday on the game,
the field, the stadium, the atmosphere, everything
that went on and we have to thank you all very, very
much for all the effort that went into to putting
Rentschler Stadium in -- in Hartford. It’s just a
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
82
April 26, 2012
tremendous venue and something that we, I promise you,
do not take for granted.
Looking forward to the summer. We’ll start pre-season
camp on August 2nd. We’ll finish up finals next
weeks. These guys will get about four weeks off.
They’ll come back for the summer program. They’ll
work hard for eight solid weeks over the summer.
We’ll start camp on August 2nd. We open the season at
Rentschler Stadium August 30th -- Thursday night,
August 30th against the University of Massachusetts.
We follow that up the next week with a -- a home
contest against NC State, a very good program in the
ACC.
We have some exciting games at home this year
including Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and really
looking forward -- we’re really, really looking
forward to getting started fast, collecting wins early
and having a great, great season.
Thank you all very, very much.
pleasure for us to be here.
It’s a great -- great
THE CHAIR:
Again -- again to all of you thank you, thank you so
much for what you do for our State of Connecticut and
our University. And if on the way -- you know if you
get tired sometime and you don’t want to make it from
Mansfield anyplace else you can stop in Tolland. I’m
there, I’ll have an open door so just come visit okay?
No I wish you the best of luck and thank you all for
everything you’ve done. You -- you really have made
our state a place that shines because of you. God
bless you all.
Well it’s my pleasure to introduce the last but I
think one of the most specialist -- special teams in
-- in our state and that’s our women’s basketball team
-- UConn Women’s Basketball team.
Of course they are our Big East champions and they had
a record this year of 33 to 5 and I got to see two of
the games and I’m so pleased and pleasured. It was
nice in Rhode Island for one day. We -- we enjoyed
it.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
83
April 26, 2012
I -- I want to introduce first the -- some of the
players and first I want to say to all of you thank
you. Thank you for what you’ve done for us. You have
truly made our state shine. You know everybody talks
about our state they say how about those UConn women
basketball players and I said yeah how about that.
As you can tell I’ve got my hat. I’m not putting on
though because you’re not supposed to wear a hat in
the Chamber so but I am, never mind, forget that.
There we go. All right we’ll do it anyway.
So let me just introduce some of the people and you
know the Chamber really welcomes you. We love having
you here and it’s made our day even special -- more
special than it is and it’s such a nice break to see
you here rather than them arguing.
So the first person I want to introduce is Brianna
Banks. Brianna is a guard and she is from Georgia;
Heather Buck who is a center and from Stonington,
Connecticut; Stefin -- Stefanie Dolson is a center and
from Port Jervis, New York; Caroline Doty, she’s a
guard and from Pennsylvania; Lauren Engeln -- did I
get that partially right? Okay. Lauren Engeln and
she’s a sophomore and she’s from California. Kelly
Faris, a guard from Plainfield, Indiana. Bria
Hartley, a guard from New York, Babylon, New York.
Tiffany Hayes from Lake -- Lakeland, Florida. Okay
this is a good one. Kaleena Mosqueda-Lewis, did I get
close enough? I didn’t? I apologize. Kaleena,
sorry; and Kiah Stokes who is from -- is a center and
she is from Iowa.
We have with us also Sarah Darras, the
Women’s Basketball Administration. We
Moseley who is the assistant coach for
season. And of course a very familiar
that’s Shea Ralph, assistant coach for
year.
Director of
have Marisa
the third
name to us
the fourth
The next person I’m going to get to introduce is a -a man who -- I’m going to wait one second because they
didn’t give all the list -- that’s okay I got it.
Okay, sorry. Yes I apologize and I shouldn’t be -- I
should have just said it anyway. I want to introduce
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
84
April 26, 2012
Warde Manual, the Athletic Director. Warde thank you
very much for being here, appreciate it, sorry about
that.
Now the -- the person I have to introduce next we kind
of go back a little while but -- and most of us know
him as truly one of the great -- one of the great head
coaches in all time throughout this country, a man who
has dedicated so much of his life to our University,
to our -- our girls’ basketball program but not only
to us but even this year he’s going to be the head
coach for the U.S. National team competing in 2012
Olympics in -- in London, yes, and we’re proud of him.
And how -- I don’t know how many players of our own
we’re going to have there or, you know, former players
but I know that we have to -- I’d like everybody give
a -- a real warm welcome to man who has really led us
for a long time, Geno Auriemma. Come on up here.
GENO AURIEMMA:
Thank you. Yeah we’re going to -- we’re going to have
six of our former players on the Olympic team out of
12 so UConn’s going to be more than well represented.
As you can imagine that didn’t go over very well in
rest of the country that six of my former players.
Had a call from my good friend Jim Boeheim and asked
me if we were going to change our jerseys from USA to
UConn.
But that’s just a reflection of those -- those players
and what they’ve done since they left the University
of Connecticut and I couldn’t be more proud of them
and all the accomplishments that they’ve had and -- we
were here last year, right, I mean and the year before
and we come out here every year and every year we
report on the same things.
This year you know we -- we didn’t win the national
championship for the second year in a row so I know
I’m skating on thin ice up at Syracuse -- up at -- up
at UConn and I know since -- since we last saw each
other I’m sure you all have been reaching across the
aisle and meeting in the middle and holding hands and
singing Kumbaya and all that and all of Connecticut
thanks you for that.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
85
April 26, 2012
Really we -- we just love watching the cooperation
that comes out of this building, all the harmony and
all the warm and fuzzies that you guys send out every
day. It makes us all feel good to live in
Connecticut. Compared to what’s happening in
Washington we’re leaving in heaven.
And -- and I know it’s a busy time for you guys and I
know that you’ve got three teams coming through here
and it’s -- it’s really nice of you to -- to do this
for us, to-- to have our kids out here. For some of
our newer players, for some of our freshman, this is a
completely new experience for them to see what -- what
the University of Connecticut means to so many people
up here.
Whether you were born in Connecticut or not born in
Connecticut, went to UConn, didn’t go to UConn, I
think on this day and -- and during basketball season
especially I -- I think we give the entire state a
certain identity that maybe we didn’t have you know 25
years ago.
We give people something to -- to rally around, take
their mind off of the normal stuff that goes on every
day and kind of live in a fantasy world for two hours,
you know, watch the games and enjoy the way these kids
compete and what they stand for and -- and then follow
them what they do after they graduate.
I think they make us all proud. They
good about what we do as teachers and
want to thank you all for the support
the University of Connecticut and you
and -- and what we’ll continue to do.
make us feel
as coaches and I
that you give to
continue to give
As you know UConn is a completely different place than
when I got there in 1985. I don’t even recognize it
myself sometimes and what you all have done, along
with the people across the hall, has been nothing
short of amazing and you’ve help build a University
that -- that we can all be proud of for years and
years to come and two of my daughters went to school
there and I hope my grandson and my grandkids go to
school there.
So thank you for what you’ve done.
Thank you for what
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
86
April 26, 2012
you’re going to do and for having us today.
means a lot to us. Thank you.
It really
THE CHAIR:
Ladies again thank you so much. You really do make
our state a great place and you know what it’s not
only for the two hours that you’re playing or the
three hours it’s for all the time. We are so proud of
you and thank you so much for coming and sharing this
day with us and hope you’ll come back and spend some
time here. God bless you all, thank you.
(Chamber at ease)
THE CHAIR:
The Senate will come back to order, the Senate will
come back to order.
Are there any points of personal privilege at this
time? Senator Duff.
SENATOR DUFF:
Thank you, Madam President.
Good afternoon.
THE CHAIR:
Good afternoon, sir.
SENATOR DUFF:
For a point of personal privilege.
THE CHAIR:
Please proceed, sir.
SENATOR DUFF.
Thank you, Madam President.
That was certainly exciting to see our UConn teams and
to obviously enjoy the -- all that our wonderful
University, our flagship university, has to offer and
I might say that I think you should wear that hat more
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
87
April 26, 2012
often.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you, sir.
SENATOR DUFF:
I think it was really -- really fitting. But I wanted
to just take a moment because in thinking about the
UConn teams and them getting here for us, the
Senators, it looks very simple that they just kind of
show up and they’re here and -- but we know that a lot
of work goes getting them here and a lot work behind
the scenes.
So I want to just take a minute briefly to just thank
our staff for all the hard work that they do.
Yesterday was actually administrative professionals’
day around the nation and we have wonderful
administrative professionals here, not only in the
Senate but the House and -- who work for us as our
legislative aides and others who toil day in and day
out.
So I just wanted to thank those who work for us so
tirelessly behind the scenes. I know we have folks
like Terry Gavigan and Deb Buffington and -- and many
others, I don’t want to single everybody out because
I’m going to miss somebody and then I’ll get in
trouble, but I know that Terry and Deb are like our
den mothers in the Caucus Room. They make sure we’re
fed and we -- they make sure that if we have a
headache there’s aspirin or there’s coffee and -- and
I know on the other side of the aisle they -- they
have others who do the same kind of work and many
others again who work so tirelessly for all of us.
So I thought it would be nice if the Circle would just
kind of take a moment to stand and -- and thank those
who work so tirelessly on our behalf throughout the
session and all through 12 months and if we could just
say thank you to them I’m sure they’d appreciate it.
THE CHAIR:
All members join us.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
88
April 26, 2012
Thank you, Senator Duff.
Senator Looney.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, we have a -- a few additional items
to mark as -- as go before returning to the -- to the
calendar from other items. First on calendar page 9,
Calendar 312, Senate Bill 114; calendar page 13,
Calendar 343, Senate Bill 116, calendar page 14,
Calendar 350, Senate Bill 198 and calendar page 27,
Calendar 83, Senate Bill 263.
And it’s our intent after those items, Madam
President, to return to the bill that was passed
temporarily earlier.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
On page 9, Calendar 312, Senate -- Substitute for
Senate Bill Number 114, AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICES FOR
VETERANS IN PRETRIAL DIVERSONARY PROGRAMS, favorable
report of the Committee on Judiciary.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Leone, how are you this afternoon, sir?
SENATOR LEONE:
Good afternoon Lieutenant Governor. It’s a pleasure
to be here this morning. It was great to see the
UConn team.
THE CHAIR:
It was.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
89
April 26, 2012
SENATOR LEONE:
It’s always a treat for us here and I know you
especially enjoy that as well.
THE CHAIR:
Absolutely.
SENATOR LEONE:
Madam Governor, I move acceptance of the Joint
Committee’s favorable report and passage of the bill.
THE CHAIR:
Motion is on -- on acceptance and passage.
Will you remark, sir?
SENATOR LEONE:
Thank you, Madam Governor.
This bill, AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICES FOR VETERANS IN
PRETRIAL DIVERSIONARY PROGRAMS, what this does it will
provide for the development of treatment plans and
conditions or programs in certain pretrial
diversionary programs that are specifically for
veterans.
In -- in short this bill will allow veterans and any
other related people to use the accelerated
rehabilitation program twice rather than just once.
And the reason for that is that our vet -- as someone
will enlist for our armed services, if they were
unfortunate or had the need to go through the
diversionary program the first time, that’s usually
their one shot to go through that.
But the fact that they’ve joined the service, gone on
to fight for our country and have -- and they come
back home and for whatever reason many times through
combat, stress, PTSD and so forth, they may fall in a
situation where they may need these services once
again.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
90
April 26, 2012
Previously, before this bill, they were not able to do
that. But with passage of this bill it will give them
a chance to get the services they need and not fall
into the judicial system and have a black mark held
against them.
So this bill has garnered wide spread support. It
sailed through Committee with everyone on board. We
worked out all the issues on any questions that were
raised and I urge support of this bill.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you, Senator.
Will you remark?
Senator Welch.
SENATOR WELCH:
Thank you, Madam President.
I, too, rise in support of this bill. Very few can
testify as to the trauma that one goes through
especially in combat serving our country. And for us
to have the opportunity of providing an outlet for
these individuals who have served us so -- so well and
so bravely to deal -- to help them cope with some of
the -- the issues that they bring back I think is a -a very noble thing for us to do and, in fact, I think
it’s the least we can do for them.
So I -- I too rise to voice my support for this
program and I urge its passage among my colleagues.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you, Senator Welch.
Will you remark further?
Senator Witkos.
Will you remark further?
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
91
April 26, 2012
SENATOR WITKOS:
Thank you, Madam President.
If I could, just a couple of questions to the
proponent of the bill.
THE CHAIR:
Please proceed, sir.
SENATOR WITKOS:
Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, while you were
explaining the bill I found my interpretation was that
the person might have used accelerated rehabil -- or a
diversionary program prior to going off to Theater and
then, if they -- they had to use it again, that’s when
it would be available to them. Is there a condition
in the bill, and I -- I honestly -- I -- I’m going by
the debate as to when you might have used it your
first time when it would be available the second time?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Leone.
SENATOR LEONE:
Through you, Madam Governor, no if -- if this would -this would apply only to those veterans that had had
access the first time prior to the armed services. So
if they then needed it after the fact, they would be
the ones eligible under the provision.
Through you.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Witkos.
SENATOR WITKOS:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
92
April 26, 2012
Thank you.
And through you, Madam President, is there anything in
there that -- that limits the type of crime that they
would be -- avail themselves to that and I’m thinking
some of the crimes where it’s against an individual
person where the program may not be available.
There are situations -- I guess my -- my question is
are there situations where the program would not be
available to returning veterans?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Leone.
SENATOR LEONE:
Through you, Madam Governor, I -- I believed it would
fall under the same category as the first time so if
there are any barriers to say the -- the first time
anyone would have had access to the accelerated
rehabilitation, the same would apply.
So we’re not adding or deleting any other options.
This just gives a person a second bite of the apple if
you will.
Through you, Madam Governor.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Witkos.
SENATOR WITKOS:
Thank you.
I thank the gentleman for his answers.
THE CHAIR.
Thank you.
Senator Leone.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
93
April 26, 2012
SENATOR LEONE:
Thank you.
I would offer this on Consent.
THE CHAIR:
Seeing no objection, so ordered, sir.
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
On page 13, Calendar 343, Substitute for Senate Bill
Number 116, AN ACT CONCERNING A STATE MILITARY ACCOUNT
FOR MORALE, WELFARE AND RECREATION PROGRAMS, favorable
report of the Committee on Appropriations.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Leone.
SENATOR LEONE:
Thank you, Madam Governor.
I move acceptance of the Joint Committee’s favorable
report and passage of the bill.
THE CHAIR:
It’s on acceptance and passage of the bill.
Please proceed, sir?
SENATOR LEONE:
Thank you.
This is AN ACT CONCERNING A STATE MILITARY ACCOUNT FOR
MORALE, WELFARE AND RECREATION PROGRAMS. This is a
military department bill and it establishes a separate
non-lapsing Army National Guard state morale, welfare
and recreation account in the general fund to hold any
money the law requires including proceeds of state
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
94
April 26, 2012
military morale, welfare and recreation programs.
The Adjutant General must spend the funds to operate
these programs and this is, in effect, sort of a
technical change. They are doing the services
already. It was a way to establish a fund in order to
spend down the money.
Through you, Madam Governor.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark?
Will you remark?
If not -SENATOR LEONE:
If not, I would offer this on Consent as well.
THE CHAIR:
Seeing no objection so ordered, sir.
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
On page 14, Calendar 350, Substitute for Senate Bill
Number 198, AN ACT CONCERNING DESECRATION OF WAR OR
VETERANS’ MEMORIALS, favorable report of the Committee
on Judiciary.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Leone, this is the trifecta.
SENATOR LEONE:
Well hopefully three is a charm, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
I hope so.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
95
April 26, 2012
SENATOR LEONE:
I move acceptance of the Joint Committee’s favorable
report and passage of the bill.
THE CHAIR:
On acceptance and passage, please proceed, sir?
SENATOR LEONE:
Thank you, Madam President.
This is a -- AN ACT CONCERNING DESECRATION OF WAR OR
VETERANS’ MEMORIALS, basically self-explanatory. This
is to -- this bill will define two crimes concerning
war veteran -- war or veteran memorials or monuments
and sets the corresponding penalties for them.
So if -- if anyone were to desecrate a war memorial or
a veterans memorial, it would be a Class D felony or
five years in prison or -- or both. So this is in
response to an actual event. We want to ensure that
it never happens again and with that I would urge
passage.
THE CHAIR:
Will you remark?
Will you remark?
Senator Witkos.
SENATOR WITKOS:
Thank you, Madam President.
I -- I just want to make sure I -- I’m clear on what
the bill does and I -- and I -- I take umbrage to the
-- the fact I remember watching on television during
the unfortunate passing of some of our military
personnel where protestors were across the street
holding signs and chanting and -- and I think that’s
despicable.
And through you, Madam President, would -- would this
bill prevent them from doing that because I know the
whole other side of the argument is going to be of
free speech? So giving this scenario the -- the
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
96
April 26, 2012
hypothetical I gave you, Madam President, would -would this law apply to those situations?
Through you.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Leone.
SENATOR LEONE:
Through you, Madam President, no I don’t believe it
would. This is basically for the desecration of a -of a memorial and current law for anyone that -- for
free speech I believe they have to stand a certain
distance away from the event before any action would
be taken.
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Witkos.
SENATOR WITKOS:
Thank you.
And the -- anybody who is responsible for I guess
maintenance of -- of a cemetery and sometimes people
have intent to do good service -- to do good will they
may see some small flags that are -- are worn or
tattered and -- and maybe they didn’t get permission
but they feel that maybe shouldn’t adorn the -- the -the graves of -- of those soldiers any longer because
they’re -- they’re -- they want to replace them and
they went to just remove those to do a good service.
Would they be held liable for this?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Leone.
SENATOR LEONE:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
97
April 26, 2012
Thank you, Madam President.
Through you, I do not believe so. That is not the
intent of this bill. The -- it was -- it’s more in
line with someone actually physically destroying or
desecrating a memorial. The takings of a flag in -in -- basically in memorance of -- for that person I
would propose or suppose I don’t think that would be
the course for this -- for this bill.
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Witkos.
SENATOR WITKOS:
Thank you, Madam President.
I just wanted to put that on the record for
Legislative intent.
Thank you very much.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you, sir.
Will you remark further?
SENATOR LEONE:
Thank you, Madam President.
With that I would put this on Consent.
THE CHAIR:
Seeing no objection so ordered.
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
On page 27, Calendar 83, Substitute for Senate Bill
Number 263, AN ACT CONCERNING LIABILITY OF ZONING
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
98
April 26, 2012
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, favorable report of the
Committee on Judiciary.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Cassano.
SENATOR CASSANO:
Good afternoon, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Good afternoon, sir.
SENATOR CASSANO:
I move acceptance of the Joint Committee’s favorable
report and passage of the bill and waive its reading
and seek to summarize.
THE CHAIR:
Acting on approval of the bill, please proceed, sir.
SENATOR CASSANO:
Thank you.
This is a -- a bill that we had last year, was passed
unanimously last year and died on the House floor.
It’s back again in the same form, AN ACT CONCERNING
LIABILITY OF ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. Zoning
enforcement officers are the only one that have treble
damages when they make decisions, whether they be in
poor taste or -- or whatever, they are personally
responsible and it’s the only town employee, municipal
employee, that has this hanging over them.
There is much testimony from municipalities in favor
of this bill which would eliminate those treble
damages and treat them as -- as any other municipal
employee and there were, in fact, several examples
given that these zoning enforcement officers, in many
cases, are reluctant to make decisions because they
are personally liable for those decisions.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
99
April 26, 2012
So I would urge passage of the bill.
THE CHAIR:
Will you remark?
Senator Duff.
SENATOR DUFF:
Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, I just want to echo the statements of
Senator Cassano and thank him for his hard work. This
is an issue very important to our municipalities. As
a matter of fact when we had a -- the breakfast at the
Southwestern Regional Planning Association it’s one of
their priority bills and I appreciate his hard work.
I hope this year that the House will also see the
wisdom in this bill and that we can get greater
enforcement from our municipalities because I know
that many of them are very concerned about the treble
damages issue.
So again I -- I commend Senator Cassano for his hard
work on this and look forward to this hopefully
becoming a law this year.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark?
Senator Leone.
SENATOR LEONE:
Thank you, Madam President.
I also would like
echo the comments
As mentioned this
and especially to
to urge my support on this bill and
Senator Duff and Senator Cassano.
is important to the municipalities
the zoning off -- officers that have
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
100
April 26, 2012
to go out and enforce the zoning rules and ordinances
and because they were sometimes to be held accountable
for just doing their job it could, in fact, cause them
to be fearful of doing that and this would eliminate
that -- that fear and enable them to do the job that
they were tasked to do.
So I would urge support and think it’s a -- a great
bill and ought to pass.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark?
Will you remark?
Senator McKinney.
SENATOR McKINNEY:
Thank you.
Madam President, if I could, just one question to the
proponent of the legislation.
THE CHAIR:
Please proceed, sir.
SENATOR McKINNEY:
And -- and I -- and I rise in support of it but we -we are removing the -- the personal liability for
zoning enforcement officers for treble damages. But
just for -- for the record and for my understanding,
through you, Madam President, zoning enforcement
officers still may have liability. The issue is that
their liability, if it’s deemed that they’ve acted
frivolously, et cetera, would be no different than the
liability of any other municipal employee, is that
correct?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
101
April 26, 2012
Senator Cassano.
SENATOR CASSANO:
Yes, that is correct.
SENATOR McKINNEY:
Great, thank you sir.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark further?
Will you remark further?
If not -SENATOR CASSANO:
If no objection, I’d ask that it be put on the Consent
Calendar.
THE CHAIR:
Seeing no objection so ordered.
Mr. Clerk, will you call the bill that been put on
hold?
THE CLERK:
On page 30, Calendar 134, Senate Bill Number 289, AN
ACT CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TOLLS FOR THE
EXTENSION OF ROUTE 11. Senate B has been designated.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley -- I’m sorry, Senator Maynard.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
That’s quite all right, Senator -- I mean.
THE CHAIR:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
102
April 26, 2012
That’s okay we’re even now.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
Madam President, another M.
Yes thank you, Madam President and since we were
discussing the amendment I would yield to Senator
Markley.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley, will you accept the yield, sir?
SENATOR MARKLEY:
I do gratefully, Madam President.
And if I -- if I may be indulged, you know it was
Senator Kissel who was actually in the midst of his
peroration so I would yield to Senator Kissel if he’d
like to continue.
THE CHAIR:
And Senator Kissel will you accept the yield, sir?
SENATOR KISSEL:
I shall very much happily accept the yield from
Senator Markley.
THE CHAIR:
Please proceed, sir.
SENATOR KISSEL:
And I don’t think that we’ve heard the term peroration
in a long time and I appreciate that.
I think as I left earlier this afternoon I was stating
that it’s my understanding from people that were very
much in the know in Washington, D.C. that at the end
of the last administration under a different
Department of Transportation commissioner Connecticut
did miserably in grant applications for federal
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
103
April 26, 2012
funding.
And so when the new administration of Governor Malloy
came on board it’s my guess that with this busway
project the federal authorities basically said listen
Connecticut you’ve -- you’ve done very poorly and now
if you turn around with this busway application that’s
been out here for years, you’re really going to be at
the bottom of the pile.
Now I don’t know that for sure but it did seem that
for a while the current administration was up in the
air as to whether they were going to move with this
project or not. And just in reading the tea leaves
and -- and perhaps I’m wrong, but I do believe that
the federal authorities put a little bit of pressure
on our state to move forward with this project.
That being a possibility, I would say this. There’s
clearly a major disagreement as to the merits of the
-- the busway project. I sit right next to Senator
Gerratana. I appreciate where she’s coming from. I
listened to all the facts articulated by Senator
Markley and Senator Suzio.
A thousand dollars an inch, $10,000 a foot, limited
access, overly optimistic passenger numbers. We’re
going to find ourselves with a boondoggle on our hands
at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars and, as
I had articulated earlier, I have a town, Enfield,
that has earmarks and money commit -- committed for a
rail station and a transit hub and we’re just looking
to get to the next step. My community is ready to go.
Ready to go with a plan that has been reviewed up and
down and sidewise -- sideways with a need that is
being unfulfilled right now. It is not, in my
community, an if you build it they will come. But
apparently in this New Britain to Hartford busway
project that’s sort of what it is.
In talking to my business and community leaders they
-- to a person, to a died in the wool Democrat,
Republican or unaffiliated business leader, community
leader or citizen, there is not one person I have met
that supports the busway project. For those that are
involved in building and looking for jobs they have
said we can find the jobs with the infrastructure
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
104
April 26, 2012
projects that we have right now. And, in fact, if I
had to get the seven leaders of my communities
together around a table and said listen here are the
expected jobs created by the busway project, can you
beat those numbers, I bet you they could. They
probably could in a couple of weeks.
And I’m -- actually I don’t even know the amount of
union versus non-union, instate versus out-of-state
because I pick up a paper or I listen on the radio or
watch a news presentation and that seems to fluctuate
as well. But just as someone who has taken it upon
himself in the last couple of years, purely by
happenstance, but I was asked to talk at a couple of
conferences, one in New York City and one in
Philadelphia, and I decided I’m going to get on the
train in Windsor Locks and see where it takes me and
how the ride goes.
And there’s an awful lot of merit to the trains,
especially once you get past New Haven. Too many
at-grade crossings north of New Haven and I think it’s
going to be very difficult to have high speed rail.
I’ve been told that it’s -- it can be a reality but
the build-out is going to be a little trickier than
after you get past New Haven where you don’t have so
many at-grade crossings.
And let me say, between New York and Philadelphia,
wow, that train can pick up a head of steam because
they’re just flying over roadways and they don’t have
to slow down. But what I saw by doing that was that
you need to have the public to serve and in successful
areas where there are transit hubs you have branches
out to take care of the passengers. I do not believe
that we have, at the terminus, both New Britain and in
Hartford, an ability to take a higher than expected
passenger amount and bring them throughout the City of
Hartford.
I mean let’s say what I consider those pie in the sky
projections come true. I don't see unfortunately -unfortunately, at this time, Hartford bursting at the
seams with job opportunities. I don't see -- if you
have 3,000 more people coming per day from New Britain
to Hartford, A, how you get that from wherever they
get off this busway to wherever these jobs are and
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
105
April 26, 2012
these jobs aren't there.
See, transit can be created just for the sake of
transit. We're not Europe. Europe evolved with a
different paradigm. I mean, I hate to say it, but all
of you know your history. You know what Henry Ford
did and other folks of a like mind. I love to look at
the picture postcards of a town across my front step
on the Connecticut River, Suffield. There are picture
postcards that I have seen of trolleys from Suffield
center to the city of Hartford. We have a trolley
Museum, not in my district but it Senator LeBeau's
just over in East Windsor. It's gorgeous, but the
automobile industry and the barons of industry decided
we're going to gobble those up. We're going to buy
them up and pave them over and that's going to be the
end of that because we're going to make the
environment good for our product which is the
automobile and the folks in the oil industry were
happy with that. So that's how we evolved over the
last hundred years. That's our paradigm and you can't
backfit European notions of mass transit into that
infrastructure unless you have critical mass created
by population and job need and that's not New Britain
to Hartford.
Think about it. In the colloquy between Senator Suzio
and Senator Markley, I believe it was Senator Markley
that said that Ella Grasso, the first woman governor
in the United States, elected in her own right didn't
inherit the position from her husband, from my neck of
the woods, Windsor Locks, super bright lady. Okay.
Top of her class at Mount Holyoke, and again got her
master's at Mount Holyoke, Loomis Chaffee Preparatory
School, super smart lady. When Governor Meskill
decided to create the mass transportation hub out of
Bradley International Airport -- it sort of connected
in Windsor Locks, Hartford and maybe even stretching
up towards the Springfield area -- he was heavily
criticized as that project being impractical. If
there was any chance, any slimmest of chances that
that was -- had any viability, Governor Grasso would
have greenlighted it. Why? It was coming right out
of her hometown. Bradley was based -- is based, was
based out of Windsor Locks. This would have been a
jobs boon. This would have been great if there was
the slimmest chance that it would have been a success.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
106
April 26, 2012
Imagine, imagine any of us and the circle who has
aspirations to be Governor vetoing a huge project in
her hometown. To get to that realization, you would
have to gone over the numbers, up one side, down
another for hours and realize this just could never
work. That's why Governor Grasso shut it down and
that's why I think we need to search our souls now and
say, all right, there might be some front end loss.
There may be some liquidated damages that we are going
to have to swallow, but isn't that better than
something 700, 600, $800 million. I believe Senator
Frantz said that he believes that by the time this
thing is fully constructed, it will be nearing
1 billion and while the economy and the recession has
sort of brought prices down a little bit, typically
construction projects are a little bit over budget, if
not greatly over budget. Let's used the money
allocated here towards our other crying infrastructure
needs. Let's use it for towns like the town of
Enfield that I represent to help our hub for
transportation needs, what we want to do is something
for both intra-town busways, taxis, things like that,
and eventually, have the footprint ready to go for the
train station and the New Haven to Hartford
Springfield high-speed rail line.
Let's utilized some of these transportation dollars
for our friends down in Fairfield County. Last I
looked -- and you know, you can't get any further away
from the Fairfield County than, you know, my district
and the other ones bordering Massachusetts -- but to
their credit, I believe 40 percent of our tax revenues
come out of that one county. So much of it is
dependent upon the great metropolis, that greater New
York area. God bless those people that get up, I
don't know, four in the morning to make sure they're
at train station by six in the morning so that they
can make sure that they're in some highrise by eight
in the morning. But they are the movers, the shakers,
the drivers and they bring in all sorts of wealth and
we get it in our revenues. Last I heard that despite
the initiatives regarding Metro-North and all those
other rail lines that, you know, they are struggling
down there and they may have to fight, you know, fee
increases and things like that.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
107
April 26, 2012
We've decided that this is going to be the diamond on
the top of our transportation crown? It defies logic.
I'm not against Hartford. I want to see Hartford
vibrant. I'm not against New Britain. I've
discovered things just in the last year, beautiful
things in New Britain -- and I'm not talking about the
Rock Cats -- I'm talking about their beautiful museum
that they have on that beautiful park, a great set of
people and a city that wants to turn itself around.
That's all good, but 600 plus million dollars from
point A to point B, and an increase of speed by ten
minutes with terminis that can't even handle
disbursing the passengers that might get off there now
let alone thousands more and where are they going to
go? There are no jobs.
You know, we all like to pick on Washington with their
bridges to nowhere and boondoggle projects and
porkbarrel projects. Well, this is ours. I may
disagree with this administration on various policies,
but at least I can see the other side. I can't see
the other side of this one. I can't for the life of
me. I'm looking for anything to justify this and I
cannot find it and there is not a soul in my district
that can find it, not for over half a billion dollars,
no way, no how.
So it is a shame. I would almost stretch it to say a
sin to saddle our children and grandchildren with this
kind of obligation that will have very little, if any,
beneficial impact when there are so many other crying
needs and hopes and desires in our state directly
related to transportation that could benefit tomorrow,
that are shovel ready and that could benefit tomorrow
with just a small fraction of this kind of investment.
As I've said, I have been lucky enough to serve in
this Chamber for 20 years. I've seen great times. I
have seen times where we debated in this Chamber
whether we were going to send people back rebates. We
had so much money. Do you folks remember my
colleagues remember oh, gee $50, $75 a person. We
were debating whether it was worthwhile to send people
checks and I actually thought it was a great idea. I
said, hey, 75 bucks; take my wife out to dinner. The
other brilliant part about the rebates as much as you
may not have agreed with it is it to it off the books,
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
108
April 26, 2012
meaning we weren't building it into programs. Well,
those aren't today. We're not debating here about
sending people rebate checks. We just had a debate a
year ago as to whether we would have the biggest tax
increase in the history of the State of Connecticut.
I said, no. Many of my colleagues said, no. We lost.
We're still looking at a deficit. And we're still
looking at programmatic needs built into our budgetary
structure that are setting us for a fall just around
the corner. And here we are this afternoon debating
this kind of project.
I'm sorry, Madam President. I have to support this
amendment. I think it's a great amendment. It really
lays this issue right squarely on the table and our
chamber. I thank Senator Markley for bringing it
forward before us and I think we owe it to really
search our souls and our pocketbooks and wallets as to
whether the current course that we are on is the right
way to go. And if I may, Madam President, I would
like to yield back to Senator Markley.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley, do you accept the yield, sir.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
Yes, Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you, Senator Kissel. You've, as often is
the case, have very clearly what myself have struggled
saying this. And I won't go on at length, but there's
a couple of things I wanted to respond to. Senator
Kissel talked about the bridgework which is so
pressing for us. The State Department of
Transportation, in their most recent master plan from
just last year points to 436 bridges in our state
which are structurally deficient, 806 which are
functionally obsolete throughout the state, and that's
not including some of the smaller bridges which the
department does not have the funds to investigate.
Let me say in talking about the structural
deficiencies of these bridges, I have a breakdown here
by town -- this is the last year it will be possible
for me to read type of this size -- but in looking
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
109
April 26, 2012
over it, it's alarming to see, for instance, in
Branford of 12 bridges, ten of the functionally
obsolete, one of them rated a three on the sufficiency
rating, serious condition, loss of section,
deterioration, fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks
concrete, rehabilitation repair required immediately.
In Glastonbury, four of five bridges rated as being
structurally deficient. In Stamford, six of seven of
the bridges rated structurally deficient, and again,
three of them rated as being in serious condition with
similar concerns.
In Waterbury, five of the six bridges rated both
structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. One
of them, in fact, rated as being in critical
condition, advanced deterioration of primary
structural elements, need for immediate repair or
rehabilitation is urgent. It may be necessary to
close the bridge. Twenty-three interstate bridges in
Connecticut which are given a poor rating. Thirty
Connecticut bridges, which are rated below the
Minnesota bridge, which collapsed a few years back
with tragic results. That to my mind remains a
pressing concern which takes priority over any new
project, especially a new project which is going to
require ongoing -- ongoing funds, which at the moment
it doesn't seem like the state has.
Let me mention a couple of other things just in
passing. We talked about the rail alternatives. I
think one of the dangers of this project is that it's
going to close off certain rail alternatives. The
abandoned rail line with the old Highland line could
be restored, again, at much less cost than building
the busway. Onces that busway is constructed that
option between New Britain and Hartford will be closed
off. Any communication will have to go roundabout.
In fact, it will have to go south before it could go
north so it will make it a much less feasible, viable
alternative. The additional -- the busway lane laid
aside the Amtrak track where service is now in place,
will mean that a third rail cannot be added. There's
simply not space for it and that will rule out the
possibility of a high-speed rail between Hartford and
New Haven at least as I understand it.
It was mentioned before that the league of
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
110
April 26, 2012
conservation voters has been supportive of this
proposal. I would say that the Sierra Club of
Connecticut has been opposed to it and, in fact, I was
involved with members of the Sierra Club in an action
before DEEP to challenge the construction of the
busway on environmental grounds. Their concern was,
both with the impact -- the environmental impact of
the construction in the operation of the busway itself
which passes over a number of different waterways, and
again, the fact that, as a form of mass transit, they
do not feel it's going to be efficient. They would
much rather see the rail alternatives investigated.
And again, it's not simply a case of -- it is a case
of either/or -- or I fear it as a case of either/or
that we must choose one or the other and the only way
to do that is to not go forward with this project now.
Another thing I'd say about the usage of the busway, a
fact that is often pointed out is when we talk about
these 5,000 additional boardings, the fact that only
350 parking spaces are included for the 11 busway
stations would seem to belie the confidence of the
department in the number of vehicles which are
actually going to be taken off the roads by the
project. The last thing I might say is in response to
what Senator Cassano said, earlier in the session, in
no way would I want the state to do something improper
in terms of use of federal funding which would
endanger future -- the availability of funds in the
future. What I'm proposing in this is first of all,
above all, that the state-funding, the bonding which
has been authorized be reallocated towards existing
projects and that the flexible highway funds which are
given to us like an allowance every year out of the
gas tax, which we have complete authority to use it as
we wish, be used to address the structural problems.
The remaining money we'd have to negotiate with the
federal government and I would not -- I'm not -- I
believe in state's rights, but I'm not a South
Carolinian. I'm not looking to go to war over it. I
don't feel like that -- I think that that could be
negotiated with a certain amount of success to us
without endangering the ongoing funding.
So, again, this I believe is our chance to avoid an
error, an error that I think will discredit mass
transportation in Connecticut for many years to come.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
111
April 26, 2012
Again, just as the people mover did in its day, it
became kind of a hiss and a byword. I think the
busway, if constructed, may be the same kind of white
elephant, the sort of thing that makes worthy projects
suffer from the stink of a failure. So I would urge
you to take this very real opportunity to use this
money more effectively and more wisely.
Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Maynard.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
Thank you, Madam President.
I am delighted to engage in this discussion, although
I will remind the Senate that I am actually the
proponent of the underlying bill on Route 11 and feel
a little like one of the passengers on the bus in the
movie "Speed" and having had things hijacked here with
another discussion, but I'm happy to have that
discussion.
I'd like to say, first of all, that I admire very much
Senator Markley's commitment to opposition to this
project. He has obviously spent a great deal of time
looking into it and has had the opportunity, I think,
to voice that opposition widely throughout the
state and on our airwaves, and now, here in the Senate
and I welcome the chance to engage with him.
I want to just put a few facts on the table for
consideration because I think there may have been
insufficient rebuttal throughout the past several
months on some of these assertions and I think we want
to start first with the cost. The total cost of the
project is $567 million; however, that is all in.
That represents all of the planning, all of the
environmental studies. It's not the construction
phase and I will refer folks to a document that is
available online at the Connecticut DOT site and it's
called -- let me just give you the exact reference.
It's www.CTrapidtransit.con I believe. Let me just
make sure I got the right page before I send people
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
112
April 26, 2012
off -- where you can get -- yes,
www.CTrapidtransit.com, which will provide this
document and other information on the busway.
Far from being a 9.4-mile stretch of commuter road or
transit from New Britain to Hartford as if that was
some kind of a runway, it's actually an entire transit
system that will have as many as 60 communities
feeding into it by various intermodal means of
transportation. There's bus stations. There's 11
areas of downtown Square redevelopment areas. There
are a host of other components, there's a hundred
million dollars in fiber-optic and other crossing
issues associated which would otherwise be associated
with the Hartford/Springfield/New Haven rail line
upgrades, but have been included in this because it
makes sense to include them at a greater cost savings.
So when one looks at the project overall, I think it's
misleading to try to paint it out as nine miles
divided by $567 million and then do a square mile or
per mile or per square inch calculation. It just -- I
think it's disingenuous. Not to impugn anyone's
intentions, but I think is represents the facts in the
case.
This is an 80 percent federal match, 20 percent from
the state government. $112 million of bonding has
been allocated for this from the state. If we were to
reject this, as the amendment suggests and attempt to
repurpose that money, we would find ourselves in quite
a difficult situation. In fact, there would be no
money to repurpose. The money already expended in
this project in the significant planning stages and
the over 200 public meetings and the entire regional
planning process for this significant intermodal
transportation network would need to be repaid to the
federal government. So that one hundred $12 million
that Senator Markley and others have suggested might
be available to repair our bridges or do other
necessary project upgrades, would simply not exist.
There would be no 112 to repurpose. We would, in
fact, owe the federal government more than that for
the costs already expended and our obligations under
that.
We have at least six major construction agreements and
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
113
April 26, 2012
contracts signed with over 4400 jobs planned for a
system that will break ground in three weeks for a
transit system that will immediately, upon completion
in 2014, serve the entire region. So to characterize
this as some far-fetched boondoggle, ill-conceived,
not well thought out, to me flies in the face of the
entire planning process that has gone into it.
I might add that Governor Rowland himself approved
three significant appropriations on moving this
project forward and I might add that none other than
the wild big government proponent Oz Griebel wrote a
very forceful endorsement of this project in the last
several months. So the concept that somehow big
government has just come out the people of Connecticut
and forced this terrible boondoggle on them is really,
I think, a disservice to those who have been engaged
in the process, those who have supported it throughout
the years and, in fact, to the unanimous vote of this
body just six years ago endorsing this project as part
of a comprehensive plan for Connecticut's
transportation future.
So while I fully respect Senator Markley's right to
speak in opposition to this, I just profoundly feel
that we have to get the facts out before the people of
this state and correct a misimpression that has been
allowed to go uncorrected I think too long. And so
with that, I reserve the right to additional remarks,
as necessary, to rebut any other misconceptions that
may still exist out there, but I do urge my colleagues
to support this effort and oppose this amendment and
get back to actually a discussion which I hope I can
have both Route 11 and the underlying bill. Thank
you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark?
Senator Stillman.
SENATOR STILLMAN:
Thank you, Madam President.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
114
April 26, 2012
I rise in opposition to the amendment that is before
us and to associate my remarks with the very capable
Senate Chair of the transportation committee, who I -who just spoke so eloquently about the realities of
this project and its costs and the project in terms of
the greater -- the bigger picture here in Connecticut
as we look at multimodal transportation networks.
And I thank him for doing his homework and
understanding this project so that he can debate it as
well as he is. You know, this project, as I stated is
much bigger than just Connecticut, just that busway.
As Senator Maynard said, it does sort of -- it looks
other parts of Connecticut. It's certainly our hope
that the ridership on the busway will grow and that
the busway's existence will help grow jobs which will
also grow the ridership on the busway.
You know, as frustrated as we get so many times when
we want to change the rules in the middle of the game,
we have to be very careful about doing that and this
is something that I think could have long-term effects
on any future federal dollars that could come to this
state. We could put future dollars at risk because we
will be thought of as a state that is so fickle, that
can't make up their minds as to what it is they want
to do. And, you know, one year, it's one thing and
two years later it's something else and those very
precious dollars that we get from Washington because
we know we don't -- we're not able to count on federal
dollars the way we used to for many projects, not just
road projects, that I think we have to be very careful
in terms of the final outcome if this idea to cease
the construction of the busway were to go forward.
You know, it's -- this was approved, as was stated, so
many years ago, not just here in Hartford, but in
Washington. And that long list that Senator Markley
shared with us about projects that need attention and
we have them all in their districts. We know that.
There's not enough money to take care of everybody and
when there's dollars out there that we think we can
redirect, we all hope it'll come to our own districts.
It doesn't quite work that way, but I would venture to
say that that long list of bridges and roads that need
attention in this state and could only get that
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
115
April 26, 2012
attention through future federal dollars in
combination with state dollars, I think that we would
not be -- those projects would not be viewed very -be viewed the way we'd like them to be in Washington
and that they would be wondering again are they going
to change their minds.
And so I'm very concerned about the message that this
sends to the Federal Highway Administration and I'm
very concerned about the fact that we have invested so
much money in this project already. You know, I'm
looking at the fiscal note here and as Senator Maynard
stated, you know, we're really probably looking at a
little over $90 million, according to the fiscal note,
of state funds that have yet to be expended. And
redirecting them, you know, we all know how expensive
road projects are. I don't think it's going to get us
as far as we would like it to. And I am concerned,
it's not unusual for a state to be penalized when they
change the rules in the middle of projects, whether
it's a road project or a social service project or an
education issue. And I certainly don't want to put us
in a position of having to pay an extraordinary
penalty as we send dollars back to Washington rather
than continuing to encourage them to come here to help
us manage our infrastructure.
So for those reasons, I urge rejection of this
amendment. Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
I'm going to call on Senator McLachlan next, but I
want to clarify something if I can. When we PTed this
bill, we were in the middle of discussion of Senate
"B" so that when we came back in to session, we resume
the discussion on where we PTed the bill -- and so
it's on Senate a "B," just for the record, please.
Senator McLaughlin.
SENATOR McLACHLAN:
Thank you, Madam President.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
116
April 26, 2012
On the amendment before us, as stated, I'd like to
take just a couple of minutes, if I may, to propose
some questions to the proponent of the amendment.
THE CHAIR:
Please proceed, sir.
Senator Markley.
SENATOR McLACHLAN:
Thank you, Madam President.
Through you to Senator Markley, Senator, thank you for
your leadership on this. You've done an awful lot of
homework on the busway for those of us in the
Republican caucus who frankly don't live in the area
and have relied on staff to give us some key points.
I have studied it as best I could, but you are one
person who has really rolled up their sleeves and
learn everything there is to know about this project
and I applaud your efforts.
I, too, am concerned about the federal dollar
reallocations. I'm hearing concerns from some members
of the circle that if we walk away from federal
allocations currently approved, that they could not be
reallocated to other use here in the State of
Connecticut. And I wonder, Senator Markley, could you
share with us your understanding of the number of
federal dollars that could clearly be reallocated and
your understanding of the process for those that are
more problematic to relocate? What would happen with
those federal dollars? Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
Yes, it's a timely question and I want to say that
Senator Stillman has -- I said earlier I feel like a
number of different arguments are made for this busway
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
117
April 26, 2012
and the quantity of the arguments almost convinces me
that none of them is really the core of the reason. I
think this fear that -- this sense that we have to do
it because otherwise the federal government is going
to be mad us has been brought up before and it's an
interesting point. And I would say that -- as I said
at the beginning of the debate, a certain amount of
the money that's involved in this is new starts money
which is designated specifically for the busway. And
there's an amount of that that we would lose. I'm not
as expert as Senator McLachlan would indicate or as I
would like to be, partly because I've been so
dependent on Mike Nicastro and other people that know
these -- that know the information very well and have
been living with the project for some time. What I
would say unhesitatingly is out of the flexible -FHWA Federal Highway account flexible funds, there's
something in the area of about $130 million which is
entirely ours to spend as we wished, as we see fit.
So that money is right there. Additionally, there's
$120 million, as I understand it, in unspent state
funds authorized under bonding. So that would bring
us to about a quarter of a billion dollars, not no
small amount of money that would be available for
other projects.
With no doubt, if we didn't proceed with this a
certain amount of this federal money would not come to
us, but there's -- because it's in several different
pots coming from several different sources, there are
parts of it that we could apply to have diverted and I
think, again, Mike Nicastro has indicated to me with
reasonable hope of success. And I would say on the
general point of changing her minds relative to
Washington, we saw an example of this down in Florida
not too long ago when Governor Scott came in, he
canceled a high-speed rail project linking Orlando
with another part of the state. And there was
considerable weeping and wailing about it, almost
immediately, Florida was granted another project not
in exchange, but something else that they were
offered. So it didn't seem like in that case it hurt
Florida's ability to move forward.
I would also say that I met in Washington last year
with staffers for Representative Mica, who is the
subcommittee chairman on transportation, a staffer who
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
118
April 26, 2012
was extremely familiar with this project which had
gone on for many years, one of the people who told me
it's hard to stop these federal projects. And she
said at that time, not -- in a very matter-of-fact way
that this was the lowest rated federal project which
had ever got through the process in terms of their
priorities. So I don't think that Washington has
tremendous confidence in the project. I don't think
they'd be tremendously surprised if we didn't do it
and I don't think they would necessarily get mad us,
but I think we would be doing them a favor, whether
they know it or not.
THE CHAIR:
Senator McLachlan.
SENATOR McLACHLAN:
Thank you, Madam President.
And you mentioned that federal official stated to you
last year that the Hartford to New Britain busway was
one of the lowest rated projects considered for grant
funding by the federal government.
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
She told me -- she was a congressional staff member
for the transportation subcommittee chair who had
dealt with the project. And she said that was the
lowest rated one that had gone all the way through the
approval process.
THE CHAIR:
Senator McLachlan.
SENATOR McLACHLAN:
Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you, Senator
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
119
April 26, 2012
Markley.
I'm looking at the service map on the website
CTrapidtransit.com and it refers to multiple bus
routes that seem to merge into New Britain. And some
that merge at Elmwood and then they all drop off at
Union Station in Hartford. And so that sort of gives
us an idea how the tentacles move out in the project
and what directions they go.
Do all of the buses that are traveling on the outer
perimeters of this map, do they all get onto the same
road that's constructed between New Britain and
Hartford? Or do they have to change buses at that
point? Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
As I understand it, buses, some of which would be
originating in Southington, Cheshire, Bristol, other
towns in the area, would go to the busway and use the
busway from New Britain. I think one of the things
that I see that makes it seem unlikely is that it is
not in all cases the most direct route to get there.
If I were going from Cheshire to Hartford, it wouldn't
be via New Britain.
THE CHAIR:
Senator McLachlan.
SENATOR McLACHLAN:
Thank you, Madam President.
Markley.
Thank you, Senator
And so for all the state legislators and employees of
the Legislature that live in this area, this region,
were they to opt in one of these shuttles that merge
into the new busway and it drops off at Union Station,
what happens then? Do they walk to the capitol from
there? Through you, Madam President.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
120
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
I would say that if I were at Union Station, I would
walk, but there's also a local bus service, and
presumably, they could transfer to a local bus. I
think that's going to add a level of inconvenience to
it that would discourage use of the system. And
again, it comes back to a point that Senator Kissel
made before about the way we live which is that most
people want to have their car with them. And I think
that there's a problem at both ends, both getting to
wherever the bus pick up would, which is only going to
be within walking distance for a fraction of the
people in any given community and then going from
wherever their left off, which is only going to be
within walking distance of the ultimate destination in
a fraction of the cases.
So my fear is that once you get in your car rather
than drive to the commuter lot and make the switch,
you're just going to get on the highway and drive to
Hartford.
THE CHAIR:
Senator McLachlan.
SENATOR McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam President.
you, Senator Markley.
Thank
You mentioned also that one of the environmental
advocacy groups was opposed to the project, and yet,
the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters was in
favor of it. What organization was that that was
opposed to that?
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
Thank you.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
121
April 26, 2012
The Sierra Club of Connecticut, I worked with Molly
McKay who's been their transportation chairman, I
believe, and a longtime opponent of this project.
They were happy to have gotten attention from the
Legislature in opposition to it because they felt for
a long time that it wasn't the right way to go. They
are very much in favor of the rail alternative, but
they also have concerns about the pollution which
would caused by the construction of the busway and by
the operation of the busway. And also the concern I
expressed before that it's not -- it's the wrong kind
of mass transit project and the sort of thing that
will give a bad name for future endeavors on those
lines.
THE CHAIR:
Senator McLachlan.
SENATOR McLACHLAN:
Thank you, Madam President.
And you raised an interesting point about rail. It's
my understanding that this project seeks to abandon
existing rail beds and you mentioned that it will be
difficult, I believe you said the Highland line to be
reinstituted here in the greater Hartford region as a
result of implementation of this busway. Could you
elaborate a bit on what rail bed and how much rail bed
is being abandoned as a result of this? Through you,
Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
I can elaborate a bit. I would say the Highland line,
which is a line that ran between New Britain and
Hartford is partly abandoned. I've walked along a
good portion of it. It's been maintained as a
right-of-way so it can be -- it could be restored
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
122
April 26, 2012
fairly easily. I think that might account, if I were
guessing, for something like half of the nine-mile
stretch of the busway. The other portion of the
busway in Newington would run along existing Amtrak
right-of-way where they have two tracks in place
already. There's room, really room barely to put the
busway there as well and the concern there would be
this is the same section in which the discussed
high-speed rail line would need to go and the busway
would seem to interfere with that.
Amtrak -- the existing Amtrak line was another
complication for the maintenance problems I mentioned
earlier, which is they can hardly -- we can hardly
push the snow from the busway onto the real road
tracks so it makes it to know where it's going to go.
But in both cases, the currently abandoned Highland
line, which I think has been out of operation since
the early sixties, which is the natural option to
restore service between Waterbury and Hartford, that
would be forestalled permanently by the construction
of the busway and other options which might exist on
existing Amtrak lines would also be affected.
Again, representing Waterbury, having many times taken
the train from Waterbury to New York City, that spur
has become -- has been a kind of an orphan. If it
were completed through to Hartford so that it wasn't a
dead end, I think it would be much easier to keep
that, to make that service vibrant again and to make
Waterbury a more effective transportation hub with an
active train service.
THE CHAIR:
Senator McLachlan.
SENATOR McLACHLAN:
Thank you, Madam President.
Markley.
Thank you, Senator
I, too, have been a proponent of passenger rail
service in Connecticut, and especially, in western
Connecticut with the possibility of expanding the
Danbury the rail line north in New Milford and perhaps
even further north up the route seven corridor, that
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
123
April 26, 2012
is existing rail bed. It's little used freight rail
bed, but for relatively nominal dollars, in rail
construction speak dollars because rail construction
can be expensive, as we know by the high-speed rail
proposal that's before us in the I91 corridor. The
western Connecticut idea could mean that Danbury to
New Milford could be built for under $75 million and
have passenger rail service back in place. Was that
idea considered in parallel to the study for the New
Britain/Hartford busway? Through you, Madam
President.
THE CHAIR:
Sorry.
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
In fact, this is a point that we tried to make during
the environmental hearings, that the -- the study of
the rail alternative was not adequate and is also
dated at this point. And it is a much cheaper
alternative and aside from being more attractive I
think to potential riders, we just saw the extension
of the rail service which went from Boston to Portland
with great success, was extended from Portland, Maine
up to Brunswick. Additional -- I think roughly
35 miles for 30 something million dollars, just about
a million dollars a mile to extend that versus the
9-mile nearly $600 million cost.
Again, Senator Maynard made the point that it isn't
simply construction costs that are figured into the
$567 million. But I would argue that all the costs in
that amount are the costs that are necessary for
construction, whether it's actually the moving of the
dirt or the buying of the land or the building of the
shelters or changing the lighting signals or building
bridges or whatever, it's all part. It is for the
construction of the busway that we're doing that.
Rail is a much cheaper alternative. As I think I said
earlier, I've been told for less than a hundred
million dollars and perhaps for substantially less,
the service could be completed entirely from Waterbury
to Hartford. If we build a busway, that service that
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
124
April 26, 2012
could not be restored on that line unless the busway
was destroyed and restored for rail service.
THE CHAIR:
Senator McLachlan.
SENATOR McLACHLAN:
Thank you, Madam President.
Markley.
Thank you, Senator
So for clarification, busway costs I'm hearing 500 to
800 million. It sounds like it's somewhere at or just
over $600 million cost based upon our esteemed
transportation chairman's estimates. And yet, rail
transportation from Waterbury to Hartford could be
reinstituted for less than half of that. Through you,
Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
I don't present myself as a transportation expert, but
people who I have spoken to about it have suggested to
me that it could be done for a sixth of that. There's
been studies of it in the past. I think there's been
a preference by the Department of Transportation
towards the construction of roadway versus the use of
rail service.
Again, Senator Kissel mentioned the -- really the
tragic decision far long ago to basically do away with
our wonderful trolley system. I think that there's
been a drive towards -- a way from real mass
transit towards individual cars, away from rail
towards buses. And it's odd that I think, at least in
the case of the buses, that people don't really want
them. They never caught on in the same way and I
don't think that they will be a success in this
instance either.
THE CHAIR:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
125
April 26, 2012
Senator McLachlan.
SENATOR McLACHLAN:
Thank you, Madam President.
And Senator Markley, thank you, good for your
expertise on this. Just two more questions. One is
for clarification, is it your understanding that this
is the first time that the Connecticut State Senate by
way of your amendment is actually voting yea or nay on
the Hartford and busway? Through you, Madam
President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
Senator Maynard brought up the fact of a vote, I
believe, six years ago. My understanding is that the
busway was part of a large package which was proposed.
I guess I would say I don't believe that it struck the
people in the Chamber at that time that they were
voting on that project specifically. It was part of a
large undertaking. It's a project that has been going
on for a long time under three governors now and two
of the Governor's happened to be in my political
party. I still don't agree with them about it and I
hope someday I have a Governor, again, with -- from my
political party I can disagree with. I think this is
the first time that people have voted on it as a
freestanding project and with a consciousness of the
implications of what the vote means.
THE CHAIR:
Senator McLachlan.
SENATOR McLACHLAN:
Thank you, Madam President.
I can think of many times as many times that I
disagreed with my Governor of the same political party
and Senator Markley, I applaud you for standing up
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
126
April 26, 2012
when you feel that way.
Last but not least, you mentioned -- I think you
mentioned some legal action with the Sierra Club on
environmental issues related to this project. It is
this -- could you share with us what is the detail
there? Is this -- does this require an environmental
study by the Army Corps of Engineers once a petition
is made? Or is this civil action in State Superior
Court? Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
It wasn't really either of those things. There was
notice given last summer -- to waive an environmental
hearing on the busway. Representative Betts and I
gathered the sufficient number of signatures on a
petition to force the hearing process. And we engaged
the services of a very expert researcher, Robert
Frommer and Dr. DeSanto, who's an expert on
pollutants, to present a case on why the department
needed to go ahead and perform a full-blown study.
What we tried to do was raise the department's
awareness of the potential dangers of the project and
we were joined on that by Molly McKay of the Sierra
Club and some other people. And we went through an
administrative hearing process and a result of that
process was purely within the department, was to deny
our application and say that the study, the original
environmental study of the busway, which I think was
performed about dozen years ago was adequate and that
no further study was necessary. So in effect, they
gave the go-ahead for it.
That didn't involve the Army Corps of Engineers
itself. I know that the Corps has recently put out a
statement or a decision that they were satisfied with
the -- a study that had been done. I don't really
know exactly what process they went through, but I
assume that was picking up on the fact that the State
Department had approved it. I have to say without
wishing to impugn anyone's motives on this or sound
cynical, I feel like it so far as the Governor has
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
127
April 26, 2012
obviously made it a priority and insofar as the
commissioner and the department are -- respond to him
and report to him, I felt that it was -- it would be
difficult to overcome their tendency to support a
project that he had invested in so heavily.
And I don't see -- we have considered further legal
action on that front. As it stands right now, I don't
have any interest in simply harassing the department.
I wouldn't undertake it unless I felt that there was
some probability or possibility of success and I'm not
convinced, at this point, that there would be. So I
don't know that we will be pursuing that.
THE CHAIR:
Senator McLachlan.
SENATOR McLACHLAN:
Thank you, Madam President and thank you, Senator
Markley for your leadership on this and for your very
detailed answers. This has been very informative for
me and I hope for others.
I have waited to, I think, pass final decision on this
after listening to an awful lot of discussion. I've
been suspect about this because I tend to be in favor
of mass transportation via rail. I'm not familiar
with bus transportation as being the way to go. And
so I was always wondering why were we gobbling up old
rail beds to put a busway in when rail has always
been -- seems to be the more efficient way to move
people around the way that you're trying to do with
this shuttle service.
Based upon the information provided by Senator Markley
and his advocacy of concerns, I think that I will
support this amendment and urge my colleagues here in
the circle to do the same. Thank you, Madam
President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you, Senator McLachlan.
Senator Roraback.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
128
April 26, 2012
SENATOR RORABACK:
Thank you, Madam President.
Good afternoon. Through you to Senator Maynard who
was about to get on his feet and I wouldn't discourage
them from getting on his feet because through you,
Madam President to Senator Maynard, I was hoping to
ask a couple of questions to him in his capacity as
distinguished chair of the Transportation Committee.
THE CHAIR:
Sir, it is on the amendment.
SENATOR RORABACK:
I understand it is on the amendment but if Senator
Maynard -- I think might be in a better position to
answer questions on the amendment without
disrespecting Senator Markley who is not the chairman
of the Transportation Committee. There's been some
discussion about the degree to which the elected
Senators and Representatives of the people of the
State of Connecticut have had an opportunity to weigh
in on the relative merits and demerits of the project
at hand. And I'm looking at a memo that was written
by Senator Don Defronzo at the time that he was the
chairman of the Transportation Committee back in
December of 2010.
And through you, Madam President to Senator Maynard,
my understanding is that the only time the Legislature
ever put its fingerprints on this project was back in
2006 when the busway was included in what I believe
was a bonding bill and through you, Madam President to
Senator Maynard, is that what we voted on it 2006?
Was it a bonding bill or a transportation bill? Does
he know through you, Madam President?
THE CHAIR:
Senator Maynard.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
129
April 26, 2012
Yes, through you Madam President, the vote was on
House Bill 5844, which had as it's two top items the
New Haven/Hartford/Springfield rail line and the New
Britain Hartford busway. There were a number of other
bonding projects, but those were the two, the number
one and number two projects on the agenda. I assume
that was made -- people were made aware of that before
their vote.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Roraback.
SENATOR RORABACK:
I think that's a safe assumption, Madam President.
Through you to Senator Maynard, so was it then the
transportation bonding bill in 2006 that bill to which
Senator Maynard makes reference was?
SENATOR MAYNARD:
Through you, Madam President and I'm not trying to be
coy, I was not a member of the body at the time. The
bond -- the bill -- I have just the vote count on it
in my hands, but I have seen it and I can't tell you
it was called the Road Map for Connecticut's Economic
Future, and I suspect that it probably was related to
a comprehensive bonding package.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Roraback.
SENATOR RORABACK:
Thank you, Madam President.
And it's really not a that great moment. What is a
great moment is at the time that the Legislature
approved this project, I believe there was a price tag
associated with it. And through you to Senator
Maynard, does he know what the price tag was at the
time this body gave a greenlight to this project?
THE CHAIR:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
130
April 26, 2012
Senator Maynard.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
I'm afraid I do not have that information in front of
me. I'm happy to provide it, though.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Roraback.
SENATOR RORABACK:
And actually, it's not fair of me to be asking a
question of Senator Maynard when I know the answer and
he doesn't.
Madam President, through you to Senator Maynard, what
I understand from the work of the very learned Senator
Don Defronzo is at the time in 2006 with the
Legislature okayed this project it was predicted that
it would cost approximately $300 million.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Maynard -- I don't know if that's a question
or just a comment to you, sir.
SENATOR RORABACK:
I guess I could put it in the form of a question.
Would Senator Maynard have any reason to disagree that
the project was originally projected to cost
$300 million in the 2006?
THE CHAIR:
Senator Maynard.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
Through you, Madam President, yes. I'm told that the
time that the bonding was authorized there was not yet
a final all in estimate; however, the construction
estimate has remained at around $300 million for
sometime and is, in fact, that now.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
131
April 26, 2012
Just to expand briefly, I wanted to indicate as well,
but this also includes acquisition of the buses, et
cetera. So the 567, it's been all in cost. It keeps
getting money in there I'm afraid by some, you know,
exchanges that assert different prices for different
things but that is the all in cost, 567 with the
construction cost of about 300 million dollars.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Roraback.
SENATOR RORABACK:
Thank you, Madam President. And I'm not trying to
obfuscate or otherwise catch Senator Maynard in a
trap. Rather, I'm just relying on information that I
have in front of me that was generated by Senator
Defronzo at the time he was the chairman of the
Transportation Committee in December of 2010. And the
memo he sent that the time to members of the
Transportation Committee indicated that the original
cost of the project was estimated at 300 to 325
million dollars and that since that time between the
06 and 2010, the cost of the project had escalated to
be approximately 600 million dollars. So I'm not
asking Senator Maynard to take my word for anything,
I'm just sharing the information that provided by his
predecessor as chairman of the transportation
committee that the cost of the project had essentially
doubled in the four years between 2006 and 2010.
And the reason this is relevant information goes to
whether or not it would have been appropriate for the
Legislature to have been called up, or to knock on our
door and say, by the way, you thought it was a good
idea in 2006 and it may still be a good idea but
understand that in 2006, we thought we could get this
done with $50 million in state bond money and
$250 million in federal new start money, but for
reasons that are too lengthy too complex to elaborate
upon this moment in time, the cost of the project is
doubled and we are going to have to for go a lot of
transportation priorities in this state to find that
new $300 million to bring this project home.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
132
April 26, 2012
And so what Senator Defronzo recommended in 2010 was
that there be -- and Madam President, I'm mindful of
the discouraging reading, but I want to read from
Senator Defronzo's memo because -- two paragraphs,
because I think it's telling. It says, "If this
project is to go forward members of the Transportation
Committee and the entire Legislature need to fully
understand the cost and programmatic implications of
the decision with respect to lost opportunities to
fund other important transportation projects
statewide. At the very least the DOT needs to be held
accountable for what appears to be an insidious
strategy of incrementally locking the state into a
full funding plan without a clear up or down vote on
the transfer of FTA and FHWA funding and the need to
allocate additional bond funds."
Madam President, I'm done reading.
Senator Defronzo I think said it just right in
December of 2010. If we're going to do this, let's do
it in the light of day with the full understanding and
endorsement of the General Assembly. And sadly, Madam
President, that opportunity for this body to inform
itself, to debate, to elicit the operative pluses and
minuses of this project has been denied to us until
this moment in time.
Madam President, you travel around the state a lot and
we know because your here now and you'll probably go
out to an event and you'll be back at a clock in a
Chair. And I hope you don't have to go on I84 towards
Waterbury or towards Danbury where we have a chronic
and severe congestion problem, which is one of the
transportation priorities for the State that is taking
a backseat to this busway.
Madam President, without regard to one's view, in a
perfect world with unlimited resources might it be
desirable to have a busway? Sure, but we don't live
in a perfect world with unlimited resources. We live
in a world with finite resources where we have to make
hard choices about which investments will yield the
greatest investments for the citizens of the State of
Connecticut.
Given so many unmet critical transportation needs --
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
133
April 26, 2012
and I don't think anyone has a better understanding of
the amendment critical transportation needs than
Senator Maynard. He sits in a chair where all day
long he is hit over the head with unmet critical
transportation needs and we are choosing to overlook
those needs in favor of something which has clearly
not received the buy-in of the people of the State of
Connecticut and not received even the buy-in of this
General Assembly in six years before the cost of this
project doubled.
Madam President, I'm one of four legislators to serve
on the State Bond Commission. We actually got a crack
at this back in September or I can't remap are exactly
what month it was. You're probably there, Madam
President. You are usually there. And the morning of
the State Bond commission vote I was trying to wrap my
brain around how much money we were spending for this
busway. And I looked at the paper and there was an ad
from a car dealership that was selling Jeep Liberties
and I can't remember the exact price. I think they
were around 20 or 22 thousand dollars a pop and then I
looked at the population of the largest town in my
district, New Milford, 28,000 men, women, and children
in the town of New Milford. And for the money we're
spending on this busway, the State of Connecticut
could have purchased a new Jeep Liberty for every man,
woman and child in the town, 28,000 new cars. That's
a lot of cars and -- and that was the way that enabled
me to kind of come to grips with the magnitude of
this investment, what we could buy with the money that
we're spending and has as -- per foot, well, I broke
it down to $912 an inch. The State of Connecticut is
spending $912 an inch for an 8.6-mile, whatever the
length of this thing is, it's a lot of money and it's
a lot opportunities that we are foregoing to.
I'm sorry -- and the response, well, we're so far down
this road that we can't now turn back, doesn't add up
because it's not our fault that we're so far down this
road that we can't turn back. This is the first
chance we've had to express our opinion as the elected
representatives of the people of the State of
Connecticut since 2006. And when the cost of
something doubles, I think it's -- that's reason
enough to go back to the drawing board and call a
timeout. So I think this amendment is deserving of
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
134
April 26, 2012
our respect, deserving of our support and I think if
you tell the people of the State of Connecticut, if
this amendment passes, there might be hope to approve
I84 in Waterbury or Danbury and I'm sure it Senator
Maynard's district maybe we can use this money to do
Route 11. There are a lot of things that we could
spend this money on that we propose a much greater
benefit to the citizens of our state so I urge support
of the amendment. Thank you, Madam President.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
Madam President, for the purpose of a response to a
question and assertions, if I may.
THE CHAIR:
Senator, please proceed.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
Just to get back to the distinguished Senator on the
cost of the time, the figures I was provided was
$458 million was the projected cost of the project in
2006. I think it's fair to say that, as with anything
both in the private sector and public works and as
much as, you know, all of us are aghast at the price
of petroleum and gasoline and everything else, these
are unfortunately the prices that we pay, the price we
pay for delay.
It's one of the issues before us in the underlying
bill, is the fact that 30 years ago, we could have
built the eight miles of Route 11 for a considerably
smaller amount of money. Regrettably delay and
questions, and you know, sometimes lurches in policy
direction over the course of many administrations and
through various bodies here of the legislative
sessions, these thing get drawn on, not to mention the
federal element and a lot of the other matters
associated with it.
I would just say in a final response to the Senator's
overall question, that, again, I want to reiterate I
think the amendment is based on a false premise that
somehow we can repurpose this money and do all the
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
135
April 26, 2012
things we wish we could do someplace else. It simply
is in contravention of the facts. We cannot repurpose
this money. And as I indicated, we will be on the
hook for all the money that has been expended in all
of the years of planning, design, engineering and
environmental studies and the rest of it to this point
so that $112 million of funding that we hope, as I
said earlier, to somehow invest in other higher
priority projects as perceived by people from all over
the state simply will not be there for us to expand.
We're going to have to repay the federal government
for all the money that's gone into this project and
that money is coming out of our state pocket, not
simply returning unexpended federal dollars, but
reimbursing the federal government.
The final thing I would like to say is if we do this,
it places in question the other significant components
of that very bill that was passed unanimously by this
body, including -- and not to put Senator Roraback on
the spot -- but including the distinguished Senator
from the 30th District at that time the
Hartford/Springfield/New Haven line was on that. If
those people -- if we were to take an analysis of that
project right now and take a look at the costs
associated with that and make a determination that
some people in some parts of the state don't think
that's worth it or we took the approach that Senator
Kissel pointed out that we are not a culture that
wants to give up our cars and this is not Europe, and
therefore, we shouldn't build a rail project because
there isn't sufficient ridership and then that project
might be threatened. I don't think he would pleased
about that given his location in the state.
I think there's a lot of projects on that list that if
we took only a parochial interest in them could easily
be turned away and brought back in the 11th hour for a
referendum from this body because someone could make
an assertion that somehow the facts were different
now. This is the nature of these projects. They are
massive comprehensive projects that are going through
local, regional and state and federal approval
processes. The assertion that we could get a rail on
this roadway, that's an abandoned secondary line to
New Britain -- their's another line available for
further development -- but on this abandoned line that
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
136
April 26, 2012
we could somehow magically reinstate rail service at
that minimal cost completely flies in the face of the
facts. We have zero invested cost in that. There
have been no economic or environmental studies on it.
There's been no design or planning on that. There'd
be still the issue of where you're going to put the
commuters who come to use those, the stations that
would have to be built, all of the components that go
into building a transit system.
It would not be a wave of a magic wand and magically a
rail line appearing that everyone could happily use.
You have to do all of the same kinds of long drawn-out
planning engineering design and environmental research
on it in order to even begin to get that project
launched and it would be, I doubt, in our lifetime
before that could be approved. So I just want to
point that out.
I appreciate that some people, at this point, want to
question this, but the reality is that we are
well-along in a process that has invited overwhelming
public participation and it has gotten to the stage,
to now pluck it out because some folks feel that it is
not a reasonable expenditure, I think undermines the
entire process by which we approve mass transit.
So thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Senator LeBeau.
SENATOR LeBEAU:
Thank you, Mr. President.
I'd like to speak in opposition to the amendment
that's in front of us right now. And I speak as a
member of this circle, but I also speak is the chair
of the Transportation Bonding Subcommittee of the
Finance Committee.
And I really want to congratulate Senator Markley on
his incessant and intrepid fight for this, in this
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
137
April 26, 2012
battle. I mean, he's like a dog who's got bone and
he's not letting go. He just keeps going for it. You
have to admire his tenacity and I do, Senator. I
admire your tenacity.
But I have to make -- I want to make a couple of
points. It was interesting what Senator Kissel first
rose some time ago and he started talking about
Florida giving up some of the dollars for high-speed
rail. As I recollect, they did and they lost those
dollars and they didn't get those dollars and they
were not able to reposition those dollars. And guess
what? I think that Connecticut ended up being the
recipient of those dollars for the project which he
speaks in favor of, which is the Hartford or the
Springfield to Hartford to New Haven line. I also
heard earlier that we cannot have the faith, kind of
the "Field of Dreams" faith, build it they will come,
and I think that is true. On the other hand, we have
to have some vision.
You know, if there were no vision, the Erie Canal
would not have been build. And all of the -- and I'm
going to give some examples here of historical
instances where transportation systems led to
tremendous economic growth. And the first is the Erie
Canal. The second is the Transcontinental Railroad,
which by the way was proposed by the Republican Party
and advocated by the Republican Party in the 18 -late 1850s and 1860s, because they knew that it would
open up the West and if you go across the
Transcontinental Railroad, the cities and towns that
have sprung up along the railroad are another example
of the historical importance of transportation. Just
as it was true for the Erie Canal. And in a more
modern-day, the Eisenhower -- Eisenhower -Republican -- building of the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway System.
And if you look right in Connecticut and you compare
the landscape of today versus the landscape of 50
years ago, before the interstate system was built, a
tremendous change. And what is the change? The
development of housing, the development of commercial
properties. The development of industry along those
highways. Not so close but a system -- something that
was considered to be a far-fetched system, the Bay
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
138
April 26, 2012
Area Rapid Transit in the San Francisco Bay Area.
This was considered by many to be crazy. Today a
tremendous success and looking to expand constantly.
It was mentioned earlier Cleveland, the Cleveland
busway.
So we have a chance here to move ahead, to show some
vision, to show some initiative. And it's interesting
because, again, it was mentioned just a few moments
ago by Senator Maynard that the Hartford to
Springfield to New Haven transit system in itself
could be termed a build it and they will come dream.
Because we don't have -- we don't have the kind of
density, at this point, that would justify, a fully
justify that rail line. And what we plan on doing,
but what we know will happen is that the density will
grow around the rail line because it's happened
throughout history.
A final comment, Madam President, this is going to
cost the State of Connecticut $112 million and in some
sense this is not a boondoggle, but a bargain. For
the cost that we're paying for 20 percent of this
tremendous investment, it's a bargain and we have been
looking at this for -- since what? 1997. It is time
for us to get this project done.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Senator Kane.
SENATOR KANE:
Thank you, Madam President.
Through you a couple of questions to the proponent of
the amendment.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley, prepare yourself.
Please proceed, sir.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
139
April 26, 2012
SENATOR KANE:
Thank you, Madam President.
Senator Markley, I have certainly heard a number of
people from my constituency, my district about the
issue. And I'm assuming, and I'm sure I'm correct,
that you have heard from probably more because of your
in-depth involvement with it. And as Senator LeBeau
said, you've been at the forefront of this issue and I
applaud you for that.
But we share neighboring towns, and as you know, I'm
from Watertown which is just north of Waterbury. And
my question to you is when I mentioned that I have
heard from many of my constituents, I have not heard
one that said build this busway; whereas, it's been
quite the opposite. So I ask because you're in a
neighboring community if you feel the same way.
Through you.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
Yes. I -- obviously, it's one of the things that has
kept me going on the issue, Senator Kane. It's the
fact that I have received such encouragement from
people to attempt to stop it. And I very rarely heard
defense of the busway and that in a kind of a
halfhearted way. I would say overwhelmingly in
opposition to it. I have to say I haven't dug my
heels in on too many issues since I've been here. I
was involved in the issue on the utility tax last
year, on this busway project, on the unionization
issue that will not be talking about some point before
the session ends.
I've kind of limited myself to things I felt both
strongly convicted within myself that I was right and
that I felt that the people were on my side with -this has been maybe the greatest example of that.
Through you, Madam President.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
140
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kane.
SENATOR KANE:
Thank you, Madam President.
And the reason I ask that question is because we both
share the mixmaster that is in the center of Waterbury
which connects I84 to Route 8, both north and south,
and my district as I said is Watertown and just north
Thomaston, but that extends all the way Route 8 South
to Seymour. So my question to you, you started to
read off a list earlier about bridges and
transportation projects that are probably a greater
priority. So is that mixmaster, through you, Madam
President, among those projects that are in need of
repair, replacement, rejuvenation, for lack of a
better word? For you.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
Through you, certainly the mixmaster is a priority of
the Department of Transportation. It's like being
overpasses here in Hartford, a very aged piece of
infrastructure that has received much more traffic
over the years than it was designed for. And that
will have to have serious work done on it. It was not
on the list I was waving earlier which confined itself
to local bridge projects. I would add that as
somebody that goes back and forth between Southington
and Waterbury very frequently, a second project in
Waterbury is the need to widen 84 as your approach a
spot that is as often as not at anytime of the day or
night a site of a traffic jam. I know that
Representative Noujaim has worked hard for many years
to see that happening and that's moving forward.
What we do know is that there's $3 billion, according
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
141
April 26, 2012
to the Commissioner of Transportation, of necessary
work in the State of Connecticut and whatever fraction
of the $600 million would be available for us -- to us
for that work I would like to see applied to it.
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kane.
SENATOR KANE:
Thank you, Madam President.
And you're right, I make that trek everyday through
Waterbury in order to get here and I try to wait as
long as I can -- after that eight -- 8:00 a.m. to
9:00 a.m. rush hour, and then leaving your that four
to 5:00 o'clock rush hour, which is still backed up at
exit 25 and 25A in Waterbury getting through there
because it narrows to two lanes.
That area, as you mentioned, and of course, the
mixmaster, in my mind, seems like a priority. In your
discussions with people -- and I know you've spoken to
many people about this project -- in your district and
maybe my district and other areas in the greater
community, has anyone said to you, yeah, I'm going to
get in my car, drive to New Britain, get out of my
car, get on a bus and take it to Hartford? Through
you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
Through you, Madam President.
No. In fact, of course, just the opposite and there's
been a tendency to mock the possibility of that
happening. In fairness to Senator Maynard in his
defense of the busway, part of the idea of it would be
that there would be buses feeding into it, that it
wouldn't necessarily require people to drive to New
Britain, but you still have the question of getting in
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
142
April 26, 2012
your car and driving to wherever those buses are
leaving from. And this seems unlikely to me.
I think that it's interesting to the description of it
as an intermodal system in that I don't know what
other mode is involved and except people driving cars
to get on a bus. It doesn't seem to connect as a
commuting option to other forms of transportation.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kane.
SENATOR KANE:
It's like that movie "Planes, Trains and Automobiles."
Right? So -- thank you, Madam President. I guess
then if I were to take this bus coming up here, would
I still have to fight the traffic in Waterbury through
the mixmaster and through that congestion to get to
the bus?
Through you.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
Through you, yes, although the alternative might be
offered of saying you could get off somewhere in
Waterbury and drive down, and perhaps, get a bus in
Waterbury that would then get back up on 84 to drive
to New Britain to use the busway to come to Hartford.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kane.
SENATOR KANE:
Thank you, Madam President.
I guess the point of that question is I'm -- if I
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
143
April 26, 2012
still have to fight the mixmaster and the congestion
in Waterbury really at that point is no benefit for me
to take the bus, you know, because I've already gone
through the problem area, if you will.
It was mentioned that we cannot allocate these funds
if we -- if this amendment goes forward today. Is
that your understanding, as well, go through you,
Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
Through you, my understanding is there's a substantial
amount of state bonding money which has not been
expended. I don't -- I believe that the amount that
we would be even under any circumstances susceptible
to pay back to the federal government would be
fractional and doubtful, that most of what's been
expended has been state money and that a good deal of
that has been on property acquisition. Certainly the
property has not lost its value simply because we have
purchased it so that would not be a complete loss by
any means.
The money I keep coming back to are the flexible
highway funds, which are treated in this discussion by
the proponents of the busway as federal money. To my
mind because we received that money from the federal
government unconnected to the busway project but
simply is our allowance, as our share of the federal
gas tax receipts. That money is ours to spend as we
wish to and between the state bonding money, which, to
my mind, appears to be available still and that
flexible highway money, we're talking about something
like $240 million.
What would be available between the 240 million and
the 567, I don't know. Again, I've had conversations
with Mike Nicastro who could break this down. I was
saying before to the staff before I came out here that
I've become -- I've been spoiled by my mini
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
144
April 26, 2012
appearances of Mike Nicastro, when it got to the
numbers I would just say to Mike, you take over.
Unfortunately, I don't have that option here in the
circle, but I do believe that there is -- that without
penalty, there something in the nature of $240 million
available to us.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kane.
SENATOR KANE:
Thank you, Madam President.
So through you, would it be your opinion that we could
actually satisfy the underlying bill, meaning -because -- I think Senator Roraback kind of suggested
this -- that we could tackle the Route 11 project
without instituting a toll which theoretically is
another tax on our individuals here in Connecticut?
Through you.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
I'm not -- through you, Madam President and thank you.
I'm not sufficiently familiar with the final cost of
the Route 11 project to know how much of it would be
covered by the -- by what we're talking about with the
busway money. Certainly, again, the state money and
the federal money, which I believe we would otherwise
receive, could be applied to it. The remainder of the
federal money, again, comes out of various pots and I
think would have -- require various means to try to
transfer it from one project to another and I'm not in
a position even to speculate about what the chances of
moving forward on that would be.
Certainly -- and let me say parenthetically the last
thing I'd want to see is any toll put up anywhere in
the State of Connecticut and the only way I would
possibly support it is if an amendment to get rid of
the busway were attached to it.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
145
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kane, do you want to go back onto the
amendment we're discussing, sir.
SENATOR KANE:
Yes, Mr. President. My question was about the
amendment meaning that if the amendment passed and we
would remove those findings -- that funding from the
busway project, would it be possible to pay for the
underlying bill which is the Route 11 completion. So
I appreciate taking that leave.
Earlier, Senator Markley, I asked you if the people in
your district and -- because I can, again say the
people in my district have overwhelmingly said this is
a bad idea, don't do it. And I think you have said
the same thing that for the most part everyone has
said I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to get on
this bus. So who do we expect to be getting on this
bus if people from Waterbury, Watertown, you know, all
these -- let's say, 13, 14, 15 communities in our
general area and that's obviously an unofficial poll,
but who do we expect to get on and use this bus?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
Thank you, Madam President, and through you, my
personal expectation is that the same people who are
currently riding the bus between New Britain and
Hartford will continue to do so, but if we're talking
about 50 people an hour more or less it simply isn't
sufficient to sustain a dedicated roadway, the level
of service which the department has promised, or to
justify the expenditure and that is the basis of my
opposition to the busway and why I am promoting this
amendment.
THE CHAIR:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
146
April 26, 2012
Senator Kane.
SENATOR KANE:
Thank you, Madam President, and through you to Senator
Markley, if that's the case, if we're talking about
the existing ridership, are they generally coming from
New Britain or is there other towns that they may be
coming from? Through you.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY:
Thank you, Madam President. Through you, I would say,
again, from my personal experience of riding the bus,
I think it's a service which has benefited the people
of that immediate area who don't have cars, don't
drive for whatever reason and need to make that trip.
I think that is the constituency for them. I'm glad
the state serves them. I think that the bus system we
have throughout the area -- we just expanded to some
extent in Waterbury -- is important because it's not
possible for everyone to either physical reasons in
some cases to drive or for financial reasons to be
able to maintain a car which is a very expensive
undertaking. That service could be expanded
considerably for the amount of money we're building
for a dedicated roadway. What exists is adequate for
what's happening between New Britain and Hartford as I
have witnessed it and if there's other services that
could be provided, again, it's something that might be
a priority over the construction.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kane.
SENATOR KANE:
Thank you, Madam President. And I thank Senator
Markley for his answers. I tend to agree with him and
that's why I stand in support of the amendment.
I could tell you that for certain that the people in
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
147
April 26, 2012
my district that I have spoken to have not been in
favor of this busway project and believe that we
should not be entering this project. I do believe, as
the Senator Markley stated, that the mixmaster, having
grown up in Waterbury myself, that the mixmaster is in
need of repair and is in need of some dire work, and
quite honestly, it kind of frightens me everyday
driving over it. But more importantly, or equally as
important, is exits 24, 25, 26, that whole area, that
whole stretch that narrows down to two lanes and is
incredibly congested and should be a high priority,
especially in that area.
I don't believe that people are going to drive in
their car from my area and from the greater Waterbury
area to New Britain just get on a bus to go to
Hartford. It just doesn't make any sense. And this
is another situation where the court of public opinion
says one thing and we, as a Legislature, do something
else and we just did this last week with the death
penalty. And the Quinnipiac poll came out again and
said that 65 percent or so -- whatever the figure
was -- do not agree with repeal and we went ahead and
did it and here's another example of the Legislature,
you know, flying in the face of public opinion.
Flying in the face of our constituency and you know,
that's an important thing. This is Representative
government.
I do believe that at some point you do need to cut
your losses and I disagree with the fact that, you
know, we're this far. We have to keep going. I don't
subscribe to that philosophy. You know, if you enter
into a bad agreement or a bad arrangement, you know,
your house is a money pit, sooner or later you have to
cut your losses or what they say cut bait, and I do
believe that's a good idea.
And I think this is the time to do it so I thank
Senator Markley for bringing out this amendment. I
truly thank him for all the hard work he's put forth,
and quite honestly, I think the public is behind you
and I think that's well-known, especially in my area
of the state. And I think all areas of the state,
quite honestly, have really rallied behind his and
have stated over and over that this doesn't make any
sense.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
148
April 26, 2012
So I will be supporting the amendment. I do
appreciate Senator Markley for bringing it up and I
hope that going over that list that you gave us, that
we could tackle the more important things that are
happening. Even our federal -- legislators have been
holding press conferences about the many projects that
need to be tackled in addition to what we've already
talked about. So Thank you, Madam President. I thank
you for indulging me and I will be in favor of the
amendment. Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Senator Guglielmo.
SENATOR GUGLIELMO:
Thank you, Madam President.
Just briefly, I also am in favor of the amendment. I
did want to clear up one point, though, there was
quite a bit invention during the debate about Public
Act 06-136, which was something a lot of us in the
circle voted on in 2006, but if anybody would like to
see the report, this was really a strategic plan for
the State of Connecticut that didn't specifically
include only one item, the busway. In fact, the title
of the act is AN ACT CONCERNING THE ROADMAP FOR
CONNECTICUT'S ECONOMIC FUTURE, and it had 12 different
projects on one page and another six on another. So
it was a general roadmap, a strategic plan. It was
not a vote on the busway from New Britain to Hartford.
I'd also like to mention that -- you know, I've been
here a long time and I've watched a lot of these
big-ticket items come through, and you know -- and
have watched us to a lot of good things here, but I've
watched us make a lot of big mistakes and those
mistakes have been made under Republican governors,
under independent Governor, Governor Weicker, and I
think this is just another one in the long line of
what I call a "big-ticket items" that have failed.
You know, we spent $500 million on a Adriaen's
Landing. If you take in the interest when it's all
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
149
April 26, 2012
done, it will probably be a billion dollars. Now, it
didn't take a lot to understand that this probably
wasn't going to be a success. You know, if you're
coming to the East Coast of the United States once or
twice in your life, or the Midwest, or the West Coast,
you're not coming to Hartford. You're going to Boston
or you're going to New York. So a little common
sense -- and I voted against it -- but it was a
no-brainer. I mean, it just a little bit of common
sense. Most of the people in my district knew it
wasn't going to work.
All you have to do is drive down there tonight, look
over to your right. All the stores that we spent
hundreds of millions of dollars, all those retail
locations beautifully done, not one square foot
occupied. Not one. And when that was going on, there
was a young state representative, who was Democrat,
and I wish I could remember his name because he asked
the best question I've heard in 20 years up here. I
wish I thought of it. We had, in front of the Finance
Committee, we had people from whatever the firm that
was recommending that we build Adriaen's Landing. And
he asked them, have you been hired to do this before
in other cities and states? And they said, oh, yeah.
They named a number of times. Fifteen, 20 times. And
then he said can you tell us the number of times you
recommended that a state or city not build a
convention center? And they said they have to get
back to us. Well, I'm still waiting.
Because they were hired to come up with a conclusion
that we needed a convention center and they came up
with that conclusion. That's what happened. Then I
watched us go on that fantasy run with the New England
Patriots. We were lucky that Mr. Kraft didn't really
want to come here. Because that would have been a
huge amount of money and you know the truth of that is
they were never coming here. Hartford is the 28th
largest TV market in country, Boston is Number 6. TV
revenue is what drives most professional sports. They
were never coming to Hartford. Thank God. And then
we go on to some recent ones. You know, $291 million
for Jackson Laboratories for 300 jobs. $90 million to
Starwood Corporation for 800 jobs, $38 million to the
Cabela's for about 2 or 300 retail jobs. These are
jobs that we criticized Wal-Mart for bringing, but we
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
150
April 26, 2012
paid Cabela's to come and bring the same kind of
low-paying retail jobs.
So I guess the point is that all this just lacks
common sense. You know, I hope it works. I don't
want to see it fail because it's obviously going to
happen. You know, this is a freight train passing
through that, you know, we could try to slow down. I
commend Senator Markley. He has had tremendous
stamina to try and do it, but, you know, it's going to
happen. And I hope it succeeds, but to spend a
hundred million dollars of state money when we can't
even do the core responsibilities of the State of
Connecticut. I do like the constituent service, which
I'm sure most of you do. I'm getting three or four
calls a week about the Department of Social Services.
Nobody returns their phonecalls. They are trying to
get their food stamps reauthorized. I have to go be
legislative liaison with the person's name, client
number and then in a week or two we can get the food
stamps reinstated. That's a core function of
government. We decided that that's a core function.
So we have to make sure it works.
I sat down with the personal healthcare attendants,
PCAs, at Rien's deli right over in Vernon, wonderful
ladies doing difficult, difficult work. I could never
do that work, never, never, never. A lot of injuries
in that kind of work because you're lifting patients.
No workers' comp for these people. They get injured
on the job, they might be under some State health
insurance pay for their hospital bills. Nothing to
replace their wages when they are out. Basic need.
We haven't put any new money in the program in a very
long time. Small things, old timers respite care, I
think it's 200,000, 220,000 dollars. We may keep it
in the budget. I don't know if Approps put it in or
not, but it was out of the budget. Basic need. In my
area, hunting is a big deal. Pheasant stocking,
160,000 dollars out of the budget. Pays for itself by
the way. I don't know why that's out of the budget.
They get money money back in fees from the pheasant
hunters.
And I don't know about you, but I talked to my
constituents, and as the supporters have said, I have
not had one that thought this was a good idea. They
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
151
April 26, 2012
laugh about it. They think it's ridiculous that we
are doing, not just this, but these kinds of things
here. They don't understand it. And just listen to
talk radio. I do -- I listen to Jim Vicevich in the
morning. I listen to John Rowland in the afternoon,
if it's the right time and I listen to the callers.
There's none in favor of these -- of this project.
Going back, there were very few in favor of some of
the other ones either, but we never had a chance to
really contest those as vigorously as this one. So I
guess what's happening is I'm afraid, I'm really
afraid we are going to create another white elephant.
I'm afraid that the people of Connecticut are going to
question our common sense and intelligence. And I
think we need to get back to the basics. We need to
get back to public health, public safety, public
education and let's walk away if this is a mistake and
we're going to lose some money on it that's too bad
and I feel bad about that, but I don't think makes a
lot of sense to continue forward and spend more money,
throw good money after bad.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Senator Cassano.
SENATOR CASSANO:
Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I rise for the
second time. Actually, I talked on the very beginning
on this and I do want to add a few comments and some
clarifications.
First of all, Senator Markley, you've been very
dedicated to this and I understand that, and we kid
each other about where we are, but I'm on the other
side on this one for a variety of reasons. It seems
that what goes around comes around and today everybody
wants a train. We used to -- we had trains
everywhere. Somebody talked about the trolleys and so
on and the fact is in 1977, we ended an attempt to
build a train here in Connecticut, the Griffin line.
If you recall the Griffin line, it was before this
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
152
April 26, 2012
body for almost 12 years. The same thing, prices
increasing, running up and we simply didn't have the
ridership because Connecticut didn't then and does not
now have the ridership to build trains if we're going
to be able to afford it.
And if you think this is expensive, try a train. And
that was the message from our own Department of
Transportation and FTA. Time and time again, they
reiterated they will not fund construction for a train
and we hear that even again today. An alternative was
provided, this is a project of the Capital Region
Council of Governments. CROG met with FTA and others
and began based on really a push from the federal
government that we explore the possibility of building
a busway. Busways were being built in other parts of
the country at that time and they thought it was
something that was affordable, first of all,
construction-wise, cheaper to build and to him later
on, more effective to run and more efficient to run.
As a part of that early project CROG organized to have
every representatives, business representatives visit
existing busways. The Commissioner of Transportation
at the time Jim Sullivan with the approval of Governor
Rowland at the time went on that trip and we went to
Ottawa. Commissioner Sullivan was convinced that this
should be what we do. Ottawa was, by the way, over
78 percent of the people who commuted to work came on
the busway. It has been so successful and the numbers
have increased so much they now have converted to a
light rail which is the goal of many of the busways.
Pittsburgh was the second stop, St. Louis to look at
the light rail was the third stop and just comparing
operating costs and so on, made it clear this was the
way to go. And so CROG applied and did receive
federal funding. Federal funding under a program
called New Starts, an exclusive program where the
projects eligible for New Starts include any fixed
system which uses and occupies a separate right-of-way
or rail line. It does not include bridges, roads and
so on. It is restricted. It cannot be used for those
needs, though the needs are great. It was rated a top
ten demonstration project in the United States. It
was an exciting project but as we traditionally have
in Connecticut, we crawled along through the process
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
153
April 26, 2012
for a variety of reasons and we still haven't done
anything, even though the opening was supposed to be
in 2006. It was supposed to be open and operating, if
you look at the original plans, 2006 was when this was
supposed to be running, and at that time, we were
actually coming here to get approval to move forward.
We had issues. One of the questions today, is it
should be a busway or a rail line? One of the
issues was the Aetna viaduct. We all know the Aetna
viaduct and sometime in the next 20 years or 15 years,
we are going to rebuild the viaduct here in the city
of Hartford and it's going to bring the city to a
halt. If you're coming up on the busway, you drive
around it. If you had the train, you drive to
the Aetna viaduct and you get off the train and you
get on the bus and you drive around it and that's the
beauty of the busway. The busway, you leave the
busway so Bus 3 might be going to Aetna and another
one might be going to the capitol and another one
might be going to Hartford Insurance and so on. A
busway gives you the flexibility and that's what was
so wonderful about looking at Pittsburgh and Ottawa,
that buses would go to destinations. You look for
your own numbered bus. They control traffic signals.
They have overrides. They have timing systems. You
know, like if you go to any modern place today, in a
minute and a half the train is coming or the bus is
coming and the reason they are successful is that
there is rapid repeat.
Who uses the busway? I'll tell you. Students going
to Central, the biggest project by the way, New
Britain benefits from. That's I think close to a
hundred acre development down there right next to the
college. People who ride the buses, yes, they will be
part of that, but do you know the first ones are going
to be? When you're sitting in traffic and you watch
the bus going by at 60 miles an hour, nonstop and it's
getting there in about eight to ten minutes and you've
got -- you're making one mile an hour, you're going to
give it a shot. What happens here we have heavy snow?
Notice the commuter lots are always filled aren't
they? It's an alternative that when people start to
use and begin to experiment with they are going to
find its efficient and effective, particularly if we
have ongoing efficient services.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
154
April 26, 2012
It's a lot of money. All of the numbers, Senator
Roraback's numbers and so on, I can't dispute any of
those numbers. We have watched this thing skyrocket
like everything else have skyrocketed. The main cost,
oil and steel are two of the major components that are
going to be used in this process and they have been
double-digit inflation every year that we've done
nothing. And so we're paying the price for that.
As far as intermodal, those local streets in New
Britain prevent where people who don't have cars get
on the bus will be able to go to a central place and
get here. People from other parts of the state coming
down without a connection from Bradley will be able to
connect. It's a system that CROG, by the way under
our requirements, we have to do long-term planning
requirements and they've developed a long-term
construction plan, transportation plan. In fact, that
plan by the way has two other busways, one that will
be -- if it's bill -- the second one is Busway East
and today with the demands at UConn, it will be going
out using the HOV lanes all the way to UConn and
connecting to UConn in Farmington. And the third was
Busway North along, again, the busway, the -- excuse
me -- the HOV lanes heading north to Bradley. That
was all part of a plan put together that this body saw
in the 1990s.
Senator Kane mentioned "Planes, Trains and
Automobiles." That was a great movie, but it also
define clearly what intermodal transportation is all
about. It's a system. We haven't been doing too well
in Connecticut in the last 20 years in developing
systems, planning, getting things done. We need to
change that. Public opinion, many of my constituents
think it's the worst thing we could ever do, worst
thing. The fact is they already spent a hundred
million dollars. You're going to give back onto
$112 million because they are specifically designated
funds and you're going to have to pay for all that you
have done. So it's not really effective.
Finally, Connecticut -- you know, we're a small state.
We're a small state. We could drive to the State
anywhere from one place to another probably in four
hours, but we're awful parochial. I'm not going to
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
155
April 26, 2012
use that. Why should we build it? I've had people
say to me, why are we spending $1 billion plus on the
trains to New York? We never used those trains.
That's not right. Because we're a state. Because
it's Connecticut. Because everybody should have an
opportunity to be able to get transportation, public
transportation that meets their needs. We don't want
to spend the money to do it and we do want to spend it
somewhere else like another part of Connecticut maybe
and that's not good. That's not part of that overall
plan that is so important to us.
Does Bristol need a connect? Absolutely. Do they
have to connect using the money that is set aside for
the busway? No. Bad precedent. I can't imagine -and I'll close with this -- I can't imagine -- let's
take the $1.2 billion for the trains to New York.
Could we get a coalition of eight or nine people
around the Hartford area saying, look. Let's take a
billion dollars out of that so we could do
this project over here and then you'll say that's not
enough. We need this. Well, I'll go down to the New
London area. I'll get a couple of their people and
we'll take the money from the project. Scary. Scary.
The process has been completed in good faith. This
building has been aware of it. It's been in your
long-term project plans transportation. You can't
take that away and give it to someone else in good
faith, not if we're going to do business in the future
as the State of Connecticut because it would open a
can of worms that none of us would want to be part of.
Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Senator Suzio.
SENATOR SUZIO:
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
For the second time.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
156
April 26, 2012
SENATOR SUZIO:
For the second time, yes.
Thank you.
Yesterday, I listened to a debate and participated in
a debate about price gouging and I learned the term of
art in the legal profession called "unconscionably
excessive pricing." Well, today I think I'm being
treated to a lesson in unconscionably excessive
spending and when I look at the numbers associated
with the busway project, excessive spending comes to
mind at every turn. $567 million for 9.4 miles.
That's $60,390,000 per mile. That's $11,424 per foot.
It's $952 per inch. According to the proponents in
DOT, this is going to increase ridership from 11,100
rides per day to 16,000 rides per day by 2030, almost
20 years from now. You take a look at that and what
we are paying for is $115,714 for each extra rider
that's going to be taking the bus.
We're talking about 700 buses a day operating 20 to 21
hours a day, an average of 23 riders a bus.
Everywhere I look the numbers look to me like they are
unconscionably excessive.
Senator LeBeau, our college Senator LeBeau, a few
minutes ago expressed some admiration for the
Republican projects such as the Transcontinental
Railroad and I'm glad to see that he admires
Republican perspicacity when it comes to major
construction projects; therefore, I think Republican
reluctance on this project, based on our experience
and our successful experience, should be something
that our colleagues should take seriously when we
express skepticism, doubt and criticism about the
busway.
We're operating in a climate today where the State is
teeter tottering on a budget deficit. These are not
the best of times. We're operating in a situation
today where there's tens of thousands of miles of
roads in Connecticut that are being neglected, not
being maintained, up-to-date. You don't need a study
to see that. You can see for yourself every day when
you ride around, Connecticut and you see the shape and
condition of our roads and bridges.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
157
April 26, 2012
We're talking about saddling our children and
grandchildren with hundreds of millions of dollars of
debt and with a subsidy that we're going to have to
maintain indefinitely to the tune of tens of millions
of dollars a year. And when I look and I see all the
other priorities that we should be looking at that
should be ahead of this, just the ongoing maintenance
of our bridges and roads should supersede this
project. To the extent that we have any money at all,
it seems that the neglect we've seen last few years
should accelerate spending on our roads and bridges,
but what we are doing is we're taking money away from
it for this project. For what? For what might be
8,000 riders per day round-trip? There's three and a
half million citizens roughly in Connecticut and we're
spending almost $600 million for 8,000 of those
people. What fraction of what percent is that?
We're looking at education cost-sharing spending being
frozen for years on end, so our schools are suffering
right now because the State doesn't have the capacity
to adequately fund the and fulfill its commitment
under ECS. But we got the money to spend, almost a
thousand dollars per inch for a roadway from New
Britain to Hartford. This is a boondoggle of great
proportions. I am going to support this amendment.
I hope and I know this I know the overwhelming number
of people in Connecticut support the idea of
terminating the busway project. The only person I've
run into that supported it was after I was involved in
a local community meeting and the person came up to me
and discussed it with me. And he asked me, do I
support the project? I said no, I think it's a waste
of taxpayer money. It's certainly not the highest
priority. I said what do you think? And he said, I
like the idea. And I said well, why do you like the
idea? He said we need the jobs. And I said to him,
well, there's plenty of other projects that would
create good paying jobs that we take $600 million for
and that will benefit the people of Connecticut and
that are much more needy. And he looked at me and he
said I didn't think of it that way, you're right.
Selling this project -- and a lot of it was sold on
the idea it was going to create jobs -- is really a
false selling point because there are many other
projects that are much more worthwhile, that are much
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
158
April 26, 2012
more subject -- less subject to criticism than this
project that could create good paying jobs that will
benefit, not 8,000 people, but over a million people.
So I hope that my colleagues will join us in
bipartisan support for Senator Markley's amendment to
end unconscionably excessive spending. Thank you very
much.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Bye.
SENATOR BYE:
Good evening, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Good evening.
SENATOR BYE:
Thank you. I stand in opposition to this amendment in
the first of all want to thank Senator Markley for
his -- the way that he has such passion and
determination on this issue and how eloquent he is and
how much time and energy he has put into this.
But I stand in opposition to this amendment for many
reasons, many have been articulated this evening.
Certainly in my district, there are many constituents
who don't agree with the busway and I have been
lukewarm over the years. But at this moment, where we
are, how the busway is set up; the bus has left the
station and now we need to make it work.
Senator Markley and others in parts of my district
have said, but the Americans, we're in love with our
cars and nobody rides the bus. Well, I can tell you
something. A lot of residents of the state ride the
bus. They may not be the people out there in the
halls at the capitol. They may not be the people who
come out to town meetings. They may not be the people
calling us on the phone. In fact, if you look at the
research about poverty and transit one of the biggest
issues for transit and transit expansion is that the
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
159
April 26, 2012
people who need transit are not a mobilized community
and they are not a group that's as connected to power
as other groups. There are people who need to ride a
bus because they don't have a car. And
disproportionately people in the cities do not have
cars, particularly people who live in poverty. And in
a state like Connecticut, where we do not at this
point have a highly-functioning public transit system,
people in poverty are struggling because the lack of
transportation hurts their job opportunities.
We know how hard it is to get a job right now. We
hear it from our constituents who have cars, who have
bachelor's, who have associate's. There are other
people out there who live in poverty who want a job
and they can't get there and because they don't have a
job they can't have a car. I was asking one of my
constituents who was here earlier today who does not
drive, how did she feel about the busway. And she
said that living in Elmwood, if she could get on a bus
and get to Union Station getting to her job here at
the capital would be much easier. There would be a
way for her to.
So in many ways, I think the voices of people who need
public transit to get a job are missing around the
circle today. It's easy to make this seem simple,
however many dollars a mile, but it's not so simple.
And I really give Governor Malloy a lot of credit for
making a decision about this bill and about the busway
because it was back and forth. Do we do it? Do we
not do it? And he went to Washington. He met with
the secretary of transportation. He talked about the
options. He talked about Connecticut. He talked
about the Hartford to Springfield line and it was made
very clear to him that this project is something that
was needed. And I think the Governor made a difficult
decision but I think he made the proper choice to go
forward.
We spent a lot of time in the circle talking about the
achievement gap and I don't think any of my colleagues
around this circle would say that the achievement gap
isn't a gap that is primarily caused because of
poverty, because of all the challenges that come from
living in poverty. And if you look at the research
out there the link between the poverty and ability to
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
160
April 26, 2012
get to a job is very close, it's very highly
correlated. It's hard for children to learn when they
are hungry, when their parent is out of a job maybe
and they are not in a good place socially and
emotionally. This has an impact on children and on
learning. And I really believe that having a busway
will help more Connecticut residents get to a job.
And if you ask residents what's most important right
now, it's opportunity to have jobs in these tough
economic times. So I wanted to say that.
And one other point I want to make is that Senator
Markley talked about how nobody lived near the busway.
And so I did a little research and I found that the
population within half a mile of the busway, which is
certainly walking distance, is there are 5,645 people
per square mile who now have a transit option to get
to New Britain or to Hartford where there are jobs.
And so I rise in opposition to this amendment and say,
the bus has left the station and it's time to move
forward. And moving on an amendment like this would
send a terrible message to Washington about our
ability to complete a transit project.
So I thank you, Madam President, and I will oppose
this amendment.
THE CHAIR:
Senator McKinney.
SENATOR McKINNEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
to see you there.
Good evening.
It's nice
You know, Madam President, I almost don't know where
to begin. There's so much to talk about and to
respond to. But let me start with the notion that if
we were to decide not to go forward with this project
we would forever forfeit federal money. The federal
government and Congress would look at us and say,
Connecticut, you can's get your together. We're not
funding any more projects. I have not heard one
Senator give any evidence of that.
And my good friend Senator Maynard stood up and said,
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
161
April 26, 2012
you know, there's a lot is that have been given about
this project by the opponents. Let's start talking
about facts. I think the opponents of this amendment
have committed a similar sin, quote/unquote, in
arguing that if we decide to not go forward with a
project that Congress and the federal government will
say, no, no, no. Let's remember a couple facts.
Number 1, this isn't Congress' money. It's our money.
Okay. Taxpayer money from the United States of
America and transportation is the only area where
Connecticut gets back more than a dollar than what we
send down. So we're actually a winner in
transportation, but it's still taxpayer money. We
say, well, it's like free money from the federal
government. No. That's taxes that come from people
in Connecticut as well. And it's okay to say we're
not going to spend it.
So let me give a quick story to my colleagues who
think Congress is going to punish us. Years ago, the
Department of Transportation came down to my home town
of Fairfield and said, we've got this great plan to do
a bridge in Fairfield. It's a bridge that connects
Blackrock Turnpike the Post Road in Fairfield, Route
58. It could be, if this bridge were fixed, a big
pass-through for trucks, which would enable trucks to
through residential neighborhoods trying to cut off
traffic, not a positive for the town of Fairfield. It
is a two-lane bridge that goes under the highway and
then goes under Metro-North and the DOT, with all good
intentions said, you know, we want to make this bridge
underpass a four-lane because it's old. It ties up
some traffic and we could do it in conjunction with
the catenary project on the Metro-North rails, and by
the way, we're going to close off this major
intersection for five years and the end result is
going to be a better bridge and a better pass way and
traffic will flow more clearly and a big part of that
traffic flowing would be trucks going through
residential neighborhoods. And the town said, no, no.
Don't spend the money in our town. And I remember the
DOT officials were saying we're going to be spending
like $17 million in your town and you're saying no.
Yes. No, we don't want to project. Don't waste the
money.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
162
April 26, 2012
Now, I'm sure that $17 million was spent on other
projects in other areas where it was needed but you
know what? The State DOT hasn't said Fairfield,
you're out. You're never getting any other
transportation money ever again. You don't know how
to handle a project. We said we don't want to do
this. It's not a priority. It's not right for the
town. If we say this busway isn't right for the State
of Connecticut, the federal government is not going to
punish us. It is not a logical argument. And
moreover, there's no evidence for those who give that
argument.
Secondly, I want to respond to what Senator Bye talked
about and others. I didn't know that this busway was
about giving people who don't have a car to get to
work a way to get to work. That certainly is a
benefit of mass transportation. We all know that, but
I thought the real benefits of this were
transit-oriented development where we were getting
people out of their cars and putting them into mass
transportation. And engaging in development around
mass transportation routes. That's why there are
environmentalists who speak very positively and I am
one of them, Madam President, for mass transit
projects like this one because you're getting people
out of their cars and onto buses. Now, I don't live
in this area. I haven't read it the busway. I think
there is a bus that goes from Elmwood to Hartford.
There probably is a bus that goes from New Britain to
Hartford already. So while it is true that we need to
provide mass transit options for people who don't have
cars so they can get to work, I don't think that's
what this project was about.
So I think Senator Bye's emphasis on that really
belies what this project was about. This is about
getting people out of their cars and lessening the
congestion on I84 about transit oriented development.
That gets me to some of the comments Senator Cassano,
Senator Gerratana talked about traffic on I84 and how
this will be important to relieve traffic. With all
due respect and I know it's being parochial, if you
want to see traffic, come down to my neck of the woods
and you will see traffic. The traffic along I95 from
Bridgeport to Fairfield to Westport to Norwalk to
Darien makes the traffic on I84 look like a walk in
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
163
April 26, 2012
the park. And I represent Newtown, which relies on
I84 and I do see the traffic between Waterbury and
Danbury and it is real, but if we are going to talk
about traffic congestion then we ought to prioritize
where that congestion is worse.
Now, if I were representing Manchester, if I were part
of a CROG town, if I were part of an area like Senator
Cassano and others, I'd be fighting for this project.
I don't blame them for doing that at all and I don't
stand here is one who supposed to bus rapid transit.
You know, I think told the story once before but Madam
President, once we took our kids down to Disney World
on vacation and Disney World -- I don't know what the
population is of Disney World. I don't know what the
acreage is but I think it's certainly bigger than many
towns and cities we have here in Connecticut. This is
pretty big, especially in geographical area. And they
have an amazing bus system there where you never have
to wait more than two to four minutes for a bus and
you could write on a bus. You rarely have to stand on
a bus and you can get to any destination you want to.
Is easy to read the signs. It's easy to wait in line.
Of course it's a lot easier when it's 75 and sunny,
there's no doubt about it, but these bus systems can
work.
The issue is is this the right priority for spending
in the State of Connecticut? I've heard and I
don't -- I really don't understand this argument.
I've heard, you can't repurpose the money. Well, what
money are we talking about? We're take significant
amounts of money from the federal government to pay
for this project. We're bonding $112 million, I think
is the money, for Connecticut to pay for the project.
Well, that's our money, that 112 and we could
repurpose that money if we wanted to. I also
understand that not all of the money we get from the
federal government is dedicated solely to the busway.
It is general federal funds we get that our DOT is
directing or redirecting -- pick your verb -- to the
busway project. I don't think we have a prohibition
on taking money that we've gotten from the federal
government that was not specifically for the busway
and using it on the busway -- we're not prevented from
using that money somewhere else.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
164
April 26, 2012
So putting aside the argument of we've already spent
some money and would there be some damages or costs
for stopping the project? The money that we're
bonding, as a state, we can bond for other projects
and the question is, are there projects that are a
higher priority? And the money that we are getting
from the federal government that is not specifically
directed to the busway we can repurpose. I don't know
that you can stand up and object to those two facts.
The money that we get from the federal government that
is specifically for the busway, we cannot repurpose
and spend on other things, I would probably have to
agree with that, but let's not forget that money is
fueled in part by taxpayers and citizens in
Connecticut as well who do not want us just to spend
money because the federal government is willing to
support a project. The question is, is it the right
priority?
Senator Maynard also pointed to the infamous vote in
2006. I was here in 2006, voted for a Roadmap on
Connecticut's Economic Future. I think is a stretch
to say that was a vote in favor of the busway, to be
kind. I'm not going to spend the Senate's time
reading off all of the projects that are in the
Roadmap to the Economic Future because it's in
everything including the kitchen sink project list.
It really is.
And we got to this for the same reason why we're
having this debate, because we have made
transportation parochial fights and we might have a
conversation about this on the underlying bill as
well. There is no doubt that, you know, the good
Senator from the 18th District should be fighting for
Route 11. No doubt about it. And there's no doubt
that the good Senator from Manchester should be
fighting for this project. And that's why for years
really nothing got done.
Senator Cassano mentioned, well, what of people oppose
the $1.2 billion for rail cars for Metro-North.
Senator, for 30 years people have opposed it. We
never got anything done for 30 years. And I don't
think it matters what town or one quarter the state
you're from, objectively, everybody has to recognize
that our State would be destroyed, destroyed without
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
165
April 26, 2012
the tens of thousands of people who live mostly in
Fairfield County and get on a train at 5:18 in the
morning to Manhattan to work because without that
train they are living in Westchester or they are
living in New Jersey and or they are living in
Manhattan so that wasn't just parochial, but it was
fought for years. It was never supported because we
never said we need to be one state on transportation
and we need to recognize that it's not transportation,
it's the very economic future of our state that we're
talking about and that is why the bill in 2006 was
called a Roadmap for Economic Future, not the roadmap
for our transportation future.
In fact, it was former Speaker Moira Lyons working
with the former Governor and many others, but I think
she deserves the headline perhaps with the former
Governor on putting together the Transportation
Strategy Board, and that was about putting together a
lot of local regional assets, putting a lot of work
into it, finding out what our critical transportation
projects were, looking at transportation from a
regional and a state perspective and taking that away
from the parochial politics. And one of the worst
things we did in this Legislature was have the
Transportation Strategy Board come back with
priorities and we never did anything about them
because we fell back into the priority -- excuse me -not the priority but the parochial fights.
So I don't have opposition to bus rapid transit. I
don't know that the estimates -- and I think I heard
correctly -- the estimates are 16,000 rides a day for
this busway. I don't have any, any questions as to
whether that's an underestimate or an overestimate.
I'll take that as an accurate assumption. We all hope
it's a lot more, but if it's 16,000 rides a day and I
don't know how it works, but I think we had to assume
some of that includes both ways of a round trip so
we're talking maybe around 10,000 people on this bus
road -- on the bus route. The question then is, is
the money we're spending to get those people out of
their cars into the busway, which is going to include
annual subsidies -- because that's what we do. We
have to subsidize mass transportation because -- and
we know this -- you're not going to get people out of
their cars and onto a train or onto a bus unless one
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
166
April 26, 2012
of two things happen: Either you do it by car, and
although technically you can get from Connecticut to
Manhattan by car, the reality is you really can't do
it; or it's just a lot easier and less expensive to do
that mass transportation, and it's not. Mass
transportation is not less expensive even with these
enormously high gas prices and it's not easier because
if you're sitting in an office in downtown Hartford or
if you're sitting in an office in downtown Stamford,
as I did, and your spouse is another office somewhere
and your kids are getting home from school or you get
a call from the school nurse that says, John, you
know, it's the school nurse. Your son or daughter is
here. Come pick them up and you took the bus to work
or the train to work. What do you do? What do you
do? That's why we take our cars, because it's
convenient. It's still less expensive and we're
attached to them for reasons of, what if we need it?
So the question about this always is, is this the
right priority given the times we're in now? And yes,
if we wait five or ten years to do the busway, would
it be more expensive? I imagine it would be, but we
could say that about every project. We should have
done them all 40 years ago. It would have been a lot
cheaper, but we didn't have enough money then. In
2006, we had a $500 million surplus when this project
was put on. Now, we have deficits. In 2006, this was
3 to 325 million dollar project, now it's a half a
billion, slightly more project and the federal money
hasn't changed.
One of my frustrations beyond the parochial fights we
all have -- and I see this a lot on a local level, I'm
sure we all do, whether it's a new school project or
any kind of development. There's this sense of
involvement that when you look at it, the people get
involved. You see these extraordinary grandiose new,
great projects and they look awesome. But the reality
is that taxpayers have to pay for them. And this
busway looks impressive and bus rapid transit is not
your old take the bus to work. I do think part of the
difficult if the busway or when the busway is built is
going to be convincing people that bus rapid transit
is not like taking a bus as we all think about it.
And I don't know whether or not that market will fill
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
167
April 26, 2012
up. I don't know whether people can get out and
change their perception of what they believe buses
are. But regardless, even if this project were to
work for 16,000 rides a day, given all of the other
needs we have, $112 million in bonding could go to a
lot of bridge repair. $112 million in bonding could
go to a lot of additions along Metro-North. We have
parking shortages. The state spent a lot of money to
develop a new train station in my hometown to deal
with parking shortages. There's a new train station
going -- and I always forget whether it's Orange are
West Haven, but one of those two towns -- West
Haven -- I know the two were fighting at one point. I
made a bet it would end on the Orange/West Haven line
somewhere, but I guess they couldn't find the land,
but we're spending tens of millions of dollars to do
that. So I just think at the end of the day, the
money that we're spending on this, including the
annual subsidies, including the federal money that we
would be allowed to use for other projects would be
better spent on those other projects. Not to
disparage this project, not that it's a bad project,
not that if it weren't in my region I wouldn't be
fighting for it. That's what we are supposed to do.
I respect that, but I think if you were to take our
top ten priorities and take the money that we have
available to spend on transportation, for me, this
would not fall within that priority. Thank you, Madam
President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Williams.
SENATOR WILLIAMS:
Thank you, Madam President. I rise to oppose the
amendment before us. You know, investments in
transportation and helping commuters and workers move
from place to place always in the end pay off, not
only for Connecticut, but for our country. You could
go all the way back to the Transcontinental Railroad,
built in the 1800s at a time when that was criticized
and why wouldn't it have been criticized, building a
railroad across the country through vast endless
prairie, where there was nothing, buffalo. And yet,
we know that by investing in transportation we grew
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
168
April 26, 2012
this entire country. We opened up new markets, new
places, we made it possible for people and goods to
move effectively to places where they had never been
able to move before.
You know, when I was young, the 1960s and my family
would take a trip and we'd be driving in the car and
at the time, you know, the national highway program
was still underway. You'd see expansions being built,
construction projects underway and my dad would say
every now and then, because his father was a railroad
conductor, my dad would say, you know, this is great,
but for a small fraction of the cost of what they are
doing in building this highway, they ought to be
laying down a rail line right next to it because one
of these days, one of these days this highway is going
to be jammed with cars and they are going to need an
alternative form of transportation.
And what we're looking at here today is a project that
acknowledges -- we can't grow some of our highway
projects -- our infrastructure that we have in place
that is jammed with cars that makes it very difficult
to commute in and out of Hartford, to New Britain and
elsewhere, and we need other methods of getting
around. And when people talk about the train and the
high-speed rail, and New Haven to Hartford to
Springfield, and those connections, we're talking
about the need for an intermodal transportation
system.
And what better way to pull together these disparate
forms of transportation, people in their cars, people
on a rail right now and the potential for expanding
rail in the future and bus transportation because if
you're on a train, if you're coming up from New York
City, if you've got the future with high-speed rail
going north and south between New Haven and Hartford
and up into Massachusetts, you've got to have some
method of being able to move people from those train
stations to their destination, or back to their car in
the commuter lot. And the bus rapid transit system
makes a whole lot of sense to do that.
So there has always been opposition to new initiatives
when it comes to transportation. There have always
been those who have said, oh, we should either not do
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
169
April 26, 2012
it at all or spend the money in some other way on more
horse-and-buggy transportation. But the lessons of
history also point out that we -- when we invest in
transportation, we grow. We not only provide the
construction jobs that make the transportation
possible, that build the infrastructure, but we create
opportunity for the future, for future jobs and for
future growth.
For that reason, Madam President, I strongly oppose
this amendment and can't wait until we can get back to
the Route 11 project.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Anyone else would like to remark on this amendment
that is before us? Senate amendment "B."
If not, with the Clerk please call a roll call vote
and the machine will be open.
THE CLERK:
Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate.
Senators please return to the Chamber. Immediate roll
call has been ordered in the Senate.
THE CHAIR:
Would the Clerk please read the tally?
THE CLERK:
Senate Amendment Schedule "B" for Senate Bill 289.
Total Number voting
Necessary for adoption
Those voting Yea
Those voting Nay
Those absent and not voting
THE CHAIR:
The amendment fails.
34
18
15
19
2
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
170
April 26, 2012
Senator Maynard.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
Thank you, Madam President. Yes, on the underlying
bill regarding the toll -- the right or the -- pardon
me -- I'm still in the busway discussion -- for the
authorization of DOT to utilize electronic tolling
specifically on that portion of Route 11 in
southeastern Connecticut as a dedicated source of
funding for completion of that long-stalled roadway
project.
I would, again, reiterate that this project has been
stalled for three decades and apropos of the previous
discussion, we had -- I think it's important to point
out that the State of Connecticut is making immense
investments all over the State for just the reasons
that Senator McKinney pointed out.
Annually we spend over $900 million on roads alone,
some $1.5 billion all in for transit and roads
combined so we are making enormous investments all
over the state. And just a Senator McKinney pointed
out, an investment down and roadways down is part of
the State in Fairfield County is part of a broader
transportation investment. It's very important to my
part of the state. Mystic Seaport and Mystic Aquarium
are two of the largest attractions in the state.
Combine that with the two Indian gaming facilities in
our part of the state and you have an enormous
attraction at the east end of the State.
I can tell you it's important to us that Senator
McKinney and funding for his roadway and his transit
issues as well because there are issues, just as he
said. So I think we do have to remember that these
investments are smart strategic investments that have
been made with much forethought and consideration.
And one of those is, in fact, as you well know, Madam
President, is the uncompleted section of Route 11
which leads directly into your district and nearly
directly into my own. We had eager to see that
completed and one of the issues that has stalled that
for some period of time was the lack of a dedicated
funding source from the State of Connecticut.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
171
April 26, 2012
And as Senator McKinney and others have pointed out,
we have great many priorities in the state but the
people of southeastern Connecticut have had to
languish, ignore it in many respects for decades, what
a vital link between our state capitol and one of our
major ports and one of our important, smaller midsize
cities in the entire region supported by Electric Boat
and Pfizer Global Research and other major employers
down there have to utilize secondary backroads that
are unsafe and have had in this instance, Route 85,
the only viable connector has had over 16 fatalities
since the completion of the roadway was stalled and
many, many hundreds of accidents of major consequence.
So just want to say that I think the previous
discussion we had was instructive, in fact, was a
perfect segue into this very significant issue. We
have a funding problem. We're identifying a specific
way that the DOT may utilize -- not must utilize, but
may utilize as one means of providing a dedicated
funding source as required by the federal government
to complete a section of Route 11.
And I encourage folks -- even though it will engender
a long discussion on tolling in general, to remember
that this body is making one specific action in giving
DOT only the very limited authority on a new road that
is a greenway that is of unique design that is
sensitive to the enviromental concerns and has been
vetted extensively with three to five studies,
depending on which ones you're looking at, to
determine the best practicable route. And that has
been determined and we are about ready to get this
long-delayed project underway.
So I would ask for the support of this body in
providing DOT with one additional new method of
funding that road.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you, sir.
Will you remark further?
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
172
April 26, 2012
Senator Boucher.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, I would agree with our very
distinguished chairman of the Transportation
Committee, that this is a very important discussion.
And I might add that I have him beat. I have a
similar transportation controversy in our district
that's been around for over half a century, over 55
years that has some similar components to it. But I
think more importantly, the controversy around this
bill surrounds the method of funding, the type of
funding that would really provide a vehicle for other
projects in the state to also possibly consider this
type of funding, and that is the reintroduction of
tolls in the State of Connecticut. I think it would
be very important for us to vet some of the issues
around this because the Transportation Committee, as
it works in such a bipartisan fashion included both
chairs and ranking members on a number of occasions on
public hearings that we conducted informally
throughout the various parts of the state, to discuss
such a big issue, such a big policy move and that is
the reintroduction of tolls.
And simply stated, as the good chairman said, that
this particular bill says the Department of
Transportation is authorized to establish electronic
tolls for the purposes of the extension of Route 11
from Salem to I95 and this is important. To I-95 and
the connection to I95 because we try to get some
research and some answers to some questions about
federal permitting federal approvals and whether or
not it would affect this project and other projects
like that. And apparently, the connection to a major
interstate highway does play into the decision-making
on this. Provided such tolls shall only be located in
the newly construction and, two, when all bonds issued
for such construction have been retired such tolls
shall be discontinued.
Again, that is a concern because we have found in the
State of Connecticut often times a revenue source is
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
173
April 26, 2012
often not discontinued and in fact continued and can't
be used for multiple other purposes, as many bills
that we've had that were dedicated for a specific
purpose and often times than discontinued for that
purpose and swept in to the general fund when times
get tight.
So we do need to discuss this. It's very important
and the OFA fiscal note associated with it does give
one pause in some questions and adds credence to some
of the testimony that we received on this bill this
year. And I would maintain, just as the project that
I was alluding to that is highly controversial and my
district, 50 years of opposition says something about
a particular project. And 30 years of opposition also
raises questions about this project and the will of
the people in that particular district.
The fiscal impact of imposing electronic tolls for the
purpose of extending Route 11 from Salem to I95,
according to the fiscal note, says that it cannot be
determined at this time, that the cost and revenue
impact of imposing tolls will principally depend on,
one, the fee structure, which we don't know what it
might be since it's not in here. Also, the technology
implemented, that we do not know and the questions
were raised as to what type of technology would be
used for this particular tolling. Three, associated
administrative and capital costs. Again,
undetermined. And four, the federal laws governing
the circumstances under which the tolling would be
allowed and that is really important and I think it's
something we're going to discuss as we get in to this
matter because we did get a letter outlining some of
the particulars around that because it will be
important to this actually being able to be put in
place.
They also noted something that we are bringing forward
and which is very important, because this issue was
not just a 2012 legislative issue, it was a previous
issue in the previous session, and that was the
Department of Transportation undergoing a traffic
study for the extension of this roadway from Salem to
I95 which is scheduled for completion in December of
2012. The study will provide the DOT with the data
needed to estimate the amount of revenue that could be
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
174
April 26, 2012
garnered or generated from imposing electronic tolls
in the area, and yet, the bill that we're discussing
today seems to be premature, but only by a couple of
months. The effective date of this legislation is
October, 2012, rather than waiting for the important
results from the experts in this area, the DOT, whose
report should come forward in December.
So a number of concerns are presented with this
particular bill. And as I said before, the concern
that we have as a committee and as leaders of this
particular committee and its shared by my other
ranking member, is that the idea of tolls may not be
specific to Route 11. In fact, it could be rolled out
and there have been proposals and amendments
throughout the last few years proposing just such an
idea for other roadways that could be controversial
throughout the state as well. And as such, we
embarked upon a bipartisan forum in many of our towns
and in doing so we tried to elicit comments from the
general public on the pros and cons of pursuing and
operating tolls in our state as a hearing and to bring
back the feedback and results of those two are
committee members. Much of what was discussed there
was on a different type of toll lanes, whether we
should consider border tolling at major highways.
Whether there would be tolling individual highways
that are needing improvement which this bill is trying
to address. But again, once you go down that path it
does open the door for other areas of the state to be
tolled.
And we also try to look into other methods because I
understand even the proponents of this legislation are
in hourly wedded just to using tolls as revenue. If
there was another better method, maybe that would be
what would be brought forward possibly by the study by
the DOT because we do have and have had a number of
forums on this issue by many experts. In fact, I'm
going to discuss some of the results of just one that
was held recently, the Connecticut Transportation
Strategy Board's study as well as other meetings that
we had that included all stakeholders from all parts
of the State which the leaders of the Transportation
Committee including our good Cochairman Maynard was
involved in. And there there was a number of
interesting proposals including something called
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
175
April 26, 2012
vehicle miles traveled rather than tolling because
tolling can actually disadvantage and be very
inequitable to those individuals that are forced to
pay a toll on a daily basis because they happen to
live in the vicinity of toll, even though that roadway
might be used by many others in parts of the State.
It's particularly difficult for those least able to
pay that have a job that's in the immediate vicinity
of that toll. And unlike others that live in other
parts of the state or are lucky enough to have a job
in town, they would be the most burdened by that tax
of the toll. Again, a tax on top of the gas tax which
we already have.
And it's interesting to note that in many other
places -- because when our discussions on tolling,
there was the point made that places in Europe and
other parts of the country have tolls and they work
very effectively. It's interesting that in the 2008
the country of Scotland actually abolished all tolls
on their roads because of an issue of fairness and the
issue of congestion and the issue of pollution.
California actually has put a moratorium on tolls on
their roads in favor of some public-private
partnerships which was something that was discussed as
a preferred method and, in fact, that is what the
State of New Jersey is now considering.
Most of our testimony on this particular bill that we
received interestingly enough this year was nearly two
to one if not more so that were against moving this
forward. And the issues that were brought forward
were the issue of effective local roads in and around
that particular roadway, the fairness of those
individuals living there, that it would burden them
more than anyone else and that it was mostly local
residents that used the roads. In fact, since the
casinos were introduced to the area it seems like
Routes 395, Routes 2 and 9 are more heavily used.
Maybe 30 years ago, this may have been a stronger
issue, but today, it seems to now be more locally
driven and as such may be unfair to the individuals
living there.
The issue and effects of the surrounding neighborhoods
and towns when people avoid roads and this is an
interesting phenomenon because in studying this issue,
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
176
April 26, 2012
I looked in other states and there was a recent
article in the Denver Post that talked about how their
tolls failed to meet their revenue estimates. In
fact, they reviewed 23 new turnpikes nationwide which
showed the majority failed to meet the revenue
projections particularly because people drove around
the tolling area locally. They avoided them at all
cost, particularly if it's an additional financial
burden to them and as such the revenues did not
materialize that were supposed to offset the massive
costs involved in reintroducing of this.
The federal constraints were pointed out as an issue.
The fact that the DOT was to study the issue
thoroughly and wanted to wait for their results, the
fact that issues came out particularly in the
testimonies that we received that this 8-mile roadway
would cost a billion dollars of which possibly
200 million, if the feds decided to approve moving
forward with this, would be at the taxpayer's expense
for this size of a roadway. I know how much our own
controversial proposal in building out a superhighway
in our area that's 26 miles, one would only imagine
what the federal costs would be to that.
And the idea of expanding it to other road projects
was a particular problem. They added to the
discussion -- was the trust they had in the State of
Connecticut to keep the funds dedicated to the project
at hand. That was something that was stated over and
over again. The public has lost trust because, let's
face it, we have that problem with our new rail fee
increases that can be swept into the general fund. We
have a problem with keeping special transportation
funds for transportation purposes. We have a problem
with our gross receipts taxes being used specifically
for transportation. So there was the issue of trust
as well.
One of the things that my fellow ranking member was
concerned about that came out was that the particular
number of vehicles per year using this stretch of
roadway which I would believe would be about
16 miles -- eight miles already completed. The
additional eight miles was that it would be estimated
that it might take 2 million vehicles to pass through
the tolls if we were to put a fee amount in there and
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
177
April 26, 2012
that would be a $5 each to pay back the principle
alone. And again, many have floated the idea that
maybe it would only be a dollar since that would be
less taxing on the individuals that need to use it
every day but it actually would take 2 million
vehicles to pass through the tolls at $5, not one.
You have to multiply that five times to be able to
get -- recoup what you need. And he was particularly
concerned, as I am and others, that this particular
proposal would be an open door to using them and
expanding them to any new construction site in the
State of Connecticut and that it would be bad policy
for the State of Connecticut.
The other question was -- outstanding was, why would
we risk jeopardizing federal transportation funding
especially since Connecticut receives one of the
largest returns of federal dollars out of all 50
states for transportation purposes?
So I think we need to be deliberate about the
underlying bill, the bill that we're discussing right
now before we make any final decisions intended or
unintended. The study that is undergoing right now
that we should hear back from in December and in
January be able to put in place the proper process
should this particular roadway again be popular with
the public and the necessity for this district and
their representatives advocate for its passage, that
the tolling may be one of many other methods that
could be used. There are so many others that have
been discussed such as vehicle miles driven that could
assess the driver on the miles they drive versus the
amount of gasoline they purchase even in lieu of the
gas tax. Although I will show that, in fact, that in
the past when trying to dismantle the tolling system
of Connecticut, the gas tax was encouraged and was
proposed to be raised significantly in order to do the
road projects, particularly during that era. It was
the area of the Mianus Bridge collapse in the
Greenwich area.
This is particularly an intriguing concept because
these days with more fuel-efficient cars such as the
one that I'm currently driving right now that gets
nearly 40 miles per gallon, some of us are buying less
gas than previously. So certainly the gas tax would
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
178
April 26, 2012
be lower; however, the cost of gasoline has gone
through the ceiling so I guess I'm still probably at
the same place where I was before I bought this car,
given what's happened to the whole gasoline crisis in
our world today. But, in fact, this is a possibly
fairer way to be able to obtain revenue for important
transportation projects.
I have to say that when we discussed the tolling
issue, either in the district or when we went out on
our various listening tours on the part of the public,
there was absolute visceral reaction from the public,
not just from the voters, but also from many
businesses and Chamber of commerce, particularly in
our major cities were so much of their business could
be cross-border. And the reason they were concerned
and why should they focus on this bill is because they
do believe very strongly that this it is a template
for rolling this out for the rest of the state and
Senator Maynard did remark during the times that we
were doing this -- that he felt that tolls might be
one of the less regressive ways to address the issue,
that some of the reasons for the public aversion may
be mitigated to by technology because of the concerns
were here we go again, massive traffic jams. The very
problems and issues and safety concerns that took the
tolls out to begin with.
And he felt that we have to get out of the mindset
that it's the old-fashioned quarter in the basket. He
reiterated that he said I think too often we ask
people what they think about bringing back the tolls
that they are thinking okay. Every ten miles, we're
going to have to stop and then we have a line. Well,
let me tell you a little bit of my own experience with
this. This is the real-world experience. I happen to
drive extensively both in my private sector work and
also for family commitments from Massachusetts on a
regular basis through Connecticut, on a regular basis
through New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland,
Delaware, Washington D.C., and Virginia. It's the
hotbed of highways on the East Coast. And, in fact,
when I started doing this which was nearly 15 to 18
years ago, three of my three children all ended up in
Washington D.C. at colleges there, and so I was a
regular commuter, I might say, during that time and at
the beginning E-ZPass well as just a new concept so
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
179
April 26, 2012
one of the things I believe are chairman was
explaining his there are new modern ways to prevent
some of these issues from reoccurring. But my
personal experience with this has been that even
though they started to roll out E-ZPass in places that
they did not have such a song bridges and side roads
and by the way, they're not all federal interstate
routes. Some of them are state roads -- that I found
that in almost every case you would have, as it
evolved, a passthrough lane where you could go at
normal speed, 55 miles an hour or you needed to stop a
place where you had E-ZPass and you could go through
that and then there are other lanes that would have
both cash and E-ZPass and then there would be an
exclusive cash line.
Even to this day in our modern era when more and
more have now accepted the commonly used E-Zpass, they
still have backups and sometimes those backups are
three to four to five miles away. Why? Because of
course, there always will be those that do not have
E-ZPass. They are for multiple other states and they
need the cash lane, but they don't know where the cash
lane is until they get closer and they all group to
one side or another and it takes you a very long time
before you actually get -- and sometimes, it's just
within 500 yards from where the tolls is before you
can actually the passthrough lane. So inevitably, all
of them, number one, have backups. It creates a lot
of pollution. In addition to that, I have watched the
costs go steadily through the roof where there was a
dollar toll and within a year or two it became a $2
toll. Those 1 dollar tolls are now $4. The 4-dollar
bridge tolls are now $12. It has become so expensive.
That is why I think they are looking at possibly the
elimination of tolls, but oftentimes, you'll find the
states, such as New Jersey, that heavily use this have
used this into of a very expensive state gas tax.
So the question could be made and I'll probably ask
this of our good chairman in a few minutes about
whether or not the proposal would include reducing, if
not eliminate, the idea of a gas tax in leu of toll,
rather than adding the toll to the already
historically nationwide most expensive gas tax and
that that should be a discussion or maybe altogether a
different system that we could be looking at.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
180
April 26, 2012
And to add to the discussion, I was very pleased that
our chairmans and a ranking members to participate in
a very important gathering that was recently had in
our area, which was conducted by our own good Joe
McGee that brought together experts. In fact, he even
brought back in gentleman that many of us remember,
Emil Frankl who used to be the Commissioner of DOT
under Lowell Weicker some years ago and he has since
gone off to Washington to have worked at the
national -- or Federal Department of Transportation,
now currently serves as a consultant in the
transportation arena. And during the discussion,
there were various proposals brought to the table. We
had quite a discussion. The discussion surrounding
the idea of paying for important infrastructure
because the federal funds are becoming fewer and
fewer. Just as the State of Connecticut is pressed
with budget issues and so is, of course, our federal
government as well.
So everyone was groping to find a dedicated form of
funding source for critical infrastructure that was
discussed previously by our leaders on both sides of
the aisle about how important those are to our
economic development, particularly in areas of highest
concentration in congestion. So the number one topic
was increasing our gas tax in lieu of this toll or
possibly the transfer of all gross receipts taxes and
keep them in the transportation department, kind of a
novel idea and the subject of a number of bill
proposals and amendments this year. The increase
actually -- this is very unpopular, but the actual
increase of the gross receipts tax, the transfer of
all car sales taxes to the special transportation
fund. I thought that was an interesting one,
especially since we have increased this year and the
last year the sales tax on cars and, in fact, we even
have a luxury tax on cars in Connecticut. No other
State in the country has that, but we decided to enact
a luxury tax on cars. What may be a novel idea is to
take ahold of that, secure that and put them in the
transportation fund may be directed for the
improvement and widening of other roadways such as
Route 11.
Now, this was probably the least likely, but we did
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
181
April 26, 2012
discuss the possible increases in federal formula
funds. That would be wonderful if that could happen,
but I don't think too many of us believed in our
hearts that that was within the realm of possibility.
There were also discussions of public-private
partnerships which got probably the most intriguing
and the most long-standing discussion. This is being
taken very seriously and that is to go in partnership
privately with some other private-sector firms that
would pay for the building of it or partially pay for
the building of it for some of the returns on either
our rest stop areas along the way and the commodities
that would be purchased there or even if there was
some sort of a fee structure that could be put in
place where they would share in those profits for a
period of time.
We also had a very interesting report by the
transportation strategy board in February of 2009 that
went into a lot of other possibilities and concepts
that really should be discussed. They pointed out all
the other myriad of possible ways that we could find
sources of income to fund a project like a Route 11 or
a Route 6 or other roadways that have been completed
currently ornate completion going forward. One of the
drawbacks they did cite, however, after an extensive
study that really caused quite a bit of money at that
time and I think I'd hate to revisit the cost of that
study. I think it cost about a million three to have
this be completed. One of the things they pointed out
is they did admit that trucks did divert from toll
roads that could create some negative impacts on
communities of which they travel, in other words the
back roads and maybe some of the things that the
residents around Route 11 brought to our attention
this year.
They also talked about the issue of hot lanes and
being able to pay for those hot lanes, but for them to
be successful travel in the general-purpose lane needs
to be severe for general long enough for some people
to be willing to pay a premium to use them. So again,
concerned about are you going to get going to get the
return or the revenue that you project to be able to
offset the cost is something that our own OFA could
not answer because they didn't know how this would be
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
182
April 26, 2012
set up.
They talked about tolling an existing highways and
they also talked about tolling for roadways that do
not have or need an extension and they talked about
the impact on local roads. And they stated that
although the percentage of vehicles that would choose
to avoid the tolls might be relatively small, one does
not know, these small amounts would have considerable
impacts on local traffic conditions in many of the
communities surrounding a toll and that would be
something that one should consider in that. They also
talked about equity issues which I thought was
interesting. That there would be economic and equity
impacts related to the increasing cost of travel, but
they hope that the fees might be mitigated by the
spending of the revenue appropriately. That was an
interesting side issue.
The thought of tolling existing highways to pay for
highway widening could possibly pay for or at
least offset the cost of some improvements but the
toll itself could cause a reduction in demand. This
is one of the things that Denver found that they were
surprised at and when they were trying to add to toll
roads there became to be the reason that they did not
pursue further tolling and that was that the toll
itself could reduce the demand that reduces the need
for the improvement. So in other words, they had
fewer cars on that toll road so there wasn't the
congestion they originally had, and yet, they didn't
have the original revenue sources to pay for the
project to begin with which caused a financial problem
for them.
We have some interesting -- and I think we should
discuss just briefly, not at any length but some of
the various comments that were brought to us on this
specific bill we heard it in Transportation this year.
And the biggest concern that many have, both ranking
members on this committee, is that it sets up a
precedent that starts the state down to the road of
reintroducing tolls for other projects and adds a
heavy burden to an already overtaxed commuter. And
whether or not we could offset the cost of a toll with
the reduction or elimination of the gas tax. We had
some comments -- extensive comments from someone you
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
183
April 26, 2012
may know from your area, a Mr. Roger LaFrance who
talked at great length on the issues that he was
mostly concerned about; has been involved in this
issue for a great amount of time and it's possible
that are good chairman might have a perspective on
this as well.
They are very concerned that the bill was going to
vague and that the toll rate or exactly where the toll
booths would be placed was unknown. And they didn't
know how much the toll plaza would cost to build or to
run. And if the revenue generated from these tolls
would effectively before the extension of Route 11.
We talked about experiences another places. And I
think the OFA did point to the lack of information on
some of these issues. There was no mention really on
how Route 11 could affect the extension and federal
monies that Connecticut relies on to support our
existing infrastructure and the rest of the state.
And not knowing how these electric tolls would work.
Some of these issues he talked about the cost, which I
thought was very interesting. He seemed to feel that
through his assessment it would be too expensive, that
$1 billion for 8 miles and Connecticut being
responsible for 20 percent, or $200 million should it
receive federal funding at all, was excessive. And
that we may not be able to realize the revenue due to
avoidance as was mentioned before. It was interesting
that he also had the same concerns that have been
experienced by other places.
In his view, he felt that right now Route 11 to 85 in
Salem has about 9500 vehicles. And that if you charge
1 dollar, not five, but 1 dollar for the toll, it
would take approximately 58 years to collect enough
tolls to make up to $200 million for the structure
alone. Now, I suppose if you charged 2, 3 or 4
dollars those years would go down if, again, they
didn't have the phenomenon of total avoidance. That
should be a factor that must be calculated. You would
hope that it would be, but yet what I found
extraordinary was in places were told was widespread
that they indeed did not calculate this and found
themselves short and it would seem that all of the
expertise around something like this, that should have
been part of their calculation. So we would want to
ask that for sure.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
184
April 26, 2012
And how much would people want to pay a toll to drive
through more quickly? They felt that a significant
number of people would take the many other free
options to go around Hartford area in southeastern
Connecticut and some of the examples he pointed to was
I91 to Route 9, to 95, Route 32 or existing Route 11
to take Route 85. And he stated that what he would do
to avoid the toll and he made a point, which was a
very sound point because it was proved in our many
visits to the region, was that conceivably this opens
the door for tolls throughout Connecticut and what
would happen if fewer shoppers didn't go to Danbury
for shopping. Interestingly, even though we riled
against that 6.35 sale tax and a 7 percent on a luxury
tax, we still get some shoppers coming to the Danbury
mall from New York State.
And, in fact, it has been proven by the Chamber of
Commerce as they told us this what they were very
concerned about this being rolled out in Connecticut
that, in fact, 40 percent -- 40 percent of their
customers of the Danbury mall come from the New York
State. And I kind of check that on my own anecdotally
the next time I was there shopping and I counted the
license plates. On that particular date, it seemed to
me like it was more than 50 percent so they were very
right to be concerned, no question.
There was the concern that locally that there would be
displaced homes, that Route 11 passes too close to
existing homes for thousands of feet on each side of
the highway the homes they felt would be ruined by
noise and pollution generated by the extension. Now,
I could probably argue in response to that, and you
might, that if we are going to have a reduction of
people that are avoiding the tolls may be that problem
would not be as severe as they say; however, I have to
tell you my 15 years of dealing with our own
controversial highway extension in our region it
became very clear that DEP did say that for homes
living within a third of a mile of any highway in
Connecticut, the incidence of toxicity in groundwater
went up extremely high. They wouldn't live near a
highway. They wouldn't live within a third of a mile
of a superhighway because of the runoff and how it
would pollute groundwater and, in fact, this
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
185
April 26, 2012
particular testifier did say that they were on septic
systems and well water just as I am into my home and
I'm concerned just about neighboring leeching into
ours and have been shown by testing that on occasion
we did have pollution going into are well and in to
our septic systems.
This individual mentioned that maybe we should get our
priorities straight and rather than put $1 billion
into building Route 11, think of what this type of
investment could do to other critical areas of
transportation and that would -- and the question was
asked even within my own caucus, would this -- and
they wanted me to ask this question and I will of the
proponent -- would this displace other priorities and
transportation projects because even if the feds were
to fund us for this project, $200 million is
substantial. It is a lot of money for the State to
come up with and what would that displace in other
parts of the state?
And I hope that my good chairman might comfort us with
an answer with regards to that, that, in fact, it
would not be something that would displace other
projects. And maybe I'll take the opportunity,
through you, Madam President, to ask our good chairman
if they had thought about this certainly is chair of
the transportation committee putting on his hat for
the State of Connecticut, was there any concern that
was mentioned by the department when discussing this
bill? Should this be put into place? Because instead
of waiting until the report by the DOT this would
certainly activate the process immediately on
October 1, 2012. What will be the impact to other
state projects?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you, Senator Boucher.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Yes.
THE CHAIR:
Is that your question?
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
186
April 26, 2012
Senator Maynard.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
Thank you, Madam President. I may need just a modest
restatement. I think I understand the gist of it.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
I'm happy to repeat it.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Boucher.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Certainly. The question was brought to us in our
caucus, would -- if, in fact, the project was just a
billion dollars, and again, I say that it just -- just
a billion dollars and are percentage that we'd have to
come up with would be $200 million for that portion,
not the maintenance and long-term care, but that
portion, would this displace other state
transportation priorities? Where would the other
priorities go? Would they fall under this? Would
this take the top priority and maybe displace other
projects? Through you.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Maynard.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
The completion of Route 11? Yes, while I do want to
say that I certainly advocate for that and believe
that it's long overdue, that ultimate decision as with
the decision of installing the tolls would remain with
the department. The Governor, this administration has
made the completion of Route 11 a priority. I believe
the commissioner and the department are planning
toward meeting that goal and what we're providing with
this is a means by which to diminish the impact on the
pool of money that might otherwise go to other
projects by providing what essentially is a user fee
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
187
April 26, 2012
for those folks who would continue to wish to use
Route 11 to complete the distance between Salem and
the highway, I95.
So I guess in response to Senator Boucher, I cannot
speak to the current prioritization of the completion
of Route 11 for the department, but nothing we would
to do here would force their hand and it would not
even require them to institute tolling. All it would
do is provide another option for a dedicated funding
source should the project go forward. And that's
really our goal.
We were afraid over the course of the last several
decades that there would never be a time when Route
11, even when it was at a much more modest cost
estimate decades ago, that it would ever be finished.
Now, it's almost an imperative given the volume of
traffic and the fact that is identified as the major
evacuation route and as yet unfinished for the
southeastern area if there were a nuclear incident,
for example, or a major weather event.
So yeah, just to get back to the specifics of the
question, I think the tolling simply provides an
option it doesn't direct the department to undertake
anything. So with respect to your concerns about the
order of events and the release of the toll -- the
release of the study, if we authorize it now, they can
use it or not use it depending on the study. If we
don't authorize now, we may have to come back after
the study and take further action so that they may go
forward.
So you know, is a chicken before the egg situation to
my distinguished cochair -- or ranking member.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Boucher.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Thank you, Madam President and I thank the good
chairman for his response. I am a bit confused
however. It appears to me that the language does
require and I was under the impression, as were many,
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
188
April 26, 2012
that this bill did mandate that the Department of -DOT established tolls for the purpose -- and they're
authorized to move forward with it and the tolls shall
be located in the newly constructed extension and then
goes on to talk about when they can be retired.
And again, it precedes the ultimate report and
thorough study hopefully on this issue was around in
all of these, which is required to be brought to us by
December. I would hope that if, in fact, this bill
goes through that there will be some incentive on the
part of DOT to quicken the pace possibly of there
required December study so that we don't have the
chicken before the egg scenario with good data and
information, particularly for a project of this
substantial cost to the taxpayers of the state of
Connecticut, not to mention the federal government, as
well, which of course we pay taxes to them
additionally. So again, I just want to be a little
bit more clear, through you, Madam President, the bill
states that the Department of Transportation is
authorized to establish electronic tolls. So am I to
understand him for purposes of legislative intent
right here on the floor of the Senate that this
authorization to establish it does not require them to
establish, but, in fact, they could find another
method of -- or another revenue source because it goes
on to require a "shall" to have these tolls. They
shall be located on this constructed extension.
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Maynard.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
Yes. I'm very glad to answer that and I thank the -my distinguished ranking member for bringing that
issue forward. The bill does, in fact, authorize DOT
to do something which they are currently prohibited
from doing, but it does not direct them to do it. And
for the purposes of legislative intent, I would say
yes. In fact, nothing would make me happier than if
the Department simply identified a billion as
prioritized funding for the completion of Route 11.
Now, as we indicated before, I would think that anyone
in the state who has a so-called "competing project"
for these limited revenues would welcome an
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
189
April 26, 2012
alternative dedicated revenue stream that would be
provided through effectively a user fee for only those
people who chose to drive on Route 11 and provide a
significant amount of revenue toward defraying the
cost of that from our other transportation priorities.
But as I say, if the Commissioner and the Governor and
this Body want to authorize the bonding just to
complete it, we'd be happy to just move along. Thank
you.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Boucher.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
I really -- thank you, Madam President.
I appreciate that answer. I think this is a really
critical point is, through you, if the good chairman
knows whether or not they would pursue the tolling
option only, and if only, and I wish the language was
here and that we had an amendment to that effect that
the federal government would pay 80 percent because I
can see that a billion or a billion five project may
be something would certainly get everyone's attention.
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Maynard.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
I would be -- I would hesitant to conjecture about
what the federal government might guarantee at this
point. I -- we're dealing with known facts about what
the project's estimated cost is and what the current
share of federal revenue would be and I would want to
stick to that rather than conjecture on what might
happen in the future because it would be disingenuous
of me to assert something that I have no way of
assuring this body about. But I think, again, not to
be a broken record, but this gives the department an
option. It does not direct them and it would still
preserve the prerogative of this body and the House
and the Governor in extending -- tolling anywhere else
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
190
April 26, 2012
in the world. This is not -- this is not a broad
authorization. It's very specific and it's one arrow
in the quiver as it were. Through you, Madam
President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Boucher.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Thank you, Madam President.
Then I'm to understand that the bill does not tie the
project to federal reimbursement of 80 percent so
conceivably this is authorizing our DOT to spend
between a billion and a billion five for eight miles
on Route 11 that may have to come out of our general
fund if the federal government does not reimburse us.
I must say -- I must ask if, in fact, there was
language that was introduced at the beginning of the
session or last session within the Transportation
Committee that was different from the current
legislation that's before us. I do believe that the
good chairman mentioned to us that it was changed
because it was broader previously. If he could recall
that, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Maynard.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
Was the question has the bill been changed from -SENATOR BOUCHER:
Yes.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Boucher, would you please restate your
question to Senator Maynard.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
191
April 26, 2012
Yes, Madam President.
Has the language been changed over the life of this
Route 11 bill? Through you.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Maynard.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
To my knowledge, this is the exact language that was
run on the House floor and passed the House, in fact.
And as I didn't mention actually before, it does not
reference any of the federal match within the bill.
The bill is very narrow in scope. It's about the
source, the permitted source of revenue not about the
underlying costs of the project or any of the other
things that are already -- that are already well-known
through federal and other state actions. So this bill
is purely about another option for the department to
utilize and does not get into the specifics of the
funding percentages.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Boucher.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Thank you, Madam President.
I hear the good Senator's response. I'm trying to
recall that the bill may have been quite a bit more
extensive. It addressed Route 11 at one point as I
recall and maybe he can help me remember that, that it
also allowed for any other roadway that needed
extension at one time and that it was more narrowly
crafted this year to make it more easily passable
because it did raise the issue of a number of other
projects that may have been controversial throughout
the state of Connecticut, if I do recall that. But I
thank the good chairman for his response and I think
it is more narrowly crafted; however, the reason for
the controversy today and going forward is that there
is many do recall previous language that would extend
it and would open door for the reintroduction. And
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
192
April 26, 2012
again, underscoring the fact that we do not tie this
to federal funding which causes some concern about the
financial viability of moving this concept forward.
It certainly is an issue.
I further -- Madam President, a question: Did the
Department of Transportation in the state offer an
opinion or offer any information as to whether they
supported this change in direction that was affected
by the Legislature back in 1987, I believe, by
Governor O'Neil, through you. In other words, the
Department's response to this proposal.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Maynard.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
I regret once again that I was having a sidebar with
my colleagues and I don't mean to be disrespectful,
Senator. I'll pay closer attention, I promise. I
just -THE CHAIR:
Senator Boucher, would you kindly restate your
question. Thank you.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Certainly and I don't fault him one bit. It is late
in the day and we've talked about this certainly at
length and certainly a lot more on a busway, I
believe, just prior to this than the actual bill
itself. And as you noted that I was -- did not offer
any comments during that time. I saved them all for
the underlying bill.
So my question for the good chairman.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Maynard, would you please prepare yourself -SENATOR BOUCHER:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
193
April 26, 2012
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
-- for the question.
Thank you, sir.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
The Department of Transportation's response to this
proposal. Did they offer any response about the
viability of moving this tolling proposal forward?
THE CHAIR:
Senator Maynard.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
I'm afraid I don't have an answer for the
distinguished cochair on that.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Boucher.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
So I'm to understand that the Department did not offer
an opinion and he doesn't have a response, but that
they are in the process, obviously, of studying this
since they are required to present their study to us.
So I guess we don't -- we won't have an answer to the
question which I would have had whether the Department
of Transportation would support the concept of the
implementation of tolls that the Legislature made
unanimous decision to remove back in '83 and '87 so
that is -- I'm going to have to go on that assumption
that they do not have a position right now.
There are many that talked about the fact that the
state of Connecticut has been benefited dramatically
in each of the 28 years since we voluntarily elected
to remove all of the tolls in the state of Connecticut
and it is estimated that that benefit to Connecticut
may exceed $4 billion was awarded to the state of
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
194
April 26, 2012
Connecticut since we removed it. And the benefit from
removing these tolls was that we were rewarded and
received replacement revenues and the question of
whether or not we have evidence that the federal
government would not revisit the flow of revenue at
the current level should we make a decision to in
effect voluntarily reimplement these tolls. This is
an ongoing concern and, in fact, we asked for an
opinion just recently which I would like to share with
the chamber from the Federal High Administration
specifically about this eventuality, what was taking
place here and I think it's very important in the
response that the Federal High Administration's
approval to a toll is required under Section 1129 if
there are federal aid highway funds participating in
the project and they further state that under 1129
federal participation is allowed in the following five
types of toll activities and I will be happy to
provide a copy of this for our chairman and ranking
members because I think it's important for us to note
this and why the issue of whether it connects to a
highway because I would hope that after spending over
a billion dollars, it would certainly connect to
somewhere because we want it to be labeled a highway
to nowhere.
But the five items that they stated was, one, initial
construction except on the interstate system of toll
highways, bridges and tunnels including the approaches
to these facilities; two, reconstructing, resurfacing,
restoring, rehabilitating work on any existing toll
facility; three, reconstruction or replacement of
toll-free bridges or tunnels in conversion to toll
facilities; four, reconstruction of a toll-free
federal aid highway except on the interstate system in
conversion to a toll facility -- notice the exceptions
when they talk about an interstate system -- and five,
preliminary studies to determine the feasibility of
all of the above toll construction activities. If the
state intends to use any federal funders for the
eligible construction activities listed above Items 1
through 4, then the state must enter into toll
agreement with the Federal Highway Administration
prior to the use of any federal funds. A toll
agreement is not required to conduct preliminary
feasibility studies. That was Item 5. The toll
agreement must require that all toll revenues received
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
195
April 26, 2012
from the operation of the facility will first be used
for debt service, reasonable return on private
investment and the cost necessary for the proper
operation and maintenance of the facility.
This is the point that I highlighted: An existing
toll-free interstate, bridge or tunnel may be tolled
when it is reconstructed or replaced and converted to
a toll facility, Item Number 3 and above. There are
restrictions, however, on tolling an approach to an
interstate when drivers using the approach effectively
pay a toll to use the interstate, in other words, that
connection of that route to the interstate highway.
They also give us a good website that we can access
which I'm sure we will want to do that in order to get
further information and it might be beneficial for
that information to be forthcoming.
I want to talk a little bit about some of the tolls
that were removed from Connecticut highways and
bridges and a combination of both by 1987 that were
not on the interstate highways in the state of
Connecticut, and yet, the state of Connecticut has
benefited from additional revenues every year since
then because we voluntarily removed all of those
tolls. I would like to ask, if I could, Madam
President, if I could get your attention in just a
moment. Through you, Madam President, may I ask if
the chairman has been provided assurances from the
federal government that none of the additional
revenues would be effected should we voluntarily put
tolls back in the state of Connecticut? Through you.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Maynard, Senator Boucher has posed a question
to you, sir.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
I did hear the Senator. I have asked for and neither
received any such assurances, but I am not informed in
the negative on that.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Boucher.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
196
April 26, 2012
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Thank you, Madam President.
So I'm to understand that we do not know if we will
lose and how much we would lose federal funding should
we reintroduce tolls on this specific project. Thank
you for the answer. Another question, through you, if
I might, Madam President. Would the good chairman
know of the volume of traffic that currently travels
on the completed 8 and a half miles? Would that
traffic of 9500 be accurate if he would know that?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Maynard.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
Those are the estimates that have been provided.
Through you, Madam Chair.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Boucher.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Thank you, Madam President.
Would the good chairman to respond to whether or not
there was a discussion if there would be a fall off of
that number in the calculations of the cost and
recovery of -- of the expenditures to create this toll
if that was a part of the discussion because we want
to take advantage of the knowledge that we've gotten
from other states. Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Maynard.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
No, Madam President.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
197
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
Senator Boucher.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Through you, Madam President, a question about the
length of the road. It's our understanding that the
stretch of road is 8 and a half miles and that the
proposed extension to complete it is an additional 8
and a half miles. Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Maynard.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
That's correct, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Boucher.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Thank you very much. Through you, Madam President, on
the cost, therefore, of this I'm interested to learn
what the anticipated cost to purchase and construct
these tolling facilities, what they might be, as well
as if there was a projected cost to the actual
construction of it. Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Maynard.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
That would have to determined once the Department made
a determination of whether or not tolls would go
forward as with any project.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Boucher.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
198
April 26, 2012
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Thank you very much, Madam President.
A further question, if I might -- and I'm getting
close to the end of my question ting -- if I may have
your indulgence and that of the very well-noted and
characteristic good patience of the chairman of the
committee of whether or not the Route 11 study was in
our pricing study that was conducted that the
Transportation Committee was provided some two years,
the Electronic Towing Congestion Pricing Study, and
whether that committee -- excuse me -- whether that
study included the Route 11 in their recommendations
and also in their review of costs for tolling in
Connecticut. Through you.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Maynard.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
It was not, but it was not under consideration at that
time. Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Boucher.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Well, thank you for that answer. It is much
appreciated. It's my understanding that back in 1987
upon the completion of the removal of all tolls in the
state of Connecticut not only did the state of
Connecticut get awarded additional annual funding to
maintain its repair and construction, but there was
also a measure adopted by the Legislature at the time
to increase the per gallon gas tax which was intended
to replace the lost revenue from the tolls. In fact,
there was interesting newspaper article back in those
days. The AP reported in Hartford that an increase in
the gas tax was being mandated by the, then, Governor
because they needed about $5.5 million for the repair
and maintenance of various facilities, again, prompted
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
199
April 26, 2012
by the Mianus Bridge collapse, which was quite
extraordinary. So they had a tremendous need for
additional funding, but at the same time they were
abolishing tolls as the result of a devastating -devastating fatal and massive accident at our toll
booths. And at that time, I believe that Governor
O'Neill was insistent that he wanted the gas tax and
not tolls.
Through you, Madam President, if I could ask the
proponent, was there some discussion about the
possibility of either using the gas tax in lieu of
introducing tolls which can be controversial and -- or
if the introduction of tolls would also result in a
reduction of the gas tax. Through you, Madam
President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Maynard.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
Well, thank you, Madam President.
you again.
It's lovely to see
THE CHAIR:
It's lovely to be here I think.
SENATOR MAYNARD:
Through you, Madam President, yes, as I think Senator
Boucher knows, there was actually a reduction in the
gas tax by 14 cents back in the early 2000s so we've
been foregoing at the pumps 14 cents per gallon tax
that was brought on by, at that time, heavily
increased gas prices. I know people are upset right
now about the price of gas. I suspect if we cut taxes
on gas right now the rate of increase on the price
driven on the markets would make it indistinguishable
for people as it was at that time, and yet, we've
foregone billions of dollars in revenue by doing that
gas reduction before. I cannot speak to what Governor
O'Neill had intended when he removed the tolls, but I
do know that we have had a significant loss of revenue
from previous attempts to lower the gas tax. It's one
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
200
April 26, 2012
quarter per gallon at the pump. It used to be 39
cents. I don't know if the public understands that,
but it's on a significant impact on our ability to
maintain our roads.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Boucher.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Thank you very much for answers and he's absolutely
correct and I think that some of the outrage on the
part of the public may be that this exorbitant gas tax
is on top of so many myriad of other taxes that the
state of Connecticut assess its taxpayers whether it's
a state income gas, a higher sales tax, a pension tax,
a tax on inheritance and gifts, a tax on real estate,
a tax on your car as property and so on and so forth,
and now, with the reintroduction of tolls even it is
for this one project I think causes a great deal of
concern and rightfully so on the part of the public.
It would be one thing if we were replacing the tax
with another and it was dedicated specifically for
transportation purposes, but we have seen time after
time that those taxes dedicated for a purpose are
often times swept into the general fund to balance a
budget.
So what I've learned from this discussion this
afternoon is that we're not certain if this billion
dollar project will or won't be offset by federal
funding. We're not sure, but we think that tolling
will be preferred way to go, and if such, mandated
where they should go. We are not sure if we need
federal funding approval -- excuse me -- the federal
government's approval for this project or not and
whether or not this is going to be even a
recommendation that will come out of the study in
December and that this pre -- precludes the final
recommendations. I would hope not. And whether or
not it was even in the five-year DOT capital plan that
the -- that the DOT proposed to us.
I'm going to conclude my remarks in -- on this
controversial issue and end with the fact that I think
we are doing with this particular bill as narrowly
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
201
April 26, 2012
crafted as some people might maintain is that we are
setting a precedent. We did have a bill previous to
this that did include on the Route 11 tolling bill
other roadways throughout Connecticut that could be
used in the same fashion. That there are
possibilities, public/private partnerships, total
miles driven, various other funding sources that we
could use in lieu of a very unpopular toll and that a
vote for this bill is really a vote for the return and
the introduction of tolls throughout Connecticut and
that is something that I know that my constituents
oppose vehemently. At every election, that comes up
all the time and as I said, get a visceral reaction by
the public. So you can see that my vote tonight will
be a no, not on this project, but this project
represents for the state of Connecticut and that is
the reintroduction of tolls that the public has firmly
said that they do not support.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark?
Senator Kissel.
Senator ki:
Thank you very much, Madam President.
Many of you may recall it was about 30 years ago when,
as Senator Boucher pointed out, there was a horrific
accident in Stratford at the toll plaza. I think the
driver of the truck first name was Bernard. I can't
be sure, but I will always remember his last name
because it was pointedly and horrifically ironic. His
last name was Klutz. My recollection of that accident
is that he fell asleep at the wheel of a tractor
trailer truck, plowed into four cars killing seven
people. And for the loved ones of those seven people,
I apologize for raising that horrible specter once
again. The reaction from the people of the state of
Connecticut was immediate. We had had it. Enough
with the tolls.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
202
April 26, 2012
Those tolls were primarily down in Fairfield County.
The traffic jams were terrible. The air quality was
rife with pollution. The federal government aptly
gave us a carrot and stick approach and said,
Connecticut, if you do wish to embark on taking down
your tolls, you will be rewarded for this change in
public policy because you gain so much tolls will no
longer impede the flow of interstate traffic and your
tolls will no longer create traffic jams which
increase emissions which consequently increases the
amount of pollution in the air.
I have for 20 years fought any notion of tolls and to
have this bill before us this evening causes me
concern because I cannot look at this bill in a
vacuum. Last year, I was particularly concerned and I
spoke before the Transportation Committee because they
had bills before them proposing to have tolls along
Interstate 84, Interstate 91, Interstate 95,
Interstate 395, Merritt Parkway and Route 6. Scroll
back a year and look at the bill proposals before the
Transportation Committee. They were all there. Now,
first and foremost, I do believe here in Connecticut
we do not have revenue problem. We have a spending
problem. We don't know how to prioritize and we go
off willy-nilly with different plans and then all of a
sudden we find ourselves saying that we don't have
enough money to go around. Well, we just voted on an
amendment regarding a proposal to build a busway
between New Britain and Hartford that has best guess
estimates at $600 million. As we are barreling
forward for that proposal, albeit with some amount of
federal funding, poor little Route 11 gets nothing.
Well, Senator Boucher, raised some very good points.
First of all, to have the Department of Transportation
charged with a study where they have got to give
results in December totally boggles the mind when one
sees -- and I was going to offer an amendment, but,
you know, I am not going to do it. I will highlight
here. The bill before us this evening says effective
date October 1st. Why? Transportation is charged
with giving us a report in December and the effective
date of this is October 1st. Why? Now, everybody
I've talked to in this building, everybody says oh
don't worry about it. They'll never do anything after
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
203
April 26, 2012
October 1st before they give us the report. Then make
the effective date of this proposal May 1, 2013.
Let's get the report in hand and have a fight over it,
have a debate over it, tear it apart, put it back
together, see what it says.
So I have to look at the four corners of the documents
before us and they cause me great concern because I'm
not being a good state senator if I give any
department authority to do something before I feel
that we have all the information before us to make a
proper determination. That's one.
Number two, Lincoln, not President Lincoln, not
Lincoln, Nebraska, Lincoln Chaffey, in the last year
-- now, first of all, my antenna was way up last year
in the Legislature because we have all these bill
proposals with some of them landing squarely in my
district with one of them landing on Interstate 91 on
the border between Enfield and Long Meadow. Senators
Boucher and McLachlan and Maynard -- I remember. I
testified. I was extremely concerned. They seemed to
go away. But somebody else not in Connecticut was
paying attention and they determined let's act first.
Not President Lincoln, not Lincoln, Nebraska, Governor
Lincoln Chaffey of the state of Rhode Island. Let's
not forget in just the last several months the
Department of Transportation's Commissioner in Rhode
Island, to my knowledge, Speaker of the House in Rhode
Island, President of the Senate in Rhode Island and
the Governor of Rhode Island petitioned the federal
government to put up a toll. That was proposed under
the Interstate System Reconstruction and
Rehabilitation Toll Pilot Program.
And now, we get to the three-dimensional chess and
there's a part of me that believes in listening to
some of the press conferences -- and I feel heartened
by this -- that Governor Malloy understands the
three-dimensional chess that is going on because now
with the Rhode Island proposal, I think there's more
at work here than just tolls because at the same time,
Massachusetts was moving forward with a proposal to
allow the creation of casinos and low and behold where
was Rhode Island going to propose its toll. The
proposal was to have it on the Interstate connecting
Rhode Island to Connecticut, right near the border,
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
204
April 26, 2012
right as those buses and cars flow from the greater
Boston area through Rhode Island to our casinos.
Accident? No, I don't think so because did Rhode
Island put a toll proposal on the other side of
Providence, as well, with their border with
Massachusetts? No. Uh-huh.
I hate to say it, but I think Lincoln Chaffey and the
people of Rhode Island were targeting us and so I
spoke out. I wrote to our congressional delegation
and to give him credit Congressman Courtney chimed in
as well and we all contacted the federal government
officials and said don't authorize this because it's a
pilot program the federal government would have to say
okay. I asked Governor Malloy to do the same thing.
I'm not sure that he wrote, but I'm hoping that he
acted accordingly because that was a direct threat to
us. We're a small state. I say it time and time
again. We have to be a nimble state. We have to be a
smart state. We have to understand when we debate
bills what is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
picking off of our cherry trees? What is New York
grabbing from us? What is Rhode Island stealing from
our children's mouths? What are they up to? What is
New Jersey up to? Let's look around and figure it out
and act accordingly. The world is flat. We don't
live in a vacuum and we're too smart to let this
happen to us.
So what happened? I'm happy to say that the federal
government denied Rhode Island's request, but the
facts are all there, folks. They thought they could
poach one on us and they went after it. And I went
and I looked at the reports that were in newspapers
and luckily some of them links where you could
download the documents and there was the application,
very detailed from Rhode Island, what they wanted to
do. They were going to use some of that money for a
ring road around Providence and they were going to use
some of the money from that Providence are straight
down to the Connecticut border. I was on a radio
program for a half hour with some radio station out of
Providence and they couldn't believe. They were up in
arms. Why? Because you know who else was getting
caught in that crossfire? People that lived in Rhode
Island that worked at Electric Boat, that working in
southeastern Connecticut. They were going to get
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
205
April 26, 2012
caught in that crossfire and end up paying a hefty
price as well and they said thank you, Senator Kissel,
for being so concerned about this. And oh, by the
way, you represent North central Connecticut, you
border Longmeadow and Springfield. Why are you
concerned about this fight down here in Rhode Island?
And I said because in less than a year, our
Legislature has a myriad of proposals to put tolls on
borders and I said this is going to start a border
war. New England is too small and Rhode Island shot
first.
Now, I understand in this proposal -- I commend
Senator Maynard for fighting for his neck of the
woods. Around the time when I was dating my wife one
of the places we went to was Mystic Seaport and there
was a beautiful, romantic getaway. There was a little
place we went for breakfast. I don't know if it's
still around. I think so. It's called Kitchen
Little, but I think it moved from where we went to a
different spot. It's a beautiful part of this world
and on occasion folks down there like to move across
the border. And I happened to propose to my wife on a
beach where we first went on our first date. It
wasn't in Connecticut, though. It was in a place
called Watch Hill, Rhode Island. But again, it's all
that part of the world.
Once we go down the path of authorizing tolls, it's
very dangerous. We talk about slipperily slope. I
like to listen to Howie Carr on occasion because his
broadcast comes through to my radio up in North
central Connecticut. He tends to whack conservative,
out of the greater Boston area, plays on radio
stations in Springfield, talks about what's going on
up there. The spending in Commonwealth, corruption,
things like that. He likes to take shots at things
that he feels are wrong and he loves to pick on the
Mass Pike. Why? Because the Mass Pike started off
with a proposal that the tolls would be there until
the road was built and then all of a sudden that was
changed from built to maintained and as soon as the
whole bond was about to get finalized and paid off and
retired, they, within months of the retirement,
reauthorized an entire set of new maintenance that
would go on for decades causing him to step back and
say, Come on. Come on. The tolls have turned into
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
206
April 26, 2012
places for politicians to stick friends and relative
and supporters with jobs. Not that I would want one
of those jobs. Not that they're the worst job in the
world.
And I have to say whenever I'm on the Massachusetts
Turnpike those toll takers are very polite and kind,
but the notion that tolls don't cause problems, that's
patently foolish. Again, the Klutz accident and the
pollution and everything else, the notion that Senator
Boucher so eloquently articulated that the federal
government rewarded us, rewarded us for taking down
our tolls. That was a good thing. But above and
beyond that, once they get placed somewhere, they're
very, very, very difficult to remove. I won't send
Senator Maynard a lot of questions, but the notion
that in a stretch of highway that ends at a dead-end
that somehow you can set up tolls to finish up the
part of the dead-end, I don't even know how
mechanically you're going to do that. Because if I'm
driving that dead-end highway and all of a sudden, you
put a toll on it, I'm going to avoid it because you
haven't even finished where the dead-end goes. That's
one. Two, again, Senator Boucher very explicitly
pointed out that our research staff made it very clear
that if you have a toll on the end of this route
connecting it to the interstate such that you are
effectively charging a toll to get on the interstate,
that's a violation of the federal laws. The Federal
Highway Department will not allow that.
So now, I think you have to allow people to jump back
on that new road to get on to the highway and what
will that do? I think people are going to drive
around it. By the way, the opportunities I've had to
go down that road and I got to the end and I sort of
scratched my head and I said, Wow, this road just
ends. It constrained me to sort of get out and see
parts of the state that I hadn't seen before and it's
a beautiful part of the state. Yeah, there's about 10
or 15 minutes you're a little lost trying to find your
way, but that's not a bad thing. It's gorgeous down
there. Sometimes I wonder, do you really want to
develop all that because you've got a little special
place and I think that your attractions, Mystic
Seaport, Mystic Aquarium and all the other great stuff
that are down there, I think they're still going to
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
207
April 26, 2012
prosper and do well.
So I dislike the policy in all aspects. We're a small
state. I don't think that we should look for new
revenue sources. When I came and testified before the
Transportation Committee last year I said -- and
Chairman Guerrera harkened to his Italian ancestry and
sort of chuckled about this -- I said up in my neck of
the woods people will drive out of their way to save a
few cents on a tomato. I mean, let's face it. People
comb through the newspapers, Shop Rite, Stop & Shop,
Big Y. You know, where can I get the best deal? Why?
Because I'm paying over four dollars a gallon for gas
and my disposable income is out the window so now I
have to cut corners in other ways. I mean, would you
ever think that you would see a television program
five years about clipping coupons? I mean, I'm
driving home from work at times and they have on once
a week on a lot of these radio programs an expert on
how to get the best value for your coupons and if you
go into a CVS, do this. If you go into a Walgreens,
do that.
I don't know what kind of world you're all living in,
but in my part of the world, people are really
stretching to make ends meet. So the prospect of
putting a dollar or two dollar toll on an 8-mile
stretch of road that's going to end at a dead end.
That's not going to work. But one thing that will do
is it establishes the precedent for tolls. So for
that reason, Madam President -- not that Senator
Fasano is giving me that look -THE CHAIR:
Thank you, Senator Fasano.
SENATOR KISSEL:
And I didn't want to go on and on, but I do very
passionately about this, as passionately as Senator
Boucher and others in this circle. We've seen what
the notion of a toll will do to us as a state. We've
seen that surrounding states are in my view licking
their chops and looking at ways to take advantage of
us. I think we don't want to force people off of
major thoroughfares into back roads and neighborhoods
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
208
April 26, 2012
and things like that. We've had a bad experience with
tolls as far as air quality and traffic congestion and
we don't have a problem with raising revenue in this
state. In my view, we have a problem with setting
priorities. For those reasons, Madam President, I
will be voting no on this bill. Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
Will you remark further?
Senator McLachlan.
SENATOR McLACHLAN:
Thank you, Madam President.
I, too, will be brief in my opposition to the bill
before us and it is substantively because I strongly
believe that tolls in the state of Connecticut are not
appropriate. I don't dispute the fact that those in
southeastern Connecticut, the advocates for improving
the transportation there feel that Route 11 should be
expanded. Frankly, I have the same thought in mind in
western Connecticut where I believe Super 7 should run
from Danbury to Norwalk so we have an agreement that
we have areas in our own districts that we think need
attention and -- so I don't dispute that. But I think
the tolls in this case, especially just for one
roadway project, don't seem to make sense to me when
we don't have the report that is due in December and
we don't clearly know how much we need to charge in
tolls to pay this off, but the if the state of
Connecticut is going to spend $200 million of our
taxpayer money, Connecticut taxpayer money in addition
to some other serious number of dollars from federal
taxpayer money -- by the way, that's all Connecticut
taxpayer money -- then we're going to spend all the
money for tolls to pay off the debt service, but we
only have to pay off in Connecticut $200 million.
Well, at $2 a toll, that tells me that we have 100
million tolls to collect before you pay it off plus
interest. It just doesn't -- it just doesn't make
sense to me. I strongly feel that tolls in this
regard are like the camel's nose under the tent. I've
said that time and time again both in the
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
209
April 26, 2012
Transportation Committee and on the floor here in the
Senate so I continue with that urging that we do not
proceed with tolls. Others have discussed certain
opposition but I was just looking at the testimony on
the bill from Transportation way bay in March and the
Tri-State Transportation Commission opposed this idea
for reasons saying that this perhaps is not a good
idea, not only is the toll on this road not a good
idea, but questioned whether or not the road is a good
idea. Once again, I don't dispute what the people in
eastern Connecticut feel is right for eastern
Connecticut. I don't dispute that.
And these folks from New York who came in known as the
Tri-State Transportation Campaign and said that this
is a silly idea I don't buy that. If the eastern
Connecticut legislators and the commissioner of
Transportation tell us that Route 11 is a good idea
then we should build Route 11, but don't do it with
tolls. Prioritize the money the way that you've
prioritized dollars for the busway, which I did not
agree with and voted against tonight, but if that's
what you want to do build Route 11 then prioritize it
with the funds that we have available to us now and
proceed, but let us not do it with tolls and so I
stand in opposition to the bill before us.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Senator Stillman.
SENATOR STILLMAN:
Thank you, Madam President.
I rise in support of this bill that is before us this
evening and I have listened to the entire debate and
have heard people's concerns and questions, et cetera.
And a couple of things I would like to answer -- and I
will be brief -- I think everybody knows that I'm a
strong supporter of completing Route 11. It's a
public safety problem in southeastern Connecticut. As
was mentioned, it's on the route of evacuation in case
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
210
April 26, 2012
an accident at the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant and
then Route 85 which is the main road that gets us
north and south is next to our most important aquifer,
which provides drinking water in southeastern
Connecticut. But this particular bill that is before
us now on tolls in terms of some of the questions that
were posed, the reason there are, as has been stated,
a little less than 10,000 cars on the road is that the
highway doesn't go anywhere. Right now, it's the
highway to nowhere. We would like to make it the
highway to somewhere and that somewhere is connecting
Salem with I95.
This is just -- this bill that's before us in terms of
whether we should make it a toll road or not is here
because it's an idea. It's an idea that if this makes
it through this General Assembly that those of us in
southeastern Connecticut who support the completion of
this road think that this is something that the DOT
should support and as much there are folks who are
concerned about putting a chicken before the egg or
the egg before the chicken -- however they stated it
-- I think it's important to send a message to the DOT
that as they're doing their study, which is supposed
to be done by the end of the year, if they have an
indication from this General Assembly that the
completed roadway, the eight miles, could be a toll
road, I think they need to know that in advance so it
can be incorporated into the study. It would be, I
think, even more difficult for them to produce a study
that is either incomplete or after the fact they would
have to come and ask for legislation such as this.
The completion of Route 11 is not just a public safety
issue. It's also an economic development issue. One
of the biggest problems is that the only way for
trucks to get from the already existing Route 11 down
to New London is to take a very narrow Route 85, which
is only two lanes. That is the road that goes passed
the aquifer and there have been accidents with trucks.
One several years ago where an oil truck rolled over,
there was quite a fire. Luckily, it was only about a
half a mile, three quarters of a mile from the aquifer
so that concern was not one that we had to worry
about, but it certainly sent a message to so many of
us in southeastern Connecticut that the completion of
Route 11 would be helpful in getting the trucks off of
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
211
April 26, 2012
Route 85, which is a very narrow, mostly residential
road.
So for those reasons, I'm asking for your support for
the bill that is in front of this evening. I think
that this possible tool is one that we should look at.
If it's determined not to institute tolls there,
that's the DOT's recommendation, than I doubt very
much that we would do that, but let's at least give
them to look at it. Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Duff.
SENATOR DUFF:
Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, I first of all want to thank the good
chairman of the Transportation Committee for the
debate today and for hanging in there for so much of
what has become a lot of other things than Route 11,
the underlying bill. We obviously talked about the
New Britain to Hartford Busway. I have -- we all can
probably talk about roads in our area that are
important to us and need to be completed. I feel very
confident in the fact that we have a wonderful DOT
commissioner who is helping to prioritize various
projects around the state and we'll hopefully get to a
point where can actually move forward with so many of
the priorities we've had over the years that have
languished to help meet the economic needs of the
state, but I, too, have a road, as Senator Stillman
does, in my neck of the woods that I feel is important
that needs to be completed and while I always feel
that I have a great, wonderful working relationship
with my colleague to my right, Senator Boucher, we
have a major disagreement on a roadway in our neck of
woods in our area in Fairfield County called Super 7.
And understanding that state dollars are limited,
federal limited and while I am not a proponent, I do
not support tolls on our highways such as I95 or the
Meritt Parkway, but understanding the fact that if we
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
212
April 26, 2012
are going to build roadways that have been languishing
for decades that the possibility of using tolling to
pay for these kind of roadways may be, in fact, the
way we're going to have to go in the future. My
colleague to the left and I happen to support the
expressway, Senator McLachlan, and knowing full well,
again, dollars are hard to come by, we may have to
take extraordinary steps that we may not have thought
of decades ago when some of these roadways were
planned. So I've talked to my constituents who are
very much in favor of this expressway and asking them
would you prefer to be stuck in traffic between
Norwalk and Danbury for a half hour or 45 either
northbound or southbound or would you be willing to
pay for the convenience of going quickly back and
forth, and indeed, my constituents have informed me
that they would be willing to pay for the convenience
to make a quick and speedy trip, which would be 20
minutes, rather than 45 minutes on the old roadway.
So, Madam President, I understand and I certainly
support the legislation proposed by Senator Stillman
and by our Transportation Chair because sometimes we
do have to make the tough decisions to move forward on
some projects. We, in Norwalk, have a million square
feet of office space at the base of the Super 7
expressway where we have a lots of potential employees
up in Danbury who would like to come to down. We have
affordable housing up in Danbury compared to some of
the other communities in Fairfield County. And
frankly, we know that people would be very willing to
make that north, south trip if they could do it in a
convenient way. So these debates will continue. I
have an amendment, which I will not offer, but we know
that these debates will continue. Our transportation
system will continue to be looked at and continue to
be debated, but I do want to commend our Senators for
bringing this out and helping us today better
understand how we're going to continue to try and pay
for some of these projects that we are know are very
important to the residents of the state.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
213
April 26, 2012
Will you remark?
Senator Frantz.
SENATOR FRANTZ:
Thank you, Madam President.
Good evening.
I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out how
this is all going to work just purely from a financial
point of view. If we're talking about construction
costs in today's dollars of 1.5 to call it $1.8
billion to complete the roadway approximately 10 miles
linking it up with I95, how is that going to work with
a toll system that goes I would presume at the same
time. It's been pointed out before that if you have
road that's not truly functional or worth the -whatever the toll is whether it's a dollar or five
dollars, if it's not worth it, you're going to go back
to old way of getting down to 95 taking an alternate
route to one of the other roadways to get down there.
So I'm not sure if it could ever really catch up with
itself in terms of the cost, the ultimate cost. And
if you factor the time value of money at a reasonable,
normal discount of about four and a half to 5 percent,
it's a nugget that continues to grow at a certain
rate, which I think commonsense would tell me that
it's going to almost impossible to catch up with that
using a toll system that will -- that may cost too
much and cause a lot of people not even want to use it
in the first place.
The DOT study is supposed to be done by the end of the
year will address some of those issues. I'm a big fan
of trying to delay this particular bill to the next
session. Hopefully, we're fortunate enough to be back
here to reconsider this, but in some other ways, the
bill opens some different discussions. It kind of
opens up the flood gates for tolls in other parts of
the state and there's no question that if tolls are
going to be put into the state, they're going to go
near borders or they are, in fact, going to go on the
borders themselves and I can tell you coming from a
border town that is your worst nightmare because you
have people always trying to get around the tolls.
Many of us frequently go down to the Whitestone Bridge
and others and the George Washington Bridge, and
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
214
April 26, 2012
believe it not, there are still two to three lanes in
each one of those cases where people don't have the
E-ZPass. They insist on paying cash. It's a
nightmare. It backs up. It's just downright
dangerous. And you have people sneaking off the -leaving the highway before they get to these tolls and
they plug up the roads. You have every economic
incentive in places like Danbury, Connecticut.
Senator McLachlan talked about this before. You don't
want tolls there because you're going to scare people
away. It's going to kill commerce in those different
areas. Down a little big further to the southwest,
it's going to create a huge congestion problem.
People generally don't come to shop in my neck of the
woods, but they do go through there to get to other
points north and east of New York and New York City
and it's absolutely going to mess up the roads.
We've sent a message out through the entire district,
and certainly in our community, right on the border,
that this is something that is a horrible thing for
our town. We should do everything we possibly can to
stop it. And if you look at the other border towns, I
think it's mainly -- I think Senator Williams up in
the northeastern part a fairly -- you know, we need to
protect each other's economic development interests
and commercial interests and I would think that would
be of great concern to him for not only congestion
reasons but also for commerce reasons so that's
something that I hope is looked at in the study, and
again, I think we should delay this decision on what
we do on this bill until we have the facts in our
hands not only congestion issues, but also finance
issues, as well.
We have no contingency plan if we spend all this
money. If the tolls don't deliver, where does the
money, potentially in the billions, come from. And
just finally here, the three of us, we live in an area
where we go through 95 or 7, you do too on occasion,
and I can tell you that it is a nightmare every day
from 7:30 in morning to 9:30 in the morning and from
about 3:30 in the afternoon until about 6:30 or 7
o'clock at night because you have a small trickle of
travel coming in on the Route 7 connector there. Can
you imagine if that handled three to five times the
volume? How that would adversely effect I95. We
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
215
April 26, 2012
haven't even looked to see what it would do to 95,
which I believe is two lanes shortly after where Route
11 would presumably come in to 95. It would reak
havoc up there. And so Route 7 -- you know, a traffic
study -- again, it's just like fluid dynamics. If you
look at it, it's very sensitive to a lot of different
factors and even little things like sun glair will
absolutely so down traffic to the tune of 25 and 30
miles an hour, cause accidents and cause havoc so I
can imagine what a Route 7 -- what a Super 7 would be
like and what a Route 11 situation would be like up
there without full knowledge of how this is going to
work, how the entrance ramps, exit ramps are all going
to work. It just doesn't make any sense to consider
this now.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark?
Senator Boucher.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Thank you, Madam President, and for the second time
and I will be extremely brief. I did not expect to
stand a second time, but since the infamous Super 7
was brought up by my wonderful colleagues here in the
Senate circle I felt it only mandatory to tell you
good news, very good news on how a half a century
controversy was resolved so effectively by a number of
us and 500 people at every meeting we came to from
many different stakeholders in achieving a great
compromise on a sticky problem that would have
possibly cost the state billions of dollars on
flyovers and overhead elevated superhighways, a
hundred feet in the air over the largest wetlands in
the state by proposing a widening of the current
roadway which was completed in the last year so
effectively by the DOT it became a model project for
the state with beautiful landscaping and traffic that
now flows freely that I get numerous e-mails
complimenting us on the fact that their drive is so
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
216
April 26, 2012
quick.
In fact, it has produced the opposite problem. We now
have a speeding problem that now is an issue so no
longer is there congestion either at the top end of
Route 7 from Danbury to Ridgefield nor is there one
from Wilton to Norwalk. It flows quickly to the point
where we have a speeding problem. Imagine that. So
kudos to the DOT. Kudos to the construction workers
that worked so well on it. They are proud of
themselves and a good number of them are working on
the Q bridge right now so for that again, we
complement the DOT on resolving a very sticky nearly
half a century problem with a very effective solution.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark further?
Will you remark further?
Senator Duff.
SENATOR DUFF:
Thank you.
I just want to say I appreciate my good colleague's
comments and the words "effective" and "compromise"
must have multiple definitions in the dictionary.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
further?
Will you remark further?
Will you remark
If not, Mr. Clerk will you call for a roll call vote
in the machine will be open.
THE CLERK:
Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate.
Will all senators please return to the Chamber.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
217
April 26, 2012
Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate.
THE CHAIR:
Have all members voted?
machine will be closed.
call the tally.
If all members have voted the
Mr. Clerk, will you please
THE CLERK:
Senate Bill Number 289.
Total Number voting
Necessary for adoption
Those voting Yea
Those voting Nay
Those absent and not voting
36
19
22
14
0
THE CHAIR:
The bill passes.
Senator Looney.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, the
Clerk is in possession of Senate Agendas Numbers 2 and
3.
THE CHAIR:
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
The Clerk is in possession of Senate Agendas 2 and 3.
They've been distributed and are on Senator's desks.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Looney.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
218
April 26, 2012
Madam President, I move all items on Senate Agendas
Numbers 2 and 3 dated Thursday April 26, 2012, to be
acted upon as indicated and that the agendas be
incorporated by reference into the Senate Journal and
the Senate transcript.
THE CHAIR:
Seeing no objection, so ordered, sir.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, appearing on Senate Agenda Number 3
under business from the House under rules suspended
transmitted, Madam President, would ask for suspension
for the purposes of taking up with the intent to refer
to the Consent Calendar Substitute House Bill
Number 5445, AN ACT CONCERNING SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS
UNDER THE CONNECTICUT ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, as
amended by House Amendment Schedule "A."
THE CHAIR:
Seeing no objection, so ordered, sir.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Yes.
Thank you, Madam President.
With suspension, would move that item to the Consent
Calendar.
THE CHAIR:
Seeing no objection, so ordered.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, would like to mark some additional
items go at this time.
THE CHAIR:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
219
April 26, 2012
Please proceed, sir.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Yes. Thank you, Madam President. The first item we
like to mark is calendar page 8, Calendar 292, Senate
Bill Number 156.
And then, Madam President, like to mark calendar
page 3, Calendar 129, Senate Bill 224; Calendar
page 3, Calendar 131, Senate Bill 335; Calendar
page 6, Calendar 242 -- excuse me -- that one, delete
reference to that one, Mr. President -- move to
matters returned from committee, Calendar page 26,
Calendar 72, Senate Bill 63; Calendar page 26,
Calendar 73, Senate Bill 195; Calendar 26,
Calendar 74, Senate Bill 196; Calendar page 31,
Calendar 166, Senate Bill Number 162; calendar page
31, Calendar 167, Senate Bill 64. Would mark those
items go and this time.
Madam President, there may be some additional items as
well.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you, Senator.
At this time, Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
On page 20 -- I'm sorry -- page 8, Calendar 292,
Senate Bill Number 156, Substitute for Senate Bill
Number 156, AN ACT CONCERNING SIBLING VISITATION FOR
CHILDREN IN THE CARE AND CUSTODY OF THE COMMISSIONER
OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, favorable report of the
Committee on Human services.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Gerratana, good evening, ma'am.
SENATOR GERRATANA:
Good evening, Madam President. I move acceptance of
the joint committee's favorable report and passage of
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
220
April 26, 2012
the bill.
THE CHAIR:
Yes, on acceptance and passage, will you remark
further, please.
SENATOR GERRATANA:
Yes, Madam President. The Clerk has an amendment, LCO
Number 3922. Would he please call and I be allowed to
summarize.
THE CHAIR:
Mr. Clerk, 3922.
SENATOR GERRATANA:
I believe that's right.
THE CHAIR:
LCO Number 3922, Senate Amendment Schedule "A."
offered by Senator Looney, et al.
It's
THE CHAIR:
Senator Gerratana.
SENATOR GERRATANA:
Madam President, I have to amend that. There is a
later amendment. I called the wrong LCO Number. If I
may retract my request.
THE CHAIR:
It has been retracted, madam. Will you now tell me,
Senator, what the number it of the new one?
SENATOR GERRATANA:
Yes I shall, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
The LCO number is 3989.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
3989.
221
April 26, 2012
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
(Inaudible).
THE CHAIR:
Senator Gerratana.
SENATOR GERRATANA:
Thank you, Madam President.
I move adoption.
THE CHAIR:
The motion is on adoption.
Will you remark, please.
SENATOR GERRATANA:
Yes, Madam President.
This is a strike all amendment replacing the
underlying bill. We did this to address some
concerns, particularly fiscal concerns about the
underlying bill. This does however establish a policy
for sibling visits for those children who are under
the care of DCF who may have out-of-home placements.
And it allows them to visit one another at least once
a week if they live and reside within the state of
Connecticut. Also we, in Section 2 of this amendment,
establish a youth advisory board, which means the
board established by each DCF regional office that is
comprised of youth in out of home care.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark?
Senator Suzio.
SENATOR SUZIO:
Thank you, Madam President.
Will you remark?
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
222
April 26, 2012
I rise to strongly support the amendment. This was a
bill that had been discussed in the Children's
Committee. We support of the bill. We recognize how
important it is for young children to be in contact
with their siblings, especially foster care situations
and I want to strongly urge my colleagues to vote for
the amendment. Thank you very much, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark?
If not -- oh, Senator Witkos.
SENATOR WITKOS:
Thank you, Madam President. If I may, just two quick
questions to the proponent of the amendment.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Gerratana.
Senator Witkos, please proceed.
SENATOR WITKOS:
Thank you. Through you, Madam President, would this
pertain children that are still under the, I guess,
custody of the state agency and they are placed in
foster homes? Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Gerratana.
SENATOR GERRATANA:
Through you, Madam President I believe that's true.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Witkos.
SENATOR WITKOS:
And thank you.
Through you, Madam President the law
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
223
April 26, 2012
that we are about to pass, the amendment is very clear
that the sibling shelters at least once -- not less
than once per week and my question would be, what
happens if a foster parent wants to take their
children that they are and custody of on vacation and
they are not available. They wouldn't be harmed in
any manner because they weren't able to produce the
once a week as required under the law because they
want to take a foster child or the person in their
care out-of-state on vacation or something. Through
you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Gerratana.
SENATOR GERRATANA:
Through you, Madam President, in fact, no, we just a
piece of legislation that actually sets in statute a
process for the sort of special requests so we would
know ahead of time and the commissioner -- caseworker
through the commissioner's office could then approve
that visit.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Witkos.
SENATOR WITKOS:
Thank you.
Through the testimony of our public hearing, did you
hear instances where a family would necessarily be
denied the ability to take their own children plus any
foster kids on vacation because they want to make sure
that the other siblings that they are separated from
has been visitation or as long as there is adequate
given ahead of time it really shouldn't be an issue.
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Gerratana.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
224
April 26, 2012
SENATOR GERRATANA:
Through you, Madam President.
I believe, through you, that there shouldn't be any
problem.
SENATOR WITKOS:
Thank you, Madam President.
for answers.
I thank the gentlewoman
THE CHAIR:
Thank you. Will you remark further?
the amendment please say aye.
All in favor of
SENATORS:
Aye.
THE CHAIR:
Opposed?
The amendment passes.
Senator Looney.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, would move that the bill, as amended,
be referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
THE CHAIR:
Seeing no objection, so ordered.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you, Madam President. For some additional
markings, a couple of changes in markings. Going back
to the items marked earlier, calendar page 3,
Calendar 129 should be PT. Calendar page 3,
Calendar 131, PT.
An additional go is calendar page 6, Calendar 242,
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
225
April 26, 2012
House Bill 5096 should be marked go.
Also, Madam President, calendar page 26 under matters
returned, calendar 73 should be marked passed
temporarily and the remaining items marked in that,
calendar page 26, Calendar 74 should be go; as we said
Calendar page 31, Calendar's 166, g; Calendar page 31,
Calendar 167 also go.
Some additional items to mark, Madam President, under
favorable reports, calendar page 1, Calendar 51,
Senate Bill Number 12, marked go; under matters
returned, calendar page 25, Calendar 52, Senate Bill
Number 14, marked go; calendar page 26, Calendar 60,
Senate Bill Number 98, marked go; calendar page 26,
Calendar 69, Senate Bill Number 13 marked go; and
Calendar page -- returning to favorable reports,
calendar page 3, Calendar 123 Senate Bill 319 marked
go.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
On page 26, Calendar Number 72, Senate Bill Number 63,
AN ACT CONCERNING THE TIMING OF TESTS FOR BLOOD
ALCOHOL LEVELS IN OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE CASES,
favorable report of the Committee on Judiciary.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Looney.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Yes, Madam President, that item I be marked passed
temporarily and if the Clerk would call the item on
calendar page 6, Calendar 242, House Bill Number 5096.
THE CHAIR:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
226
April 26, 2012
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
On page 6, Calendar 242, House Bill Number 5096, AN
ACT CONCERNING THE FIREARMS EVIDENCE DATABANK,
favorable report of the Committee on Public Safety.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Hartley, good evening.
SENATOR HARTLEY:
Good evening, Madam President. Madam President, I
move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable
report and adoption of the resolution, madam.
THE CHAIR:
Acting on approval of the bill, please proceed.
SENATOR HARTLEY:
Thank you, madam.
The bill before us makes changes to the laws
pertaining to the state's firearms evidence databank.
It is one for achieving efficiencies. In fact, what
it does is eliminate a mandate for entering all
ballistic data and it instead gives the desk personnel
the discretion in data entering to decide which
evidence would, in fact, yield results in a criminal
investigation. It also changes a deadline for the
testing and the input of such data.
Madam President, if I may, the Clerk is in possession
of LCO 3829, and I ask that the Clerk please call and
I be granted leave to summarize, please.
THE CHAIR:
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
227
April 26, 2012
LCO Number 3829, Senate Amendment Schedule "A,"
offered by Senators Hartley, Guglielmo and
Representatives Dargan and Giegler.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Hartley.
SENATOR HARTLEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
I move adoption.
THE CHAIR:
Motion is adoption.
Will you remark?
SENATOR HARTLEY:
Yes, indeed.
Thank you.
Madam President, the underlining LCO is essentially a
cleanup amendment to have consistency in the language
throughout the underlining bill, and for that reason,
we ask for adoption.
THE CHAIR:
Will you remark? Will you remark? Seeing none, -oh, I'm sorry. Senator Fasano, I apologize.
SENATOR FASANO:
Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President to Senate Hartley through you, when
you say "consistent language," could explain to me the
effect of that amendment to create consistent
language? Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Hartley.
SENATOR HARTLEY:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
Yes, indeed.
228
April 26, 2012
Thank you, Senator Fasano.
Essentially as we are going to the bill we are
defining "handgun "-- redefining -- deleting "handgun"
and inserting "firearms" so that it is a broader
category for the analysis and that wasn't done
consistently throughout the underlining bill.
And the second change was the change from "may" to
"shall," which was basically in the underlining bill
where it is given discretion to the examining officer
on what technique he is going to use and ballistic
examination and -- so he is not being required or
mandated to conduct a test that's not going to yield
any evidence. And once again that wasn't consistent
throughout the underlining bill.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Fasano.
SENATOR FASANO:
Madam President, thank you, and thank you, Senator
Hartley, for the answers to those questions. Thank
you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you very much.
Any other questions?
Will you remark? Will you remark? If not, all in
favor of amendment "A" please say aye.
SENATORS:
Aye.
THE CHAIR:
Opposed?
Amendment "A" has been adopted.
Senator Hartley.
SENATOR HARTLEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
And if there's no
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
229
April 26, 2012
objection, I would ask that the bill be placed on the
consent calendar.
THE CHAIR:
Seeing no objection so ordered.
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
On page 26, Calendar 74, Senate Bill Number 196, AN
ACT CONCERNING THE RECORDING OF PISTOL AND REVOLVER
SALES IN A BOUND BOOK, favorable report of the
Committee on Judiciary.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Hartley.
SENATOR HARTLEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
I move for acceptance of the joint committee's
favorable report, madam, and passage of the bill,
please.
THE CHAIR:
The motion is on passage.
Will you remark?
SENATOR HARTLEY:
Yes, I will.
Thank you, Madam President.
This bill is another bill. It is a department bill
and it is about achieving efficiencies which is always
a good direction to go in. And what it does is
eliminate the redundant recording in handgun sales
records. Right now, as it stands, there is a
requirement to keep a state book and a federal, and
they are essentially one in the same with regard to
the information they are requiring being recorded.
These books are referred to as "bound books." What
this simply will do is that there will be one book
kept which is the federal book. And that the state
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
230
April 26, 2012
DESPP, Department of Emergency Services and Public
Protection will inventory that.
There is an amendment, Madam President, if I may, ask
the Clerk please call LCO 3460 and if I may be granted
leave to summarize.
THE CHAIR:
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
LCO Number 3460, Senate "A" offered by Senator Hartley
and Representative Dargan.
SENATOR HARTLEY:
I move adoption, ma'am.
THE CHAIR:
The motion is a adoption.
Will you remark, please?
SENATOR HARTLEY:
Yes.
Thank you.
It was a concern of our local police departments that,
in fact, while they did have the option to access the
bound book, would have felt much more comfortable that
they be identified in the underlying bill and that is
what this amendment does. I move adoption.
THE CHAIR:
You moved adoption. It was accepted. Will you remark
further? Will you remark further? If not, all in
favor of the amendment please say aye.
SENATORS:
Aye.
THE CHAIR:
Opposed?
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
The amendment passes.
231
April 26, 2012
Will you remark?
Senator Hartley.
SENATOR HARTLEY:
Yes, thank you, Madam President. And if there's no
objection, I would ask that this be moved to the
consent calendar, madam.
THE CHAIR:
Seeing no objection, so order, ma'am.
SENATOR HARTLEY:
Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
On page 31, Calendar 166, Senate Bill Number 62, AN
ACT CONCERNING THE CONNECTICUT PUBLIC SAFETY DATA
NETWORK, favorable report of the Committee on Energy
and Technology.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Hartley.
SENATOR HARTLEY:
It's me, again, Madam President.
Thank you very much.
THE CHAIR:
Keep it going this way.
It's good.
SENATOR HARTLEY:
I move adoption of the joint committee's favorable
report, madam, and passage of the bill.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
232
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
The motion is on passage of the bill.
remark?
Will you
SENATOR HARTLEY:
Yes, thank you very much.
This is a department bill regarding the public safety
data network. The department has received a federal
grant, a very sizable federal grant -- in fact, it was
$94 million -- and over these previous two years has
been working on collaborating and also building a
broadband network. This underlining bill will give -will set up the actual network which will be known as
the Public Safety Data Network. It essentially will
broaden the services right now to connect all criminal
databases, the sex offender registries, local PDs and
so forth. It will bring public safety into the 21st
century, madam. And this will put in place the
guidance and the structure for developing and
implementing that network.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark?
Will you remark?
If not, Senator Hartley.
SENATOR HARTLEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
And if there is no objection, I would ask that this be
moved to the consent calendar.
THE CHAIR:
Seeing no objection, so ordered.
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
233
April 26, 2012
On page 31, Calendar 167, Senate Bill Number 64, AN
ACT CONCERNING REGULATION OF FIREARMS, favorable
report of the Committee on Judiciary with amendment.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Hartley.
SENATOR HARTLEY:
Madam President, yes, it's me.
THE CHAIR:
Good.
SENATOR HARTLEY:
I move for acceptance of the joint committee's
favorable report and passage of the bill.
THE CHAIR:
The motion is adoption.
Will you remark?
SENATOR HARTLEY:
Yes, thank you, Madam President.
This -- over the years we have worked on adding
uniformity on blood alcohol levels in various facets
of our state law. This is one of them and what it
effectively does is take the .10, which was a previous
standard and move it down so we're in unison with
other blood-alcohol level legislation. It moves it
from .10 to .18 for the hunting or the carrying of
loaded firearms while intoxicated.
And then it does a few additional things such as
requiring gun show promoters to notify the department
of DESPP when they plan simply to hold a gun show so
that they are informed and they are asking for other
detail on the receipts for handguns such as the place
of birth and buyer's date and place of birth. And
then we also, with this legislation, are changing a
deadline by which the commissioner must process
applications for eligibility for possession of
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
234
April 26, 2012
handguns. It was a previously a 90-day deadline, but
what it does is it does not limited a deadline. It
simply puts in place a more realistic deadline because
in previous part of the legislation it requires that
after 60 days of receiving the FBI criminal report,
then the eligibility determination is due. And so
that will be the threshold or the window in the
deadline.
And with that, I would ask for consideration and
support. Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
Will you remark?
Senator Witkos.
SENATOR WITKOS:
Thank you, Madam President. If I could, one quick
question to Senator Hartley.
Through you, Madam President, when you stated that the
bill removes the timeline for the 90 days from when
the -- I think you said the FBI fingerprint comes back
to issue the certificate, is there a timeline in there
or is it just open-ended?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Hartley.
SENATOR HARTLEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
Yes, there effectively were two deadlines. The first
was a 90-day deadline that the department must process
the application, which they continually fail to do
because they were dependent upon when they received
the FBI report. So what we thought would be much more
realistic is start the clock at the date by which the
FBI report is received, which is actually a shorter
window. It's 60 days, and therefore, it's realistic
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
235
April 26, 2012
and I think it's meaningful as opposed to having this
false number out there which was never accomplished.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Witkos.
SENATOR WITKOS:
Thank you, Madam President. I thank Senator Hartley
for that answer and I hope for legislative intent that
when those results are received that they are date
stamped so that we know accurately when the clock
begins because I know sometimes we feel that things
are just held for whatever reason. And while people
have a right and that qualify and they've met all the
obligations, the clear intent of the law is the time
frame when the application is approved from the FBI
and we can move forward from the time frame. Thank
you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark?
Senator Fasano.
SENATOR FASANO:
Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, I have an amendment that I'm not
going to call at this time and the reason for it is -when I wrote the amendment, it was my understanding
that the appeal process was taking two years to get
through. It's my understanding that the board members
now in charge have worked very diligently to bring
that down to nine months, which to me is a legitimate
and fair reasonable time for both sides to get
organized. I will not be running the amendment
because I think that issue has been resolved since I
wrote the amendment I think it was based on old
information.
The second part of the amendment I may come back with
and -- that wouldn't include this issue with respect
to expedited the appeal process and the second part of
the amendment would be holding hearings every 60 days
instead of every 90 days. And talking to board
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
236
April 26, 2012
members they felt that that would be a very good
amendment, but as I said as it's tied in with some
other language that's not needed I'm not going to call
my amendment at this time.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark?
Will you remark?
If not, Senator Hartley.
SENATOR HARTLEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
I would just like to, for purposes of edification -and I am clearly sensitive to the point that Senator
Fasano brings up, but after the state audits report, I
think the board has really reconstituted itself. And,
in fact, we are not talking about 24 months wait any
longer and it's even a little better than six months.
It's like four to five months. And instead of meeting
every 90 days or even a change to 60 days, they're
meeting every two weeks. It's a totally volunteer
board. They put in an inordinate number of hours.
They are incredibly conscientious about the task that
is assigned to them and I feel like we're in good
hands with their rulings.
And if there's no objection, Madam President, I would
ask that this be put on the consent calendar.
THE CHAIR:
Any objection?
Seeing no objection, so ordered.
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
Calendar 51, Senate Bill Number 12, AN ACT CONCERNING
A INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR BREAST MAGNETIC RESONANCE
IMAGING, favorable report of the Committee on
Insurance.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
237
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, I move for acceptance of the joint
committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.
THE CHAIR:
The motion is on adoption of the bill.
remark, sir.
Will you
SENATOR CRISCO:
Yes, Madam President, I would like to yield, at this
time, to Senator Hartley.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Hartley, will you accept the yield, ma'am?
SENATOR HARTLEY:
Yes, indeed.
Thank you, Madam President.
First of all, having been a motion for adoption, would
like to recognize Senator Crisco's leadership on
healthcare issues in general and particularly on this
issue as well as breast imaging legislation.
The proposal we have before us addresses the coverage
that we require in the state of Connecticut for
colorectal screenings. And as technology changes so
rapidly as does data systems and so forth we need to
continue to stay conversant. And this underlining
amendment reflects that. And so in developing
recommendations on this particular screening, what we
would like to do so that it is very clear and there
are no questions, is to identify the American Cancer
Society as that entity which is -- which will be
establishing those recommendations.
And Madam President, I'm sorry if I missed the fact
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
238
April 26, 2012
that LCO 3956 hadn't been called.
THE CHAIR:
Okay. Mr. Clerk.
please.
Will you call the amendment,
THE CLERK:
LCO Number 3956, Senate "A" offered by Senators
Crisco, Hartley, Representatives Megna and Johnson.
SENATOR HARTLEY:
So I move adoption, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
The question is on adoption.
Will you remark, please.
SENATOR HARTLEY:
Yes, indeed. So as I had indicated, this is a bill
which identifies what entity will establish
recommendations for the colorectal cancer screening
and that is the American Cancer Society. This is
actually, as we investigated it, how all other states
do it and I think that it would be a positive change
in this area.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Will you remark?
amendment?
Will you remark further on this
Senator McKinney.
SENATOR McKINNEY:
Thank you.
Madam President, if
you to the chair of
question related to
this amendment is a
I could, perhaps through through
the Insurance Committee, I have a
the underlining bill. I believe
strike all. Is that correct?
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
239
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
Senator Cisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, through you, to the Republican
Leader, that is correct.
SENATOR McKINNEY:
Thank you.
And Madam President, I understand the underlining bill
dealt with a similar conflict in our laws regarding
what standards were going to be used for the MRIs for
the breast density and that's an issue I think we need
to resolve. This amendment, should we adopt it, does
away with the underlying bill. Does the good Senator
have -- are there other bills that may come before us
this session that would look to resolve that issue?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, through you, to the Republican
Leader, yes, this is the path to correct those things
and we'll have another bill that will further correct
the conflicts.
SENATOR McKINNEY:
Thank you, and I thank the good Senator.
Obviously, the amendment is a good one and I think we
need to have a standard so that everyone knows how
we're operating, but I also think we need to correct
it with respect to the issue in the underlying bill.
So given the representations of the chair of the
Insurance Committee that we're going to resolve that
issue as well at a later date I rise in support of the
amendment. Thank you.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
240
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark further on the amendment?
If not, all those in favor of the I will try your
minds. All in favor, please signify by saying, aye.
SENATORS:
Aye.
THE CHAIR:
Opposed? The amendment has been adopted, I think.
Would you like to remark further on the bill -- that
the amendment that's now the bill? Anybody want to
put it on consent? Okay.
Senator Hartley.
SENATOR HARTLEY:
Madam President, if without objection, I would ask
that this be considered for the consent calendar.
THE CHAIR:
Seeing no objection at this time, so ordered.
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
On page 25, Calendar 52, Senate Bill Number 14, AN ACT
CONCERNING HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY WEEK,
favorable report of the Committee on Government
Administration and Elections.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Thank you, Madam President.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
241
April 26, 2012
Madam President, I move for acceptance of the joint
committee's report and passage of the bill.
THE CHAIR:
The motion is acceptance and passage.
further, sir?
Will you remark
SENATOR CRISCO:
Yes, Madam President.
Madam President, if we are to resolve the health care
issue which is a very complex issue it's going to take
like a numerous components. It's almost like an
algebraic compound formula where you need simple
equations to resolve the complex compound formula.
This is one step in resolving our health care
challenge. Basically the bill requires the Governor
annually to proclaim the second week of September as
Health Information Technology Week to recognize the
value of information technology and management systems
in improving the state's health care system. It
requires suitable exercises to be held in the state
capital and elsewhere as the Governor designates. And
as we will continue to talk about numerous health care
bills, insurance bills, we'll see how hopefully it'll
all come together to try to resolve this challenge of
healthcare.
THE CHAIR:
Will you remark?
Will you remark?
Seeing none, Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Thank you, Madam President.
If there's no objection, I request that it be placed
on the consent calendar.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kane, do you rise to speak?
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
242
April 26, 2012
SENATOR KANE:
(Inaudible.)
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Seeing no objection that.
SENATOR KANE:
Oh, I am objecting.
THE CHAIR:
You are objecting. There isn't objection. At this
time, will you remark -- the machine will be open.
Mr. Clerk, will you call for a roll call vote, please.
THE CLERK:
Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate.
Senators please return to the Chamber. Immediate roll
call has been ordered in the Senate.
THE CHAIR:
It's too hot up here.
Have all members have voted? If all members have
voted the machine will be locked. Mr. Clerk, will you
call a tally, please.
THE CLERK:
Senate Bill Number 14.
Total Number voting
Necessary for adoption
Those voting Yea
Those voting Nay
Those absent and not voting
THE CHAIR:
35
18
33
2
1
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
The bill passed.
243
April 26, 2012
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
On page 26, Calendar Number 60, Senate Bill Number 98,
AN ACT CONCERNING DEDUCTIBLES AND GUIDELINES FOR
COLONOSCOPIES, favorable report of the Committee on
Appropriations.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move
for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable
report and passage of the bill.
THE CHAIR:
The motion is on acceptance and passage.
remark, sir.
Will you
SENATOR CRISCO:
Yes, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Please proceed, sir.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Well, yes, Madam President. I just can't hear you.
Perhaps you could call for -THE CHAIR:
Ladies and gentlemen, can we keep the voices down in
the assembly here? The Senator is having trouble
hearing what's going on.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Yes, Madam President.
It's not my age.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
244
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
I never would say that, sir.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, the Clerk has an amendment, LCO 3995.
I request it be called and I be given permission to
summarize.
THE CHAIR:
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
LCO Number 3995, Senate "A" offered by Senators
Crisco, Hartley and Representative Megna.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Yes, Madam President.
I move for its adoption.
THE CHAIR:
The motion is adoption.
Will you remark, sir?
SENATOR CRISCO:
Yes, Madam President. The amendment addresses the
issue that Senator Hartley just spoke to. We have
deleted certain language in Section 1 of Senate Bill
98 and that explains the amendment.
THE CHAIR:
Will you remark? Will you remark on the amendment?
If you're all in favor of the amendment, please -- I
guess, sorry.
Senator Boucher, are you running back to remark of the
amendment?
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
245
April 26, 2012
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Thank you, Madam President. I do have some questions
on the underlying bill so I presume I can wait until
this amendment is passed. Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Seeing -- all in favor of Senate amendment A, please
say.
SENATORS:
Aye.
THE CHAIR:
Opposed?
Senate "A" passes.
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President,
basically to explain the bill, we've had situations
when an individual goes in for a prevention procedure
which requires a small deductible. And during the
procedure, there is discovered a polyp and what was a
prevention procedure turned out to be a diagnostic
procedure which created the problem of the person's
deductible to kick in.
So when a person went in for a $50 prevention, they
may come out of the procedure with a $5,000
deductible. This applies to some plans. For example
our Anthem Blue Cross plan, this would not apply, but
many small businesses throughout the state are issuing
plans for their employees with considerable
deductibles.
And so this will clarify that and a couple of
hospitals have reported this to us and we feel that
this will address the issue so that the patient will
not be hit with the deductible as compared to the
co-pay prevention.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
246
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark?
Senator McKinney.
SENATOR McKINNEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
If I could, a few questions to the proponent of the
bill as amended.
THE CHAIR:
Please proceed, sir.
SENATOR McKINNEY:
Thank you.
Senator Crisco, as I understand what has happened,
there you could go in, for example, for a screening
for a colonoscopy. Your physician could discover a
polyp; decide that we're here, we're going to remove
the polyp. And then the insurance company -- or the
physician then charges for the procedure of removing
the polyp, which would trigger the deductible and not
the initial reason for seeing the doctor which was the
screening. Is that correct? Through you.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, through you to the Republican leader,
that is correct.
THE CHAIR:
Senator McKinney.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
247
April 26, 2012
SENATOR McKINNEY:
Thank you.
So then my question would be -- and I've, knock on
wood, never been to one of these and hope I'd never
have to be, but if you were to simply have a procedure
to remove the polyp, that would trigger the
deductible. Through you, is that correct, Madam
President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, through you to the Republican Leader,
yes, that is correct, if you have that particular
policy with that requirement.
THE CHAIR:
Senator McKinney.
SENATOR McKINNEY:
And through you, Madam President, we certainly want
someone who goes in for a screening and then they
discover a polyp which needs to be removed to schedule
the polyp removal for another day and another time.
That wouldn't seem to be the best use of the
physician's time or the individual's time, and quite
frankly, the sooner you get a polyp removed the
better. Is that correct?
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, through you to the Republican Leader,
you know, that is correct. Also as one experiences
the screening for colorectal cancer, there is a
challenging preparation for the procedure, so
obviously, one would try to not duplicate that
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
248
April 26, 2012
procedure. And depending upon the policy this would
eliminate that situation where the deductible will
kick in. There may be -- it also depends upon the
coverage your insurance company provides and it also
depends upon the procedure in the future. You know,
there may be a situation where it's not a screening.
It's definitely an examination to see if there's a
condition and then the deductible under that plan will
take place.
Madam President, as the Republican Leader knows, we've
all experienced some severe hardships in friends that
we know that have succumbed to colorectal cancer, a
cancer that could be early diagnosed if the proper
procedures are followed and this is what we're trying
to achieve.
THE CHAIR:
Senator McKinney.
SENATOR McKINNEY:
Thank you.
And as with many, if not all of the insurance issues
we deal with in mandates, this obviously does not
apply to any ERISA plans. Through you, Madam
President, is that correct?
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, through you to the Republican leader,
that is correct.
THE CHAIR:
Senator McKinney.
SENATOR McKINNEY:
Thank you.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
249
April 26, 2012
And if I could because I actually haven't talked to
any of the insurers within the state of Connecticut I
believe you said state employees who are under Anthem
are treated one way, others do not. Could you please
explain what percentage of people covered in
Connecticut would this trigger the deductible for and
what percent would not if that makes sense? Through
you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, through you to the Republican Leader,
just -- I realize -- I ask that question in regards to
the ERISA plans with the insurance industry and I was
told about 40 percent of the plans in Connecticut are
ERISA plans. The rest, you know, are individual plans
or health care plans like we have that are negotiated
by, you know, OPM and those cases, those -- this
situation would be covered.
THE CHAIR:
Senator McKinney.
SENATOR McKINNEY:
Thank you.
And so I guess, Madam President, and maybe I'll make a
statement and Senator Crisco could respond because I
think his answer will -- although he talked about it
in bringing out the bill, might be helpful in
informing my position on the bill.
We have a law in the State of Connecticut that
mandates coverage of colonoscopies. A good law that
requires screening for people for cancer. That's a
good thing to do. But not all insurance companies are
mandated to cover the procedures that are incident to
the colonoscopy. I mean, many people that go out and
have a colonoscopy and find out everything is fine.
Some people, unfortunately, find out you know
potentially bad news, they have a polyp. Some people
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
250
April 26, 2012
find out even worse news.
But here we're saying that the mandate is now going to
go beyond covering the screening. It's going to cover
the screening and the procedure. And I'm just
wondering where that then ends. Does it end at
removing polyps now? Do we go farther than that?
Because I think the argument can be made that we are
actually mandating coverage of a new procedure.
Clearly, if you separated the two, a colonoscopy as
one procedure and a polyp removal as a second
procedure, the first is a required mandate under our
law, the second is not. If they're done both -- let
me back up -- if they are done both at the same time,
why wouldn't we allow the physician to charge for the
procedure, but not the colonoscopy and the screening?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Thank you, Madam President. Through you to the
Republican leader, we do. If I can use an example of
our own our personal health insurance, one could go in
for a screening and have -- the doctor may determine
that there are polyps there and they should be removed
to avoid further publications. In that scenario under
our plan, it is covered. There is no problem. Other
plans may have -- because we don't have the deductible
in that situation -- other plans that are offered
particularly by small businesses may have a $5,000
deductible in this particular procedure. So that the
patient then would, instead of having the co-pay of
$50, will be charged -- would have to take care of the
$5,000 deductible and some of the hospitals, Madam
President, through you to the Republican leader, are
reporting this as a problem.
SENATOR McKINNEY:
And so through you, the procedure of the screening
through the colonoscopy and then the removal of the
polyp, is there additional costs incident to the
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
removal of the polyp that
would have the deductible
is it if you do it at the
cost? Through you, Madam
251
April 26, 2012
-- which would be why you
to before that procedure or
same time there's no extra
President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, I would assume through speaking
through different physicians and insurance companies
that, obviously, there is additional cost, if beyond
the screening there are polyps discovered and the
physician has to remove them.
THE CHAIR:
Senator McKinney.
SENATOR McKINNEY:
Thank you. I thank Senator Crisco. Madam President,
I'm still going to -- there may be others with
questions and debate -- hopefully, there will be
because I'm still undecided, believe it or not, on how
to vote on this.
You know, one of the things that is of concern to me,
is that, assuming the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't throw
out the federal health-care law, we know that many
health-care mandate we pass now -- we have to pay for
as a state under the federal health care law. And to
me, this reads as a new health care mandate. We cover
the screening, which is good, but now, we're saying
we're not only going to mandate coverage for the
screening, but in cases where a polyp is found, we're
going to cover the screening and the removal of the
polyp that may be a good thing but it is something
we're going to have to pay for and I'm now concerned
about that new state mandate. Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
252
April 26, 2012
SENATOR CRISCO:
Yes, Madam President.
I respect the Republican Leader's opinion and we have
looked at this with the same concerns that the
Republican Leader has expressed. And we've been
advised that under most policies, excluding ERISA
that, you know, the procedure for screening and that
the procedure for diagnostic removal would be covered
under those specific policies.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kelly.
SENATOR KELLY:
Thank you, Madam President.
Through you to the proponent of the bill I have a few
questions.
THE CHAIR:
Please proceed, sir.
SENATOR KELLY:
Thank you.
Senator, when you indicated that there were some plans
that may have deductibles as much as $5,000, I believe
you're referring to what's known as an HSA, a high
deductible plan. Does this -- or will this bill cover
those types of plans? Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, through you to the Senator, to my
knowledge, no.
THE CHAIR:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
253
April 26, 2012
Senator Kelly.
SENATOR KELLY:
Okay. So we're not going to deal with those
high-deductible plans where people have to pay the
$5,000 deductible because they make the personal
choice to pay a lower premium on either a monthly,
quarterly or annual basis, but understand that they
have high deductibles that wouldn't cover such
procedures. On the other hand you have one quick to
seize the normal -- point of service plans that many
small businesses have that in the course of the health
care delivery when I go to visit my physician or
health care institution, I may have to pay a co-pay in
order to get that service. Is that the type of planes
that this is going to cover? Through you, Madam
President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, through you to Senator Kelly, yes.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kelly.
SENATOR KELLY:
Okay. Now, under current law if I walk in for a
colonoscopy screening -- do I have to pay or make a
co-pay? Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, through you to Senator Kelly, it
depends on the plan.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
254
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kelly.
SENATOR KELLY:
Thank you.
So it's possible that that could happen.
If I go in just for a polyp removal and depending upon
the plan, let's say the plan requires a co-pay,
what -- I guess, let me retract.
In essence, what is this bill going to do? Is it just
going to, instead of having a co-pay on the screening
and a co-pay on a removal of a polyp if you do them at
one time you're going to remove the co-pay on both?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, through you to Senator Kelly, note.
The co-pay would apply, and again, as I said earlier,
depending upon the plan the deductible would not apply
during the procedure.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kelly.
SENATOR KELLY:
So if I'm correct, if I have a plan that has no
co-pays, isn't it generally also the that's a higher
general premium plan? Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
It depends upon whether it's a group individual plan
or an individual plan. I think it will vary depending
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
255
April 26, 2012
upon the plan, Madam President, through you to Senator
Kelly.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kelly.
SENATOR KELLY:
Thank you, Madam President. Will this apply to
self-funded plans? Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, through you to Senator Kelly, to my
knowledge, no.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kelly.
SENATOR KELLY:
Okay. So the plans that we're talking about are those
plans that are private, depending upon the plan that
you have with your companies, you could have a plan
that covers these copays. But I don't think the bill
would want to be effected against those types of
policies because it's redundant. We're looking at
those types of policies that do not cover the copay.
So if I have a bill or I have a -- a policy that
doesn't cover a copay -- (inaudible) -- let me back up
-- I'm -- that requires a copay when I go to the
physician, this bill is going to apply to that
situation.
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
256
April 26, 2012
Madame President, through you, to Senator Kelly, yes.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kelly.
SENATOR KELLY:
Okay. So now we have plans that -- that have a copay
for screening, have a copay for a polyp removal. And
this bill in that situation does what?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madame President, through you, to Senator Kelly.
Let's state for the record that the plan may have a
copay and a deductible. The copay may be for
prevention, the deductible may be for procedure. And
so what could happen, as I stated earlier, which the
policy is trying to address, the -- the bill, is that
when a person goes in for the prevention and there is
a diagnostic situation and removing a polyp, that the
deductible would not apply.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kelly.
SENATOR KELLY:
But in those instances where we have a deductible,
particularly as the reference that you made of $5,000
deductible, that's a high deductible plan. Isn't is
customary that in the high deductible plan you have a
low corresponding premium and that the -- the insured
chooses this type of plan to pay the lower premium
with knowledge of the higher deductible?
Through you, Madam President.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
257
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madame President, through you.
Yes, that -- that is true. But these deductible plans
would not have a -- would -- could have a copay for
prevention but that is only for screening. We're just
trying to resolve the situation where screening and
diagnostic are -- are experienced during the same
procedure.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kelly.
SENATOR KELLY:
So if I understand correct, the -- what the bill is -is attempting to do is to avoid paying two copays or a
copay and a deductible when you go in for a screening
and a diagnostic situation?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, through you, to Senator Kelly.
Not the copay but just the deductible.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kelly.
SENATOR KELLY:
Do we know what -- to what extent the Connecticut
population is exposed to this type of situation?
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
258
April 26, 2012
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, only through an opinion and the
perception, I would believe -- I believe that it's
basically a small part of the -- of the policies that
are at issue throughout the state because, first of
all, Madam President, through you, to Senator Kelly,
ERISA plans are excluded from our jurisdiction. HAA's
would not apply. So whatever is remaining will be -particular if they have the deductible.
Madam President, could I -- may I also mention to
Senator Kelly -- and I could refer to our old plan
where we just had the copay, and if a procedure is
done by the physician, we don't have the deductible.
So there may be other plans out there like our state
plan. So I would think that it's a very small
percentage but that's just a personal opinion.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kelly.
SENATOR KELLY:
The -- as we're all aware, the federal Health Care Act
is well underway. And recently, the center for
Medicare, Medicaid services, CMS, issued a -- a
position, and it's been adopted by the Connecticut
Insurance Department which, during many public
hearings before the Insurance Committee, stated that
the insurance department strongly recommends against
any new mandates in 2012 due to the cost to the state.
The Department of Health and Human Services, HHS,
issued frequently asked questions on February 17,
2012, which provide that state mandates enacted in
2012 may not be included in essential health benefits
for 2014 and '15 and would be viewed as additional
benefits that would incur costs to the state. Only
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
259
April 26, 2012
state mandates already in effect on December 31, 2011,
may be included in essential health benefits for 2014
and 2015 without cost to the state.
Now, we also had on one afternoon the fortune to have
the Governor's special advisor on health care reform
come testify before the Insurance Committee, Jeanette
DeJesus. And she testified and asked the insurance
committee not to adopt any new mandates this year,
specifically because of that directory issued by HHS
with regards to the -- to the Affordable Health Care
Act because it was going to impact the State of
Connecticut.
Further, the Office of Fiscal Analysis on this bill
states the same thing. Per federal guidance, mandates
enacted after December 31, 2011, may not be included
in the essential health benefit package. As a result,
the state will bear the cost of those mandates and any
other mandates which are not included in the essential
health benefits for those plans sold in the exchange
as of January 1, 2014.
So it's clear, from both the Governor's special
advisor on health care reform, the Connecticut
Department of Insurance, OFA, that any new mandates we
adopt are going to be borne by the state. And they
have asked the insurance committee not to adopt those
new mandates, and this is clearly a new mandate.
Now, the purpose for that is a few -- few reasons.
First and foremost, is to give the federal Health Care
Reform Act an opportunity to roll itself out, if you
will, in 2014 and '15 to see what the impact is on the
State of Connecticut and then proceed accordingly.
This would give us the opportunity to set the
essential health benefit and then to see what the
fiscal impact is and see whether or not the state can
afford it going forward.
The second, is that when you look at it -- when you
look at it from the perspective that we're spending
the state's money, that's going to impact the general
fund. And once again, the situation in the State of
Connecticut is such that we, to put it bluntly, we
spend more than we receive. And this will just
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
260
April 26, 2012
continue to add to that trend.
The third reason for not wanting to impose another
mandate is, as we heard, this is going to impact small
business and privately held insurance policies, not
those that are subject to the ERISA plans. Those are
usually large companies, government. Those entities
that are big business, if you will, big government.
But what we're going to do with this mandate is place
a cost on small business, which is the backbone of
business in the State of Connecticut which, as we
heard, when we walked on our job tour, from those same
individuals that the cost of doing business in
Connecticut continues to exceed what they can bear.
This is an impediment to job growth. As such, we have
high unemployment. We heard that when we were talking
about the Route 11 tolls and the bus -- busway bill
with the high unemployment in New Britain. I think
it's over 11 percent. Well, in Waterbury, which is at
the north of the Naugatuck Valley, we have 12 percent.
And it runs down through the valley, which is part of
my district.
We need to address jobs in Connecticut. When I walk
door to door, that's what I heard two years ago. When
I walk at fairs and festivals, meet with people at
church functions, I still hear it today. The top
three issues: jobs, jobs, more jobs. We can't
continue to have a nagging unemployment rate. If we
keep -- or we will have a continuing nagging
unemployment rate if we continue to put burden on
business. This is one such burden.
We've heard it from the Governor's office. We've
heard it from the Connecticut insurance department.
We've heard it from the Office of Fiscal Analysis.
We've heard it from Connecticut business. I've heard
it from my neighbors and friends.
I don't think this is the right thing to do at this
time. I'm not saying there's not merit in -- in the
bill. But I think we need to exercise a measure of
caution. Let the federal Health Care Reform Act roll
itself out for 2014, 2015, and then revisit the issue
at that point. For those reasons, I'm opposed to this
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
261
April 26, 2012
bill.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark?
Will you remark further?
Senator Crisco, did you want to remark again
(inaudible)?
SENATOR CRISCO:
Yes, Madam President. I have the upmost respect for
my ranking member's opinion in regard to the
(inaudible) of this issue. But I'd like to point out
that simply, you know, first of all, the Supreme Court
has to make a decision on the federal Health Care Act
and that could possibly -- if it is as adverse as the
senator is saying, that can impact it.
Number two, from our, you know, investigation and
discussion with people, we also have to take
consideration that, you know, colorectal cancer is one
of the -- I don't want to use the word best -- but is
a cancer that with -- with early diagnosis could be
prevented. And by preventing colon cancer, first of
all, you're preventing substantial medical costs if it
is not discovered. You are saving people's lives.
And the cost benefit is substantial in regards to the
individual.
And -- and I believe that we have a responsibility in
regards to trying to provide for our citizens, you
know, the best possible health care. And Senator
Kelly speaks about the cost to the business. But if
the cancer is not discovered and there's more medical
expenses to be paid, that's going to have a greater
impact upon the small business than this initial bill,
as he mentions.
THE CHAIR:
Will you remark?
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
262
April 26, 2012
Senator Kane.
SENATOR KANE:
Good evening, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Good evening again, sir.
SENATOR KANE:
Through you, I have some questions for the proponent
of the bill.
THE CHAIR:
Please proceed, sir.
SENATOR KANE:
Thank you, Madam President.
Through you, to Senator Crisco. The fiscal note from
OAF says "potential." Can you speak to that?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, through, to Senator Kane, no, I
cannot.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kane.
SENATOR KANE:
Thank you, Madam President.
So that did not come up during the public hearing
process, the potential of the state mandate?
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
263
April 26, 2012
Through you.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, through you, to Senator Kane.
not on the Appropriations Committee.
I'm
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kane.
SENATOR KANE:
Thank you, Madam President.
Well, can you tell me about the procedure for a
colonoscopy, when that is actually recommended.
Through you.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Well, Madam President, I believe, from my knowledge,
there are two potential situations. One, it's
recommended to pin upon one's age that a colonoscopy
should be performed every five years unless there is a
family history. And yet, Madam President, let me also
speak to (inaudible) I am not a physician, so this is
based on my own personal experience. However, there
are family histories, early symptoms, that may require
the physician to recommend a colonoscopy as soon as
possible. And so I think you have various situations.
I don't think there's any one standard. It all
depends upon the physician's recommendation, an
individual's history, and symptoms that exist.
THE CHAIR:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
264
April 26, 2012
Senator Kane.
SENATOR KANE:
Thank you, Madam President. So there is no
recommended age to which someone should have this
procedure?
Through you.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, I just stated -- through, to Senator
Kane, there is an age recommendation.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kane.
SENATOR KANE:
And, through you, Madam President, that age is?
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam Physician -- Madam President, not being a
physician, I don't recall. I want to say it's 50 but
I -- I would stand corrected by any of my colleagues.
SENATOR KANE:
Thank you, Madam President.
Let's say it's 50. Now, once you are 50 -- the reason
I ask this question because, in the bill, it talks
about the American College of Gastroenterology,
American Cancer Society, the Radiology Institute.
Obviously, these associations must have
recommendations that you built the bill upon.
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
265
April 26, 2012
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Yes, Madam President.
That is correct.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kane.
SENATOR KANE:
Would you -- would -- would Senator Crisco be able to
elaborate on that, what those recommendations are.
Obviously there was testimony in -- in that regard, so
I'm assuming he used that testimony in developing the
bill, just didn't take their word for it, but
obviously has some knowledge or information on that
policy or those recommendations.
Through you.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, through you, to Senator Kane. I do
not have any specific details, just general knowledge,
which I believe will be misleading if I was to give my
personal opinion.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kane.
SENATOR KANE:
Well, the reason I ask these questions -- Madam
President, thank you -- is because I'm trying to
determine whether the mandate is necessary for each
and every individual. You know, not everyone, as you
stated earlier, some people have a family history and
may be more susceptible, so I'm trying to understand
why this mandate -- because maybe not everyone is
susceptible. So there has to be some type of
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
266
April 26, 2012
standard, some type of data, some type of history,
some type of information, that would lead us to
believe that we need this mandate.
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Thank you, Madam President, through you, to Senator
Kane.
As my vice chair pointed out to me, colorectal cancer
is the third, the third most common cancer and the
second -- second leading cause of cancer death in the
United States. So we are trying to address that issue
and address those situations where we are not trying
to discourage people from screening which could lead
to a diagnostic. And those particular groups, whether
it be the American Cancer Society, as a rule, we try
to refer to the American Cancer Society with their
specific guidelines. And I think Senator Kane could
appreciate that I don't have those details.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kane.
SENATOR KANE:
Thank you, Madam President. And I -- I appreciate
that. And -- and having it be such a serious issue, I
don't think anyone in the circle is arguing or
debating the importance of the screening and the
procedures. I think the most important thing is the
mandate that we are proposing here today and the cost
of that mandate to each and every individual and, in
turn, the cost of that mandate to health insurance
policies, which, in turn, costs all of us.
Can you tell me, through you, Madam President, what
the cost of a deductible or the copay is currently?
Through you.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
267
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, through you, to Senator Kane. It all
depends upon the particular policy. But, Madam
President, through you, to Senator Kane and my -- and
my colleagues in the circle, early screening not only
prevents death but also prevents extra costs on behalf
of individuals and small businesses and insurance
companies.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kane.
SENATOR KANE:
Thank you, Madam President. No one is arguing that
point, as I already stated. I don't think anyone is
arguing the fact that people should screen for all
types of things. You know, I'm sure, you know, each
and every member around this circle has some type of
history or possibly an illness that we are susceptible
to, based on our family history, our genealogy, our
lifestyles, quite honestly, you know, who knows.
There's -- there's a whole host of different things.
No one's arguing that, Senator Crisco. What we're
talking about is the mandate.
So my question is more about the dollars and not about
the necessity for the actual procedures. So what I'm
trying to understand, through you, Madam President, is
-- Senator Crisco obviously is the chairman of the
insurance company, has a great depth of knowledge, and
I respect and -- and value the information that he
provides -- is the testimony that took place during
the public hearing process, during the creation of the
bill from both sides of the equation, from the issue,
because people spoke in favor and against. So I'm
trying to understand that because we're talking about
the potential cost.
Senator Kelly brought up a very good point about what
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
268
April 26, 2012
happens when the health care policies change and we go
into this different health care system. And I believe
it was recommended by the administration, I think he
said, not to do something like this. So this is where
I'm trying to understand the thinking behind this
mandate.
The cost, I was asking you, in regards to the
deductible or the copay, I know you said it was based
on the plans. But can you tell me, on average, what
it may be?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, through you to Senator Kane, I
cannot.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kane.
SENATOR KANE:
Is the -- is it reasonable?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, I -- I can't answer whether it's
reasonable. I mean, Madam President, through to
Senator Kane, is it reasonable to save a person's life
because of early detection?
Madam President, we had numerous testimony from the
health care advocate, the American Cancer Society, the
Radiological Society of Connecticut, the Connecticut
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
269
April 26, 2012
-- you know, and other plans, you know, saying the
benefit -- the cost benefit of this legislation far
exceeds any potential costs.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kane.
SENATOR KANE:
Thank you, Madam President.
The reason I ask that question, yesterday we did a
bill about price gouging and we talked about
unconscionably excessive. So I don't think it's out
of the realm of possibility for me to ask a question
about what is reasonable when we're defining what is
unconscionably excessive when we're talking about
snowblowers.
So all I'm asking is -- is the average person -- can
they afford the deductible that they currently may pay
when they go for this procedure?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, through you, to Senator Kane.
From my experience in dealing with the health care
profession, the numerous physicians and hospitals,
I -- I've never, ever experienced price gouging in
trying to provide health care to people and to save an
individual's life. I mean, I believe that -- and all
due respect to Senator Kane -- he's really leading
into the -- the bigger question of the total cost of
health care in -- in the state and in the country.
And if he wants to have that discussion at a future
date, I would glad -- would be only to happy to
entertain him.
THE CHAIR:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
270
April 26, 2012
Senator Kane.
SENATOR KANE:
Thank you, Madam President.
No, I wasn't inferring that there's price gouging
going on in the health care industry or with
deductibles. I was only making a point that if we can
define "unconscionably excessive" when it comes to one
issue, then I thought that we could certainly describe
what is reasonable when it comes to this issue.
And as far as the debate on the total cost of health
care, this is it. This is where it comes from.
Increasing mandates only adds to the cost of health
care or, I should say, adds to the cost of health
insurance which, in turn, adds to the cost of health
care.
We've probably debated these type of things many times
as state mandates. So I do believe each time we add
another mandate, we're actually adding to the total
cost of health care. So I think we are having that
discussion, although on a smaller scale with this
particular bill.
So my line of questioning is trying to understand not
the procedure and not the relative need for that
procedure but the need for this particular mandate as
-- is this something that is -- we know is currently
being offered now and covered now, and what makes the
deductible or the copay that is currently paid for not
reasonable at this price that, all of a sudden, we're
going to remove it.
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, through you, to Senator Kane, who I
have the upmost respect for.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
271
April 26, 2012
Let me state that, obviously, it's all of one's
opinion. Many of us do not prefer to the word
"mandate." I personally like to refer to as a
prevention. And during the public hearing, the health
care advocate expressed support for the bill and
referred to numerous consumer complaints regarding
confusing insurance language, denied coverage, and
unexpected out-of-possible expenses for screening
colonoscopies. And that is what we're trying to
address with this bill.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Kane.
SENATOR KANE:
Thank you, Madam President.
And, you know, I actually -- you know, I have used the
word "mandate" and I am using the word "mandate", but
it's also in the fiscal analysis so it's not just
mine.
One last question, if I may, through you, Madam
President, to Senator Crisco. Is this common practice
in other mandates that we have on our books, other
procedures similar to -- not necessarily similar to a
colonoscopy but other procedures that we currently
mandate?
Through you.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, through you, Senator Kane, to my
knowledge, no. This is the -- I don't want to use the
word "unique", but the situation that we've heard from
hospitals and the health care advocate.
THE CHAIR:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
272
April 26, 2012
Senator Kane.
SENATOR KANE:
Thank you, Madam President.
And I thank Senator Crisco for his answers. Again,
the reason for my questions were to understand not
necessarily the procedure and the necessity for the
procedure but the policy that we are attempting to put
in place. And if it were a reasonable situation that
individuals were under currently and why the need for
this particular change, and then, of course, the cost
of that change, and the necessity of -- of now paying
for this change for -- from here on forward.
And then, of course, what other type of procedures
would be similar to this that would also require this
type of change as well. So I thank Senator Crisco for
his answers but I think I need to listen to more of
the debate because I still can't wrap my arms around
the fact that we are changing this policy for this
particular item.
Thank you, Madam President.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam -THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
SENATOR CRISCO:
-- Madam President, if I may -THE CHAIR:
Yes.
SENATOR CRISCO:
-- through you, to Senator Kane and Senator Kelly. I
have the upmost respect for the questions and greatly
appreciate it. And from our information, it seems to
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
273
April 26, 2012
be a unique situation to the screening of
colonoscopies, Senator Kane.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark further?
Senator Boucher.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, I'd like to address the content of
this bill with the good chairman of the insurance
committee and respond to some of the questions that
were posed and some of the comments, as well as
highlighted issue that I think the good chairman will
respond favorably to, in fact, make his bill possibly
better and actually find a cost savings because most
of the language we have so far involve the possibility
of increased cost to premiums in our health care
system.
And in talking about costs, it is not unconscionable
to ask about it. Because if, in fact, we drive up the
premiums and they become so great, one may end up
dropping or losing all of their health insurance and
possibly put them in even greater jeopardy for not
having coverage of any malady that could occur or
their family.
And there's no question that over the years, we've
entertained a number of very deserving issues. Last
count, I remember we were over 70. In fact, a year
ago -- and maybe we now may be approaching between 80
or 90 mandates. And maybe the reason that our
insurance department is hoping that there will be a
moratorium for awhile because, as new issues and
medical conditions appear, it would seemingly be near
impossible to cover each and every one of these things
through legislation.
And it was certainly made much more clearly stated and
eloquently stated by the two previous speakers on this
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
274
April 26, 2012
about the issues about small business. And I can
actually tell you about one case that is from Seymour
-- which probably is in the vicinity of a couple of
the gentlemen that just spoke -- a wonderful business
called "West Coast Sensors", that is -- has a staff of
about ten but, for some reason, they've just gone
gangbusters.
They're apparently one of the most successful
businesses of its type in our region, if not a good
part of the country. And they've just announced that
they're moving the entire operation to Florida.
They're -- they're leaving at the moment of their most
explosive growth because of the cost of that small
business sector. And if they lower their costs
substantially, they might be able to provide more
benefits for their employees.
One of the areas beyond the mandates that we are now
requiring -- and, again, every single one of the
issues we entertain are very deserving and certainly
deserving of our consideration, but it's the pile on
-- and pile on that is driving the costs up. And when
we are not provided with answers about the effect of
that on premiums, it makes it very difficult to
support.
However, that being said, an issue did come up that
has much to do with the -- what this bill that we're
entertaining. In my last visit to our doctor for a
screening in just this area, and in the process of
doing this procedure -- there's apparently two.
There's the colonoscopies screening but there's also
the gastro-upper endoscopies that are being done as
well to cover you from top to bottom, essentially, in
that same vicinity.
Well, I found that in order to get those two
accomplished, which was the proper procedure for
someone of our age group, that we had to schedule two
separate hospital visits for two separate procedures
costing the plan and the health care system quite a
bit more because, of course, you have to schedule two
operating visits. You have to schedule two
anesthesiologists. You have to have the various staff
around it. And -- and, as such, the doctor was
lamenting the fact that he didn't want to have to
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
275
April 26, 2012
inconvenience us by scheduling it twice because he
could have done both procedures at the same time, in
the same visit, only requiring one visit.
Well, that didn't make any sense to me. I said, well,
why are you doing that? He said, well, essentially,
if I did both procedures at the same time, the
insurance companies would only reimburse me for one of
the two procedures. So, essentially, he was forced to
have to schedule it twice, driving up the costs.
So if the good chairman of the insurance commission -committee would entertain a friendly amendment, and
adding it is a strike-all amendment, that would
essentially -- and maybe I'll discuss it first, Madam
President, if -THE CHAIR:
Ma'am, do you want to call your amendment beforehand?
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Yes. Yes, Madam President.
amendment, LCO Number 4074.
In fact, the Clerk has an
THE CHAIR:
Mr. -- Mr. Clerk, will you please call the amendment.
THE CLERK:
LCO Number 4074, Senate B, offered by Senator Boucher.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Thank you, Madam President.
I move adoption.
THE CHAIR:
The motion is on adoption.
Will you remark, ma'am?
SENATOR BOUCHER:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
276
April 26, 2012
Yes. Madam President, I would like to, if I could,
explain what this amendment does.
THE CHAIR:
Please proceed.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
It is -- it is a strike-all amendment. However, it
does include the exact language of the bill that
Senator Crisco has proposed. But it adds to the end
of it language that would make a screening colonoscopy
and gastro-intestinal endoscopy, if it's performed
during the same physician visit, such physician shall
be reimbursed separately for east -- each procedure.
If we were able to pass this amendment, it actually
would save the individual patient some time and
convenience and less pain. And it would actually
reduce the cost to the health care system all together
because we wouldn't have to have double charges on all
of the other requirements around this procedure.
The doctor, again, would not gain anything from it,
nor would he lose anything from it because he would
again be reimbursed for both procedures. The problem
we have now is that he has to schedule you for two
separate -- entirely separate office visits. And I
was very glad that my physician was able to discuss
this with me in such a way. I did not realize, at the
time, that we would have an opportunity to maybe fix
this small problem. But it's also very rewarding to
be able to propose something that actually saves
money, saves pain and discomfort on the part of the -of the patient, and propose something that I hope that
the chair of the insurance committee would consider a
very friendly amendment.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Will you remark?
Senator Crisco.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
277
April 26, 2012
SENATOR CRISCO:
Thank you, Madam President. I greatly admire and
respect the Senator's input, but I would like to
remind her that we do have, by statute, a standards in
contract provision where the insurance companies, the
providers, and the insurance committee leaders meet
twice a month to discuss issues like this. And I'd be
only too happy to bring it upon as an agenda item in
the very near future, which would be in a couple of
months. And because of that, I would urge rejection.
THE CHAIR:
Will you remark?
Senator Boucher.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Thank you, Madam President. Through you, a question
for the good chairman of the insurance committee.
THE CHAIR:
Please proceed, ma'am.
Please proceed, ma'am.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
This proposal, through you, Madam President, could be
decided without enforcing legislation or enabling
legislation through us, and would it then become a
part of the best practices.
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, through you, to the good Senator. If
she's referring to the standards in contract required
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
278
April 26, 2012
meetings, based on experience, we have resolved issues
like this without legislation. And that's the purpose
of the standards in contract legislative requirements.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Boucher.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Thank you, Madam President. May I be so bold as to
ask the -- the chairman's position that if this were
not to be taken up by the committee that we could
entertain this as a friendly amendment in the next
legislative session, should we all reconvene together.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, with all due respect, it all would
depend upon the outcome of our standards in contract
meeting, you know, and discuss this as an agenda item.
And she has my commitment to make sure that it's on
our agenda when we meet, hopefully, sometime in July.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Boucher.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Thank you, Madam President.
Since I am not familiar with this process, do they
include or invite the public or other individuals to
remark on this or is this a closed door meeting?
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
279
April 26, 2012
Madam President, the term "closed doors" we -- we
find, you know, not applicable. But basically, the
way the statute is that the providers, the physicians
and the leaders of the insurance committee meet based
upon an agenda that is submitted by both the providers
and the -- and the insurance companies. So we -- it's
-- the past this worked very well to address issues
where we found that numerous issues did not require
legislation and that the particular -- either the
provider or an insurance company agreed to address the
issue and it was resolved.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Boucher.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Thank you, Madam President.
Not to prolong this discussion but, through you, would
Senator Crisco be a part of this proceeding?
Through you.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, yes, through you to Senator Boucher.
As -- as long as I'm chairman and my ranking members
are present, we are part of the procedure. We are the
ones -- the leadership of the insurance committee are
the ones who call for the meetings and approve the
agenda. We really don't approve it but we request the
agenda from the providers and from the insurance
companies.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Boucher.
SENATOR CRISCO:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
280
April 26, 2012
It is quite a remarkable piece of legislation that we
all approved a few years ago.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Boucher.
SENATOR BOUCHER:
Thank you, Madam President.
I really appreciate the answers from the chairman of
this committee. I'm -- hesitate whether to withdraw
this amendment or have us vote on it. I think I will
withdraw the amendment, through you, and take the
chairman at his word, and hope that our ranking
members will also take this issue on. I think it is
an important -- but unfortunately, too often,
practice -- that we find that when writing procedure,
oftentimes, costs are driven up because it -- some
procedures don't make sense. Because in actual
practice, we find that we increased costs rather than
finding more efficient ways around doing best
practices. And I think, too often, they don't include
the -- the medical community and physicians, in
particular, when they're making different rules with
regards to reimbursement on policies.
So I do think the chairman of the insurance committee
-- and I will be following the issue closely and will
ask him for the date of that meeting and the outcome.
And -- and if it doesn't get resolved, there's
certainly another session for us to bring this up.
Thank you very much.
THE CHAIR:
So at this time, Senator, you have withdrawn?
SENATOR BOUCHER:
I have.
Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
281
April 26, 2012
Seeing no objection, the Senate A is being withdrawn.
Will you -- I'm sorry. That's Senate B.
Thank you. Senate B, I apologize.
(Inaudible.)
Will you remark further?
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Thank you, Madam President, through you, to Senator
Boucher.
I greatly appreciate what she has done. And as she
knows from our past working experience, we greatly
respect and admire, you know, her issues and her work
for the people in her district. And if she would
supply me with the details, I will guarantee that will
be on the agenda of our next meeting.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you, Senator.
Will you remark?
Senator Kelly.
SENATOR KELLY:
Thank you, Madam President, for the second time.
THE CHAIR:
Please proceed.
SENATOR KELLY:
I just wanted to clarify. Since the last time I
spoke, I did have the opportunity to research the
issue further, and I understand that hospitals are
currently doing this procedure. That this is the
current standard from both hospitals and insurance
companies. So this is the standard practice when one
goes in for a screening on a colonoscopy. And so,
therefore, I want to revise my comments accordingly.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
282
April 26, 2012
As to new mandates, what I said with regards to the
fiscal implications to the State of Connecticut, my
comments remain the same. But with regards to this
procedure, as it is currently the standard, I will be
supporting the bill as it is written. But with
regards to new mandates in the future, you will see a
different vote.
Thank you very much.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you, Senator Kelly.
Will you remark further?
Will you remark further?
If not, staff and -- I mean -- no, sorry -- I will
open the machines and if you will call for a roll call
vote, please.
THE CLERK:
Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate.
Senators please return to the Chamber. Immediate roll
call has been ordered in the Senate.
Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate.
Senators please return to the Chamber. Immediate roll
call has been ordered in the Senate.
THE CHAIR:
Have all members voted? Have all members voted?
The machine will be locked.
And, Mr. Clerk, will you call the tally, please.
THE CLERK:
Senate Bill Number 98 as amended by Senate A.
Total Number of Voting
Necessary for Passage
18
Those Voting Yea
33
Those Voting Nay
2
Those absent and not voting 1
35
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
283
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
The bill passes.
Oh, Senator Looney.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, we
have three more bills to -- to motion for referral.
First, Madam President, is calendar page 5, Calendar
197, Senate Bill 315. Madam President, move to refer
that item to the Judiciary Committee.
THE CHAIR:
Seeing no objection, sir, so ordered.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you, Madam President. Next is calendar page 23,
Calendar 412, Senate Bill 354. Madam President, would
refer that item to the Committee on Public Safety and
Security.
THE CHAIR:
Seeing no objection, so ordered, sir.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you, Madam President. The third item is
calendar page -- under matters returned from
committee, calendar page 32, Calendar 195, Senate Bill
270. Madam President, move to refer that item to the
Judiciary Committee.
THE CHAIR:
Seeing no objection, so ordered, sir.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
for a moment.
If we might stand at ease
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
284
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
The Senate will stand at ease.
(Chamber at ease.)
SENATOR LOONEY:
Madam President -THE CHAIR:
Yes, sir.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Yes, Madam President, one -THE CHAIR:
The Senate will come back to order.
SENATOR LOONEY:
-- one additional go item to -- to take up at this
point is Calendar 123, Senate Bill 319.
THE CHAIR:
What -- what page, sir, I'm sorry?
SENATOR LOONEY:
Calendar page 3, Calendar 123, Senate Bill 319.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you, sir.
Senate -- Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
On page 3, Calendar -- Calendar 123, Senate Bill
Number 319, AN ACT EXEMPTING CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS FROM
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
285
April 26, 2012
CASUALTY ADJUSTOR LICENSING REQUIREMENTS, favorable
report of the Committee on Insurance and Real Estate.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move
for acceptance of the joint's committee report and
passage of the bill.
THE CHAIR:
Motion is on adoption and passage.
sir?
Will you remark,
SENATOR CRISCO:
Yes, Madam President. Madam President, the Clerk has
an amendment, LCO Number 3746. I ask that it be
called, I'll be given permission to summarize.
THE CHAIR:
Please proceed, sir.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Thank you, Madam President.
I move for its adoption.
THE CHAIR:
Motion is on adoption.
Will you proceed, sir.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Yes, Madam President. This bill which had this, you
know, substantial discussions with the Department of
Insurance, the Insurance Commissioner, and other -and a particular -- different companies involved in
the business, it codifies -- the amendment is a strike
all and it codifies the process for selling low cost,
efficient, portable electronic insurance at the point
of sale. There are some companies that offer the
insurance but the -- the practice of selling this
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
286
April 26, 2012
insurance is not regulated.
THE CHAIR:
Senator, excuse me for one moment.
Sir, you have not given us the amendment number to
call for the amendment.
SENATOR CRISCO:
I did -- I did state, madam, 3746.
THE CHAIR:
Okay.
Mr. Clerk, will you call 3746, please.
THE CLERK:
LCO Number 3746, Senate A, offered by Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Crisco, thank you.
SENATOR CRISCO:
I move its adoption.
THE CHAIR:
The motion is on adoption.
Please proceed, sir.
SENATOR CRISCO:
To be -- to be redundant, Madam President, and member
of the circle, this is strike all. It codifies the
process for selling low cost, efficient, portable
electronic insurance at the point of sale. It's an
extremely consumer protection recommendation. And as
I stated earlier, extensive work has been done with
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
287
April 26, 2012
the insurance department to work out the right
language. And this sets up an entire system for the
insurance department to regulate this type of
insurance and is a really great benefit to consumers.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark?
Will you remark?
Senator Fasano.
SENATOR FASANO:
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, as a
point of inquiry to the majority leader, through you,
Madam President.
Where did he go?
Oh.
THE CHAIR:
To the majority leader, as soon as the majority leader
gets back there -SENATOR FASANO:
Sure.
THE CHAIR:
-- we'll ask -SENATOR FASANO:
Sorry about that.
THE CHAIR:
-- the majority leader.
SENATOR FASANO:
Through you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
288
April 26, 2012
Please proceed, sir.
SENATOR FASANO:
Thank you. This -- this amendment says there are fees
of $100 for an initial application, $500 for each
license issued, and $450 for renewal, which
essentially requires more income that was otherwise
not collected by creating a new license agency.
Madam President, it's -- it's my inquiry whether or
not this matter is going to be referred to finance.
Through you, Madam President.
A VOICE:
Yes.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Looney.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Yes. Through you, Madam President, to Senator Fasano.
I believe that the -- well, the amendment is pending.
It -- it does not have to go at this point at -- might
-- I need to address that -- that issue if the amended
is in fact adopted.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Fasano.
SENATOR FASANO:
Based upon that presumption by the good majority
leader, yes, I will withhold that and withdraw the
inquiry at this point in time.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank -- thank you, Senator Fasano.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
289
April 26, 2012
Thank you, Senator Looney.
Senator Crisco.
SENATOR CRISCO:
Madam President, I believe I summarized it in regards
to necessary points -THE CHAIR:
Okay.
SENATOR CRISCO:
-- and ask that it be adopted.
THE CHAIR:
Okay. Will you remark further on the amendment?
you remark further on the amendment?
Will
All in favor of the amendment, please say aye.
VOICES:
Aye.
THE CHAIR:
Opposed?
Amendment is passed.
At this point, Senator Looney.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you, Madam President. Would move the bill as
amended be referred to the Committee of Finance,
Revenue and Bonding.
THE CHAIR:
Seeing no objection, so ordered, sir.
Thank you all very much.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
290
April 26, 2012
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
On page 26, Calendar Number 69, that is substitute for
Senate Bill Number 13, AN ACT CONCERNING A STUDY OF
TELEMEDICINE SERVICES, favorable report of the
Committee on Public Health.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Looney.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you, Madam President. That item might be passed
temporarily, if we might stand at ease for a moment.
THE CHAIR:
Senate will stand at ease.
(Chamber at ease.)
THE CHAIR:
Senator Looney.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, if the
Clerk might call the items on the Consent Calendar at
this time and then if we might move to a vote on the
Consent Calendar.
THE CHAIR:
Sounds like a wonderful idea.
Mr. Clerk.
THE CLERK:
On today's Consent Calendar on page 1, Calendar 51,
Senate Bill Number 12; page 6, Calendar 242, House
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
291
April 26, 2012
Bill 5096; on page 9, Calendar 3 -- 312, Senate Bill
Number 114; page 11, Calendar 327, Senate Bill Number
378; page 13, Calendar 344, Senate Bill Number 143.
Also on page 13, Calendar 343, Senate Bill 116; page
14, Calendar 350, Senate Bill Number 198; page 26,
Calendar 74, Senate Bill Number 196. On page 27,
Calendar 83, Senate Bill Number 263. On page 31,
Calendar 184, Senate Bill Number 94; page 31, 1 -Calendar 166, Senate Bill Number 62. Also on page 31,
Calendar 167, Senate Bill 64; page 32, Calendar 185,
Senate Bill 190; page 33, Calendar 220, Senate Bill
351.
THE CHAIR:
Are those all the bills on the -- oh, Agenda 3, sir.
The last one on Agenda 3. I think it -Senator Looney.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Just wanted to -- just to reconfirm that the item from
Senate Agenda Number 3 -THE CHAIR:
Was not called.
SENATOR LOONEY:
-- is on the Consent Calendar that we had taken up
under suspension, substitute House Bill Number 5445.
THE CLERK:
Yes, sir.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Are there any questions?
If not, Mr. Clerk, I will call for a roll call vote.
Will you call for a roll call vote and I'll open the
machine for the Consent Calendar.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
292
April 26, 2012
THE CLERK:
Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate.
Senators please return to the Chamber.
Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate.
THE CHAIR:
Have all members voted? Have all members voted. The
machine will be closed. And, Mr. Clerk, will you call
the tally on the Consent Calendar, please.
THE CLERK:
On today's Consent Calendar,
Total number voting
35
Necessary for Passage
19
Those Voting Yea
35
Those Voting Nay
0
Those absent and not voting 1
THE CHAIR:
Consent Calendar passed.
Senator Looney.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, would
move for a suspension for immediate transmittal to the
Governor of Substitute House Bill Number 5445, AN ACT
CONCERNING SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS UNDER THE CONNECTICUT
ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, which was just adopted as
part of our Consent Calendar.
THE CHAIR:
Seeing no objection, so ordered, sir.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you, Madam President.
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
293
April 26, 2012
THE CHAIR:
Senator Looney.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Madam President, I would yield the floor for
announcements of committee meetings or other items
that the members might have before adjournment.
THE CHAIR:
Any announcements of personal privilege or -- ahh -Senator Bye.
SENATOR BYE:
Good evening, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Good evening, (inaudible).
SENATOR BYE:
The Higher Education and Employment Advancement
Committee will hold a committee meeting on Friday,
April 27th, at eleven, or 15 minutes prior to the
start of the session, whichever is later. And that
will be held outside of the Senate Chamber. Thank
you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark further?
Will you remark further?
Seeing none, Senator Looney.
SENATOR LOONEY:
Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Just
announced there will be a -- a brief Democratic caucus
immediately upon adjournment this evening. And it's
our intention to convene tomorrow, Friday, April 27th,
at -- at 11:30. And, Madam President, would move that
cah/mab/gbr
SENATE
294
April 26, 2012
the -- I would yield if there are any other
announcements. But if -THE CHAIR:
If not -SENATOR LOONEY:
-- if not, Madam President, move the Senate stand
adjourned subject to the call of the chair.
THE CHAIR:
So moved.
Have a safe ride home, everyone.
On motion of Senator Looney of the 11th, the Senate,
at 10:30 p.m. adjourned subject to the call of the
chair.