CT Senate Floor Session — 2026-04-15

As we come together for our deliberations, please give us prudence to be judicious and the ability to treat others with respect.

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.

sn/rr 2 Good afternoon, Madam President. Good to be here today. Madam President, does the clerk have Senate Agenda No. 1 on his desk?

Yes. The clerk is in possession of Senate Agenda No. 1 dated Wednesday, April 15th, 2026.

Thank you. Madam President. Madam President, move all items on Senate Agenda No. 1 dated Wednesday, April 15th, 2026 to be acted upon as indicated, the agenda be incorporated by reference in the Senate journal and Senate transcripts.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, for our go list.

Oh, before we do that, I will yield to Senator Kissel, who I believe has an introduction.

Good afternoon, Madam President. Great to see you on this lovely Wednesday afternoon. I stand for a point of personal privilege, and I'd like to introduce our intern here during our short session, basically assisting Melanie Dykas, that crack attorney in the sn/rr 4 time on the Judiciary Committee, but we had the added one, two punch of having Bella, who, and I do not say this lightly at all for those of you in the circle that have ever worked closely with Attorney Dykas. She says that Bella is, like, just an outstanding, second year student at the University of Connecticut School of Law. Apparently, trailing at a pace better than even Melanie was at that time when she was in law school. So that's like the highest praise you're going to get out of Attorney Dykas. I was just happy to be chugging along when I was in law school back in the '80s. So if we could all just give a round of applause to Miss Bella Peretti for her selflessness during this session.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President for our go list.

Thank you Madam President. On Calendar page 56, Calendar 253, Senate Bill 439, like to mark that item go.

Followed by Calendar page 8, Calendar 76, Senate Bill 268, like to mark that item go.

Followed by Calendar page 8, Calendar 75, Senate Bill 218, like to mark that item go.

Followed by Calendar page 37, Calendar 325, Senate Bill 222, like to mark that item go.

Followed by Calendar page 10, Calendar 102, Senate Bill 339, like to mark that item go.

Followed by, Calendar page 14, Calendar 122, Senate Bill 147, like to mark that item go. sn/rr 6

Followed by Calendar page 17, Calendar 185, Senate Bill 446, like to mark that item go.

Followed by Calendar page 7, Calendar 70, Senate Bill 132, like to mark that item go.

Followed by Calendar page 36, Calendar 315, Senate Bill 468, like to mark that item go.

Followed by Calendar page 38, Calendar 329, Senate Bill 393, like to mark that item go.

sn/rr 7 Followed by Calendar page 38, Calendar 331, Senate Bill 399, like to mark that item go.

Followed by Calendar page 3, Calendar 40, Senate Bill 156, like to mark that item go.

Thank you, Madam President. And that is, oh, let me mark a few more items go, please. That will be referrals.

So ordered.

So ordered. sn/rr 8

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

Mister Clerk.

And good afternoon, Senator Kushner.

And the question is on passage. Will you remark?

Thank you. Will you remark further? Good afternoon, Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? Senator Kushner. So, will you remark further? If not, the machine is open, Mister Clerk.

Have all the senators voted. The machine is locked. Mister Clerk, would you please give us the tally?

Mister Clerk.

Thank you. Will you, remark on this bill, Senator Kushner? But let's just wait till we get it up on the board. There it is. Senator Kushner.

And the question is on passage. Will you remark? sn/rr 12

Thank you so much. Will you remark further Senator Sampson?

Thank you, Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Kushner.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Kushner.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Kushner. sn/rr 23

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Kushner.

Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Kushner.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Will you remark further on the bill? Good afternoon, Senator Cabrera.

Thank you. Will you remark further? If not, I will open the vote--, oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Senator Martin, will you remark please?

Thank you. Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Senator Martin.

Thank you, Senator Martin. Will you remark further on the bill, Senator Duff?

Absolutely. Please proceed, Sir. sn/rr 43

Thank you. Senator Kushner.

Thank you, Senator Duff.

Thank you, Senator Kushner.

Thank you, Senator Duff. sn/rr 44

Thank you, Senator Kushner.

Thank you, Senator Duff.

Thank you, Senator Kushner.

Thank you, Senator Duff.

Thank you, Madam President. And I rise in support of the legislation, in front of us today. This legislation, I believe, is an important bill for our building trades. The building trades, as I see it, go to work every day, work hard. They do their jobs. They just want what has been negotiated to come to them. That's it. They don't ask for a lot of things. In fact, this is one of the very few bills that they have sought, in front of this legislature, I believe, this year, maybe one other. But, nonetheless, the requests are not about grandiose types of things. It's about getting paid. And if, as Senator Cabrera said earlier, it's taxpayer dollars, and if that money is not provided and given to the employees, which has been negotiated, It is stolen from the employees. Where does that money go? It doesn't just go into thin air. It doesn't just sit in somebody's--, some other account of lost wages. sn/rr 46 It goes to the employer who legally does not have a right to that funding, to that extra, what they would might call profit, for themselves. What this does, it just balances out and provides a process and procedure to hold everybody accountable, to make sure that the folks who are working actually get paid for the work that they do. I'm not so sure I see a great controversy in that actual simple process. It's unfortunate that we have to actually be here to have a law or a bill, hopefully, be a law, to ensure that people get paid, but we do. And, we need to make sure that there's that process in which that can happen. And so, Madam President, this bill has been before this legislature. It's not the first year this has happened. We have another, this is maybe the second year. And we need to make sure we pass this bill because it is very important for those projects that do receive taxpayer funds, that those taxpayer funds are being used in a way that it was meant to with our prevailing wage. And again, why would we want to cheat out workers from their pay? Why would we want to cheat out workers from health care or pensions? The better the workers do, the better their lives are. Most of them are middle income, trying to put food on the table for their families, maybe send their kids to college. As we know, we heard a little bit too, that maybe some still need some assistance, and maybe that's because they're not receiving the wages that they were bargained for. But none of these people that I know who are in the building trades are millionaires or billionaires or looking to, have an extravagant life. They're just looking to get what's already owed to them. What's been bargained for what is already the law of the State of Connecticut. So, Madam sn/rr 47 President, I would ask my colleagues around the circle to support this legislation because I do believe it is important for our workers here in the State of Connecticut. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. I totally agree with the good senator regarding that, workers ought to be paid what they should be paid, regarding the prevailing wage. That, and those that are stealing, so to speak, from those employees, shame on them. And that's why we're just still attempting to try to address that. My concern is the total--, if we get to the point where the DOL says, hey. We've done what we can, and now that we're turning it over to the comptroller and that he's going to have the authority to withhold a payment. What I have in my mind, and correct me if I'm wrong, but if there is, a $300,000 amount that is due, how much is that going to be held? Are we holding out the whole amount, or are we holding out just a portion of the wages that are in question. Because that's a big difference. And I think that would be fair if we're only addressing and we are only holding the subcontractor or the wages that are in question. That is one thing. But when we are talking about withholding the entire amount that is being requested, I've got a problem with that because you've got other people and other companies that are impacted from those wages being held. So I don't know how this bill, if it addresses that impartial or entirely, the entire amount of the sn/rr 48 amount of that is being requested. Maybe through you, Madam President, the proponent of the bill can give me that answer. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. The proposed bill doesn't specify, but I would assume that it is a stop payment, a full stop payment. Through you, Madam President.

Yeah. And that's the concern. Again, just to reiterate, we need to make sure that the employees are given or are paid what they are supposed to be getting. But when we create a statute that now puts at harm other vendors or other companies or other individuals who are going to be--, their companies need to make sure that their employees are paid because of one's bad subcontractor, we are impacting other people and other companies that are on that project. So Madam President, I'm going to be voting no on this bill. Thank you.

The immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the ordered in the Senate. The Senate Bill number 268 an sn/rr 49 act authorizing the comptroller to withhold payment for violations of the prevailing wage statutes. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the is Senate Bill number 268. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate.

Total number of voting 36 Total voting Yea 31 total voting Nay 5 Absent and not voting 0

Page 8 Calendar number 75, Senate Bill number 218, an act requiring a study relating to banking issues in the state. There is an amendment.

Good afternoon, Madam President.

Madam President, first, I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, the clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO 4128. I seek waiving of the reading and ask that I be given leave to summarize.

LCO number 4128, Senate Amendment "A".

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move adoption.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, this is a strike all amendment that contains multiple provisions that improve community access to financial resources, streamline and clarify existing banking procedures, and give Connecticut residents more control over their financial interest. Madam President, section 1, of this bill, of this amendment, excuse me, gives the treasurer more flexibility in administering the community bank and credit union initiative and lowers funding cost by allowing the treasury to accept lower investment return rates from investors or investments made under the program. Madam President, this program, is a program that boosts the economy and it does so by focusing on underserved communities or areas where the treasurer can invest up to $300 million in certain financial institutions to support local lending for businesses and families. This session also changes the selection process, Madam President, where the treasurer uses the program instead of a competitive bidding process, the applicants can now apply. Excuse me. So instead of a bidding process, there are now applications. So that will slow down the process or increase the process. Excuse me. Section 2 requires banks and other financial institutions that offer mortgages on certain homes to allow extra monthly payments on their loans so that the borrower can potentially pay off their home more quickly. And by passing this today, it would allow borrowers to build equity faster and save interest over the life of the loan. Section 3 of the amendment updates the statutory language regarding security deposit violations to clearly notify landlords that they may be ordered to sn/rr 52 pay a civil penalty for failure to follow existing security deposit laws. This will clarify to landlords the possible consequences of not following existing security deposit laws. Sections 4 and 5 help create more efficiently in the bank branch establishment process by aligning state procedures with the recently updated FDIC procedures. Specifically, Madam President, the sections remove additional documentation requirements for banks that have achieved a satisfactory community reinvestment act rating, and shortens the expedited review process for branch applications from 12 Calendar days to five Calendar days. And finally, Madam President, section 6 requires the department of banking to consider among other factors when assessing a bank's efforts in meeting the credit needs of its community, if a bank offers a loan or deposit product that helps residents establish and improve their credit history. Madam President, this bill or this amendment makes positive impacts on the financial health of Connecticut residents, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam President. Good to see you this afternoon. Speaking in strong support of the amendment before us, I would just like to, thank the good chair, the, Senate Chair of the Banking Committee for the summary of the changes. This was a very quick collaboration of, trying to be a little more efficient with our time here in the sn/rr 53 slowly at this point until maybe the end of next week. But, I just wanted to add a couple more, shed a little more light on some of this, if I may, just from my own perspective. I think that, section 1, all of these are very good pieces of legislation. Section 1 was also fully supported by the Connecticut Bankers Association, and it really does create a better environment for the community banks and community credit unions to do lending and investment. And that's important as we continue to look to support our financial institutions here in Connecticut. I think it's also, with respect to section 2, it's important to call out that, and I know one of the members of my caucus had a concern regarding, mortgage contracts that may actually have language in them that specifically allow for a prepayment penalty. This does not remove those, clauses from any contract, that is in place today. It does not prevent a lender from putting a prepayment clause in a contract, a future mortgage contract. What this actually does is it prevents a, I don't want to say a bad actor or someone, from arbitrarily placing a penalty on an early mortgage payment. And as the good chair spoke to, there are a lot of opportunities for people that have the means today, to advance their mortgage payments and save the interest that they pay. Interest on a mortgage is one of the largest expenses that any consumer, will face mostly in their lifetime. It's a huge piece. So if there's a way for them to reduce that, of course, we would support that. Section 3 is self- explanatory. Sections 4 and 5, I actually like sn/rr 54 having, worked in a credit union environment where we were looking to add a branch to our network. This actually makes that much easier and makes the opportunity for the addition of branches, easier, as I said. The reason why that's important, and I know the good senator is, acutely aware of this because you've spoken about it many times, is that we still have across Connecticut banking deserts. And, if a bank or credit union is looking to expand and we can make it a little bit easier with still providing the safeguards, that are necessary so that we don't put the financial institution in any kind of jeopardy. They still have to have a satisfactory rating where I believe before it was an outstanding rating. Otherwise, they had to go through a pretty arduous process for applying for a new branch or renovation of a branch. And then, that last section as well, is I think, if I understand it correctly, is going to give our banks a better opportunity to serve lower income consumers. In section 6 we're looking at changing some of the way they are rated for the products that they provide to consumers that may need, things like secured credit cards or secured debit cards or what have you. So again, Madam President, just a quick summary from my perspective in concurrence with the good chair of the Banks Committee. I urge, adoption of the amendment. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Madam President. I appreciate the comments from the chair and the ranking member regarding the bill that is before us. I do understand that this amendment that is before us is kind of a culmination of five or six different banking bills. And I had looked at each one of them individually and screened each one. And I found most of it to be perfectly acceptable. But I do have a couple of concerns, particularly regarding section 2 of the bill. And I hope that folks will give me a little bit of courtesy to just hear me out on this subject. One of the concerns I have in this legislature is that it seems like we're out of ideas. How many more laws can actually be passed in our society? I mean, are we just out of things to do, so we're just trying to come up with new things to do all the time. That's kind of what section 2 is for me. I understand that the good chairman, very rightfully pointed out that this is a consumer focused provision, except for the fact that at the end of the day, I don't think it helps consumers. And it's not our obligation to help consumers when it comes to a private business arrangement. A mortgage loan is a private contract between parties. It is a private contract between the borrower and the lender. And the terms of that contract are to be negotiated by them, and not us. And the danger and this is the part that I think a lot of people don't understand when we start to interfere with private contracts as a legislature, is that when you jump in and create a mandate that says the contract must contain a certain provision, or it cannot contain a certain provision, what sn/rr 56 you're doing is you're limiting freedom of the parties to negotiate. That's what you're doing. You're telling them that a certain provision can no longer exist, even if both parties wanted it to. Even if both parties wanted to say, this belongs in our contract, when the state jumps in and says, that cannot appear there, or that must appear there, then they are stuck. And that interference with the freedom of the parties to negotiate means that certain transactions will not happen. That's what concerns me. Because when you start to mandate certain terms within a private loan agreement, you're not ensuring fairness or transparency. You're redesigning the product. And no longer is the producer and purchaser of that product part of the agreement anymore. The state is now part of it. Mortgage loans are not one size fits all. And they come in all different shapes and sizes on purpose, because the reasons why people are getting these loans are different in every case too. The quality of someone's credit history or job history determines what they're eligible for. And when you start to put limitations on the lender on what provisions can be in the loan, they stop being able to offer loans to certain people because they can no longer put provisions in there that make it acceptable. And now that's not exploitation, and I'm going to use the prepayment penalty as an issue here. Now, for a typical personal mortgage that most people in the circle here are going to be familiar with, you buy a home, you get a 30 year mortgage on your house. I would say in virtually every case, 99.9%, you're going to have the ability to prepay that loan and sn/rr 57 pay additional, principal payments at any point to speed up the process and avoid interest. And that's great. But there's also that one tenth of 1% where that doesn't work. And there are circumstances where people are in financial hardship, or they're going to turn over a property in a short period of time, or it's a hard money situation, or there's something going on where the lender needs to have a provision in there to say, we're going to offer you very special terms. This is going to be a three year loan with a fixed amount of interest, but one thing is that if we're going to do this deal, we need to collect all of our interest. So there's going to be no ability for you to prepay and avoid a penalty. They want to be able to collect it. And no one's forcing anyone to buy that product. It's just like if somebody wanted to offer five wheeled cars instead of four wheeled cars, maybe not a lot of people would buy them, but no one would be forced to buy one either. The whole point is that when you limit the ability of that product to exist, then it doesn't exist anymore. And therefore, the person that would have been useful to doesn't have access to it. I don't want to go too far off topic, but I'm going to say something that probably might be even more controversial and some people might disagree with, but this applies in the case of something like the minimum wage. I think that the majority is very proud of themselves. Look at what else--, we increased the minimum wage. Oh, yeah. Everybody's doing better now. The minimum wage didn't give anyone a raise. That's not what happened. When you increased the minimum wage to $17, all that happened was all the jobs that paid less than $17 sn/rr 58 went away. They disappeared. Those jobs don't exist anymore. Now, it's true that some people that were making $10 an hour or $12 an hour are now being paid $17 an hour, but I got news for you. It's not the same job. The guy that was paying you $10 an hour was expecting a certain amount of work for you from you for $10 an hour. And now that they're paying you 17, they're expecting a different amount of work. That's what's going on here. Is that when you say you can no longer charge a prepayment penalty, what is happening is loans that prepayment penalties don't exist anymore. And guess what? The loan products that used to be available to people that worked for them don't exist anymore either. I look at my job here, is to be the voice for freedom in every case. And one of the places that we interfere as a body in the freedom of individuals is in private contracts all the time. We are forever coming in here to say that, employer, employee agreements have to say certain things or housing, lease agreements have to say certain things. And it's always couched in these terms of, oh, we're protecting the consumer, or we're protecting the little guy. And that may sound really good, but it's not true. It's not true. What protects people is freedom. Freedom to choose. We live in the greatest country on earth. And we live in the greatest country on earth because of the wealth that's been created throughout the history of this great country based on one thing. And that is free market capitalism. The choice of people to engage in commerce of their own free will, to make their own terms, to buy, to create goods and services, and to sell them, and to make money in the process. sn/rr 59 When you start to limit the amount of commerce that takes place, because can't people can't produce a certain product anymore, guess what? That's not on the shelf. You can't have it. What you're doing is reducing the amount of wealth in the world. Some people on the left are concerned that some people have too much wealth and other people don't have enough. But what they're mistaking is the fact that when people have a great deal of wealth, that wealth's existence means that there are more jobs available, there are more things being invented and created. It's actually a great thing. The goal is not to say that people who are super rich are rich because they're taking money out of poor people's pockets. That is a lie. That is a lie perpetrated by people that want to increase the government power to redistribute wealth. The truth is, that people that have a lot of money also create wealth and jobs and opportunity and products. Poor people do not give people jobs. Wealthy people do. Wealthy people create inventions like iPhones. And we all have iPhones now, right? We all have cars. We all have indoor plumbing and heating in America, and we have that because the opportunity for those things to be created and for people to earn money and become wealthy as a result. That is what I'm speaking in favor of here is stepping back and suggesting that we should not be limiting what should appear in a mortgage agreement between the parties because we think it favors consumers. Who are we to say which consumers should be favored? What about the consumer who's only going to get a mortgage loan if it has a prepayment penalty? That guy is not being helped. That's a consumer that sn/rr 60 loses because the product he was going to be able to get doesn't exist anymore. In fairness, I understand this bill doesn't actually get rid of the prepayment penalty. What it does is establishes a statutory right to prepay. But that is one step away because the next time we're coming into this room on this subject, the argument is going to be, if it becomes easier to prepay, and borrowers have the right to, then why would a lender be able to charge a penalty for that? So, ultimately, that's what this is. This sets up a framework to eliminate prepayment penalties. And when that happens and, again, I you know, politics is hard. I mean, life is hard. It's complicated. These are not simple concepts. When I'm standing up here, allegedly defending the right of banks to charge prepayment penalties, it's very easy to go, look at Sampson defending banks to charge penalties. I'm not defending anyone. I'm saying you should have a right to be able to access a mortgage loan. And if the only mortgage loan you can get has a prepayment penalty, it should be available to you. It shouldn't be taken away by the state government. That's what I'm saying. It's not about allowing some entities to do better than others. It is allowing the freedom for all products to exist. And I get it. I understand people come here, and they want to do good, and they especially want to do bills that look like they're helping consumers. As simple as I can put it, this doesn't help consumers. No one's going to adjust anything. No one is paying someone $17 for $10 an hour worth of work. Okay. And no one's going to give someone a loan that they used to charge a prepayment penalty without a prepayment penalty anymore. They're not. sn/rr 61 Things have value. You wouldn't pay $50,000 for a $10,000 car. You wouldn't pay $300 for a $40 pair of shoes. People don't do that. And banks are not going to give away loans that have a certain value for less than the value. They're not. And when you take away their ability to be able to offer certain products, you also take away the access to those products. Those products have a value to consumers. So in short, the bill is just not pro consumer. I don't think it's as bad as I may be making it out to be because it doesn't go so far as to actually eliminate that prepayment penalty, but it is so close to doing it because it effectively creates this mechanism that makes a very strong argument for suggesting that once you have the right to prepay, how could you charge a penalty for it? And I think it's a dangerous way to frame policy because it's incremental and it's dangerous. It will limit the available products to consumers. I've said enough. Thank you, Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Bill 218, an act as amended, an act requiring the study relating to banking issues in the state. sn/rr 62 An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the amended. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate on Senate Bill number 218 as amended.

Total number of voting 36 Total voting Yea 33 Total voting Nay 3 Absent and not voting 0

Page 37. Calendar number 325, substitute for Senate Bill number 222. An act permitting school districts to offer an exemption from the physical education credit requirement to high school students who participate in interscholastic athletics.

Good afternoon, Madam President. How are you doing today? sn/rr 63

That's great. Madam President, I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Yes, Madam President. Madam President, I have a bill here, and it's titled, act permitting school districts offering exemptions from physical education credit to high school students who participate in interscholastic activities. I'm going to summarize it very quickly for you, and then if there's any questions, I would love to provide some answers to them. The bill allows local regional boards of education, school boards to adopt a policy to exempt students who participate in interscholastic athletics from physical education and wellness graduation requirement. Currently, which is one credit. Also, by law, students must complete at least 25 credits to graduate from high school, including at least nine credits in humanities, including civics and the arts, nine credits in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, one credit in health and safety education, one credit in world language, and a half a credit in personal finance, which I really think is very important. The bill retains the requirements that students would complete 25 credits. So students who will sn/rr 64 receive a physical education exemption must complete another credit in this place. I move adoption..

You're done.

Lieutenant Governor, Madam President, yes. I would like to comment on the bill. Thank you for recognizing me. Madam President, I rise in support of the legislation before us. It is legitimately a page and a half bill. But it does some really important things. And I just for the purpose of legislative intent and making sure that we're clear, I do have a couple of questions I would like to direct to the good chair of the Education Committee.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, through you to the good chair, the provisions of the bill, do they, if a student is participating in athletics, are they still getting one credit for physical education? Through you.

Madam President, yes. They will just be exempt from the physical activity part of the course because, you know, you have the health part and you have a physical activity part, of course. And they still get the credit because all the work they have done participating in interscholastic activities. So think, for example, you have a young lady that's on the swim team. She probably exercises and do so much work throughout the school, throughout the week, and sometimes on the weekends. And for doing so much work in physical activity that they don't necessarily need to do that physical activity during that one class period during the week. And, in most cases, if you think about the days when you were in high school, many of you participated in high school athletics. And many times, you remember on that day you had a game or something, your coach probably said your gym teacher [inaudible] teacher said, you know, today, you don't have to you don't have to take gym because I know you got to run a half a marathon. So, yes, they still will require that they will still be given that credit. Through you, Madam President. sn/rr 66

Thank you, Madam President. I thank the good chair for the answer. Madam President, through you, is there any requirement for athletic coaches? So in that same scenario that the good chair just provided regarding that young lady who's swimming, is the swimming coach, certified as an educator, or are they required to be certified as an educator? Through you.

In most cases, many times, our teachers are also our coaches, but not in all cases. But in whatever the case may be, all coaches have to go through a certification process, and those certification certificates that last for five years, and they have continued educated credits that go along for that certification. So the coaches definitely certify, through the State of Connecticut through CIAC. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. And the good chair anticipated my next question with respect to the CIAC. I know the answer already, but all of our athletic programs, Madam President, through you, are under the governance of the CIAC and their rules. Through you, Madam President. sn/rr 67

Yes. Again, that certification is a part of -- CIAC does the training for the coaches through that process. But I also want to go back. I think I misspoke when I talked about the credits. Actually, the students will be waived the credits for physical activity. However, that student has the opportunity to take another class instead of that physical education class. And that is very important for a number of our students because there are so many other electives that our students would like to take, as opposed to taking a physical education class that they did so many physical activities during the week. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the clarification. I was slightly confused for a moment, and thankful for my research staffer for pointing that out to me as well. Thank you, Chris. Madam President, I don't have any other questions. I just would like to make one additional comment about the bill that I think it's important. And I think the good Chair, actually, he and I spoke about this before. There was a very important reason why this bill was brought forward. And that is that we recognize that throughout school districts across Connecticut, that there are some students who, if they are not able to participate in sn/rr 68 a sport, not phys ed, not going and running around and doing the president's physical fitness test or whatever, but actually playing their sport that they love to play, that if we forced them instead to participate in a phys ed class, and we had an example, I believe through the public hearing where someone told us that their child had, even though they were an athlete playing a sport, that the gym class happened right before a workout or a big game, practice or a big game, and the student was physically exhausted going into the game. It sounded like maybe the gym teacher didn't like the coach, whatever, whatever the particulars were. But I think what happens here and what this bill will ultimately promote is that we may end up with having more young people that will stay in school. I see the good Senator shaking his head and I'm sure he'll respond to this as well. But I think that if this adjustment, we're not reducing the number of credits that a child needs to graduate from a public high school in Connecticut. We are not saying that they don't have to participate in physical education activities. It's just being done in a different way. They're going instead and participating in a sport that they love to play, maybe they're really good at. And again, maybe, Madam President, that is the reason why they get up in the morning and they go to school. And I think that if we can keep that one more child in school and they're in an environment, presumably, where they're learning, and they can graduate and leave school and go on to be a productive member of society, then I think we're doing the right thing. So Madam President, I urge support of all of my colleagues, both sides for this very important piece of legislation. Thank you.

I would just want to add, my colleague is absolutely right. Many times, sports is a mechanism or a motivating factor for kids to want to come to school. They do come to school, of course, for all the other activities, but sometimes, sports is a mechanism that encourage them to want to come to school and stay in school. And many times, they have positive relationships with their coaches that encourage them to stay in school and do well. I also want to thank students. This bill came to me from some students in high school who came to me and talked to me about how much they participate in sports, how much work they do. And they said that if we can get exemption for this, because they really would like take another course, maybe AI course, something like that. So I want to take those students particularly from Hall High School and from Windsor High School who came to me last year about this piece of legislation, and I asked them to work with me on it. They came up to the building or testify online, and they had some very compelling arguments why we should do this. So I want to thank those young people out there from Windsor and from Hall High School, explaining their stories and talk about why this piece of legislation is so necessary. Through you, Madam President. I'm done.

sn/rr 70 An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the AN ACT PERMITTING SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO OFFER AN EXEMPTION FROM THE PHYSICAL EDUCATION CREDIT REQUIREMENT TO HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WHO PARTICIPATE IN INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETICS. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate, on S.B. No. 222. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate, on substitute for S.B. No. 222. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

S.B. 222: Total Number Voting 36 Total voting Yea 32 Total voting Nay 4 Absent and not voting 0

Page 10, Calendar No. 102, S.B. No. 339, AN ACT ALLOWING LONG-TERM RENTAL OF BEDROOMS IN A SINGLE- FAMILY HOME AS OF RIGHT. There is an amendment.

Hi, Madam President. I move acceptance of the Joint sn/rr 71 Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

Yes. Madam President, the clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO 3988. I would ask that the clerk please call the amendment.

Yes, ma'am. LCO No. 3988, Senate Amendment "A".

I move adoption of the amendment and ask that its reading be waived and seek leave of the Chamber to summarize.

Thank you, Madam President. This amendment, strikes lines 69 through 72. Line 3 through 5 explains the bill. It restricts a municipality from prohibiting the owner occupant of a single-family house from renting up to three bedrooms in their home. Lines 5 sn/rr 72 through 7 clarifies that there is no familial relationship required. Section 7 through 8 establishes that the only thing a municipality is allowed to require is a certificate of occupancy. Lines 8 through 9 restricts a municipality from requiring a variance, special zoning permit, special zoning exception, or a public hearing prior to renting out the bedrooms in a home. 9 through 13 restricts a municipality from requiring a change in zoning classification from single-family to any other classification prior to renting out any bedrooms in the home. 13 through 16 clarifies that nothing in the bill supersedes state building codes or health and safety regulations. And 9 through 27 orders that the Department of Housing create and publish a model rental agreement rider its preexisting model rental agreement.

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Presuming that this amendment once passed will become the bill, and I do believe that the amendment improves the underlying, I'm inclined to support it. I, also, would guess that we're just going to have a voice vote. So I will reserve my remarks for the amended bill. Thank you.

Opposed? The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Will you remark on the bill as amended?

I will wait until the end. Go right ahead.

Thank you very much, Madam President. This bill comes to us from the Housing Committee. I don't recall exactly whether or not it was unanimous, but I do believe that it had a significant amount of support out of the committee. And it's a very interesting conversation because often, we are debating in this Chamber about local control, and whether or not the state itself is interfering with the ability of local town governments and Planning and Zoning Departments to be able to make their own rules for their own communities. And I side, I think, exclusively with the local planning and zoning officials when it comes to those types of decisions. This one's a little bit different because what we're doing here is though it's a state statute we would be creating, what we would be doing is we would be empowering the sn/rr 74 property owner versus the Planning and Zoning Department. And it's risky business, no doubt. You can go to places, maybe somewhere in Tennessee or in Texas, where they got almost no local zoning, and you can see what's created out of that, which is freedom, for sure. And freedom is something that I love and cherish. But it also can create kind of a mishmash of structures, brand new mansions next to mobile homes, or a dump being placed in a residential neighborhood, or God knows what else could happen. So, for me, local planning and zoning is kind of important. And I'm glad that we do have it in the state of Connecticut. And I think it's important that each community is able to maintain their own planning and zoning rules and requirements because each community in this state, 169 towns, is a little different. And they have their own way of structuring things in their towns. And I think that's a beautiful thing. It's one of the great things about Connecticut, is that we have so many diverse types of municipalities, and they're all run a little bit differently. And for me, by the way, that is a good way for society to operate. We end up having improvements when you have a bunch of individual silos working on different projects. They're going to come up with different innovation. And others can look at it and go, hey, look what they did over there in Cheshire. Look what they did over there in Enfield. For example, since Senator Kissel's sitting here, I'm sure they're doing great things in Enfield. Right? So, here you go. This is an opportunity for people to take what works, and bring it back to their own communities. If you have a one-size-fits-all top-down situation, you're not going to have that. There's not going to be the same level of innovation and creativity. And sn/rr 75 so, I think it's great. And we have to preserve that local planning and zoning. But the most appropriate level of freedom, and therefore, innovation and creativity, has to come from individuals. So, when it comes to property rights, I do believe that property rights are sacred in our American society. And for me, planning and zoning really is more about how certain things look on the outside, and whether or not we should be placing certain types of structures in certain locations. And planning and zoning is the right place to make those decisions, not here in Hartford, and not by individuals, just because they own property, they shouldn't be able to force their neighbors to live with whatever they choose to do. This bill is about a very specific thing, which is how someone is going to be able to use the interior of their single-family residential property. This bill applies only to owner-occupied residences. And basically, it says that if you want to rent out rooms in your home, you can do so. Now, I know there are going to be some of my colleagues that disagree on this bill, and I respect them. I think that they have legitimate concerns about boarding houses, and the potential to be adding vehicles, or additional requirements on the municipality. I know that group homes, for example, are a big problem. I've long advocated to have public hearings before the placement of group homes, because often, when you place a group home, you end up having more and more police calls. You have a lot more issues with the neighbors and the neighborhood. I don't see as much of an issue here. This bill is kind of nicknamed the Golden Girls Bill, because I think the vision here is that, like the Golden Girls TV show, you had non-related ladies, who were rather funny, and they were able to live together, and that didn't defy any of their local rules, apparently, in TV land. sn/rr 76 What we would like to do with this bill is create the same situation, where property owners in their own home that is a residence, not a commercial property, not a multifamily property, a single- family house that has up to four bedrooms, they could actually allow residents that are tenants effectively, but non-related folks to reside with them. I do understand the concerns that my colleagues might have, and I want to be very fair to them. I know that we're going to get up, we'll hear about parking. We'll be hearing about blight. And I recognize that those things are issues. As much as I think those things are real issues, I also think that those things could occur naturally anyway. If you have a four-bedroom house, it's very possible that you have teenage or college-age children living at home. And they're going to have cars too. And I don't know that you're creating that much more of an issue, but I am anxious to hear what my colleagues have to say about it. Before I move on, I do want to ask a couple of questions about one unrelated part of this bill. I noticed that in the amendment, there was a new unrelated section added. It's a section 501 tacked on to the end. Through you, Madam President, can the good Chairman of the Housing Committee tell me what section 501 is about? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Through you, this is just that, we had talked about this during committee, is that there will be a renter's agreement put on the Department of Housing's sn/rr 77 website. There will be a model agreement that will affect how the rent is being paid, how utilities will be paid between the parties, and if there is any conflict resolution that needs to occur. So, that was part of the original bill, was that we wanted, we talked about it in committee. It might not have been part of the bill to the good Senator, but it was discussed in the committee that it was something we absolutely wanted to add on to the bill. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. This was not part of the original bill here, but I do remember some conversation about a number of these topics, the creation of a model agreement, which, frankly, I don't object to, but it is a waste of government resources and completely and utterly unnecessary. And I doubt that any self-respecting property owners are going to engage in using the state's form, at least not without modifications. So I think it's just a waste of taxpayer money. It's not enough for me to object to the bill. I'm just saying that I don't see a reason to give the government busy work to do. They got enough things to do. What I do want to remark about, though, is that something that the good chairman mentioned and does appear here, which is concerning the payment of utilities. So this form is designed to also provide a model of how folks are supposed to divvy up the cost of utilities in a property. Am I correct about that? Through you, Madam President.

Madam President, yes.

Thank you very much. Madam President, I find that very interesting, because we had another bill that passed out of the committee on a party line. It's S.B. 335, AN ACT CONCERNING UTILITY CHARGES FOR RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS. And basically, what this bill that passed out of the committee does, and I did not support it, it basically would have prohibited provisions in a lease that allow the tenants to divvy up the utilities. So which is it? Through you, Madam President. Are we going to have a policy that allows people to divvy up the utilities or not? Through you.

Thank you. Through you, Madam President. So, with this bill, it keeps the property as a single-family residence, a single-family home. So, therefore, the utility bill that we have also in the Housing Committee will not affect this bill. Through you, Madam President.

sn/rr 79 Thank you very much, Madam President. But I'm not certain why I believe the section 501, I'm looking at it, does it say anything in here about how this cannot apply to a single-family home? Through you.

Thank you. Let me just read a go skim it very quickly, Madam President.

In line 11, Madam President?

It says, as of this subdivision from a single-family dwelling to any other category based solely on the existence of such rental agreement, provided nothing in the subdivision that shall supersede the state building code, the state fire prevention, and so on. So it is saying that this home will continue to stay a single-family home.

Thank you very much, Madam President. But I don't sn/rr 80 know that that was related to my question. My question was about whether or not we are going to allow landlords and tenants to come up with an agreement to divvy up the utilities. You passed the bill as chairman out of committee, restricting that ability for property owners and tenants to do so. But this appears to instruct the Department of Housing to create a form for that purpose. I'm just trying to understand what the chairman's position is, and what the position of the Housing Committee is on that subject. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. Through you, as I said previously, the other bill, which we're not actually debating here, but the other bill is about multifamily homes where there is more than one apartment. In this bill, we are talking about a single-family home in which up to three residents may rent one bedroom for six months or longer. So at very two different categories. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. And I appreciate that we are not debating S.B. 335, but we are debating section 501 of the amended bill that we are talking about, and it is the subject matter I'm discussing. So I'm not reaching beyond the bill that is before us. And I would point out that most of the multifamily property that will be impacted under that other bill, probably, was one single-family sn/rr 81 homes. That's why they have one utility service, but now it's a two-family or a three-family. So what defines whether it's a multifamily property for this purpose? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. In this bill, we are talking about renting a single bedroom up to three bedrooms in a single-family home for six months or more.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate that. And maybe I'm not being clear enough, but this amended bill that we're looking at has multiple sections. And the section that the chairman keeps referring to is the section that I have already stated that I'm in agreement with and plan to support. But there is another section to this bill. And it is a wholesale-y, is that a word? I don't know. It's a paragraph that is completely different than the rest of the bill. It stands on its own, section 501, and creates this policy where the Department of Housing shall publish on the department's Internet website a model rental agreement, presumably for any rental, whether it's a single-family, multifamily, what have you, that has to do with concerning the payment of utilities. And I just thought it was ironic since there was a bill passed out of the committee that basically prohibited that practice. I'm not going to beat a sn/rr 82 dead horse here, Madam President. I just find that it is curious when we have bills coming out of committee, we have amendments being offered on the floor at the last minute, and once again, another amendment on the day we're going to vote the bill out of the Senate. These amendments could all be done earlier on in the committee process. That is really when we should be modifying bills and making the changes that people have recommended, not here at the last minute with very little opportunity for the members to be able to digest what's going on and with no opportunity for the public to be able to digest what's going on. And sometimes, you might have a situation like this where there's a section of the bill that is in direct conflict with another bill passed out of the committee. And I'm just curious what I'm in for tomorrow, Madam President. I don't know what I'm going to walk into, and what bill is going to come here, and what amendments going to come attached to it. But I guess that's what it means to be in the Minority. Thank you.

Madam President, thank you. I appreciated the Senator referring to this as the Golden Girls Bill, because it makes it sound awfully charming, doesn't it? The Golden Girls Bill. We have to remember, the Golden, it was a show. It wasn't real. It was lovely. Everything worked out great. Nobody had to worry about the utilities. Nobody had to worry about how much the rent was. Nobody had to worry about the neighbors and where you parked the cars. sn/rr 83 It was fantasy. We live in a world of reality. We live in a world where our zoning decisions, where our housing decisions, where the number of people who live in our homes and how we rent them out actually has an impact on our neighbors and the quality of their lives. That's reality, not fantasy. And I will disagree that this is not the state taking away local control. In fact, this is the state telling zoning commissions what they can't regulate. That, to me, Madam President, is taking away local control because right now, our communities choose to regulate these houses, choose to regulate whether individuals can rent one room or not. They make that choice. They make it at the local level. This bill changes that. This bill changes that local control, those local choices that we can make in our communities right now. I think of my own community, the house where I grew up, my dad still lives there. And right around the corner from him, this is a suburban community, I'm going to say probably half acre zoning, everybody's got a single-family home. Right around the corner from my dad, there are six working age individuals living in one single-family home. Quite honestly, it's actually not proper, given the zoning regulations, but that's what they do. Six individuals in their 20s, early 30s, living in a single-family home. With those six individuals come eight cars, with a driveway that's large enough for two. The other six cars are on the street in front of neighbors’ houses, making it difficult, because this is a small neighborhood with narrow roads, making it difficult to navigate, especially for a guy like my dad who's 83. Every single individual in every single one of those single-family homes knew what they were getting into when they bought those homes. sn/rr 84 They knew they were moving into a neighborhood with a bunch of other single-family homes. At no point did those individuals ever expect that they would be moving next door to a boarding house. It never crossed their mind, because when they bought their house, it wasn't permitted. Right now, it's not permitted, because towns make that choice at the local level not to permit them. This bill changes that entirely. This bill steals from local zoning commissions, steals from local resident, steals from local communities that choice that they cherish so dearly. We've had these debates on local zoning control. We've had them. And here we are having another. And the sad reality is that despite what my colleague said earlier, I do believe this has a negative impact on local communities, and it does steal from them the choices that they can make at the local level. I'm not going to support this bill today, because I believe that if we're going to be intellectually honest about local control, we have to recognize this bill for what it is. It is theft of local control. That is all this bill does. People move into their homes expecting X. We can't change the rules and give them Y. It's just not fair to them. It's not fair to their neighbors. It's not fair to their communities. It's not fair to the local zoning commissions. We value in this state local control, at least we purport to. This bill flies in the face of that, Madam President. I do not support it. I would urge my colleagues to join me in not supporting. Thank you, Madam President.

Good afternoon, Madam President. I rise in support of this bill. About six years ago when my husband passed away and a very good friend's husband passed away and we were both in our homes, she moved in with me for six months. And it was a remarkable experience to have someone to have a cup of coffee with in the morning, to share experiences, to discuss TV programs. And I was really pleased that I had that opportunity. I support this because we are not only talking about the importance of having additional spaces for people to live in, the fact that we have so little housing stock for seniors in our state, but we are also talking about what is an epidemic of loneliness with seniors. So if I am a golden girl, and if I were to do this again, which I would consider, I think that the social benefits of this beyond the housing benefits are worthy, and I support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Senate, stand at ease for a moment, please.

But I will like to yield to Senator Gordon, please.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I thank the Majority Leader. I had not remembered that it was amended. So I do want to speak on this bill. I understand the intent of it. And as I've said many times on the Senate floor, just not this session, I do look for ways that we can realistically and appropriately and responsibly advance housing opportunities for people. But we also live in the real world, and we have to understand about certain land use issues. And I don't know how many people have actually served on a land use agency. I have. Chaired one for 15 years. So I do have on-the-ground experience, so to speak, on this type of issue. And there are real world issues that one has to be aware of. And it may look nice on a piece of paper, and it may have a catchy name, which really doesn't describe the bill. But I guess for advertising and promotional purposes, calling it the Golden Girls Bill is quite interesting. But there's far more to this than just saying, oh, we'll have seniors move into somebody's residence and rent a bedroom, and spend six months, 60 months, who knows how long, because this bill could allow it for more than that period of time. There are real sn/rr 87 world concerns that land use agencies, planning and zoning commissions, especially, have to attend to. And if we look at the Connecticut General Statutes 8-2, there are various things that they do have to attend to. And as someone who has attended a lot of training over the years, including the American Bar Association's training on land use, and I would offer that anybody who serves in a Planning and Development Committee and on a Housing Committee, might want to avail themselves of that, they would probably learn an awful lot about the law and about case law, including federal case law and US Supreme Court case law. That three major things one has to attend to when we deal with land use. One is upholding public health, one is upholding public safety, one's upholding public welfare. Now, General Statutes 8-2, it's pretty long, has a lot in it, and it does talk about some other things as well. There are certain environmental concerns, and certain other concerns that one has to think about. And some of it also has to do with certain geography in Connecticut where certain things also have to be looked at that may have nothing to do with other parts of Connecticut, such as certain things that talk about Long Island Sound that in my part of the state, we don't worry too much about because we're pretty far away from the Long Island Sound. But there's quite a bit there built into state statute over the years relative to what one has to look at for land use. So I can tell you municipal land use agencies attend to that very seriously, and they attend to it seriously for two reasons. One is there is an underlying responsibility as a land use commissioner to make certain you are upholding the law. And then there's another, which is the legal requirement that if you don't uphold the law and sn/rr 88 there's an appeal on a decision that is made, either favorable or unfavorable, in whole or in part to the applicant, a court's going to bounce that out. That also includes following processes. The courts are very, very detailed looking at land use commissions following processes in addition to law. And processes emanate from two parts. One is the state, which has its own state enabling acts, and that's in part in 8-2. There's many other sections relative to land use, but 8-2 and some of its subsequent sections that are lettered very specific for our land use. But also, one wants to make certain that you're following the actual regulations that a land use commission comes up with. During my many years chairing a Planning and Zoning Commission, I was very fond of saying that the zoning and the subdivision regulations are, in a sense, the law of the land in my town. And in fact, they indeed are. A plan of conservation and development and other types of advisory documents are not legally binding. So, planning and zoning commissions have to worry about, think about, think through, and work collaboratively with applicants, developers, those seeking new housing opportunities, those wanting to stay in their existing housing, neighborhoods, communities, and yes, I will say it, even the character of the town, and see what needs to be done. And many times, zoning regulations have to have a degree of flexibility because you can never make one-size-fits-all. Now, there are those in state government who think that a one-size-fits-all works. I'm apt and often say that that's like pounding a square peg into a round hole. It doesn't seem to work, but some people think if you pound hard enough, you, by physical force, can shake the square peg into a round peg and magically make it go through the hole. sn/rr 89 I don't think it's a good experience for anybody. Certainly, it's a good experience for the square peg, trying to be pounded into a round hole. But one of the things that's extremely important when we're dealing with land use is different parts of a town or a city can be different from other parts. And that's extremely true. Anytime I did site walks and literally walked the land, saw structures from the outside with an applicant's permission if it was an existing structure going in and understanding, you really got to see what could work, what might not work, and then you could work with people. The zoning and subdivision regulations most towns have are designed to cover a number of different scenarios. We have the ones that are much more involved and require formal public hearings. Some of them, like re-subdivisions of property, are mandatory per state law. It doesn't matter what a town wants. And then there are those that are very, very simple, such as you're building a new single-family house, you could do that as of right. You got to meet all sorts of standards and other types of requirements, and that gets into some very interesting Connecticut's Supreme Court law. And if I have some time, I'd love to get into that during my comments here tonight. But there's also the big in between. And the big in between does cover certain types of zoning permits, certain types of, they're not special permits or exemptions, but different degrees sometimes of zoning permits that cover the middle ground. And the reason you do that is not everything works by as of right. And sometimes you may want to do something as of right, and it will not fully cover public safety. That's a serious problem. Or it does not fully cover certain public health things, and that's a serious problem. And those are things sn/rr 90 separate from what a fire marshal may tell you, or the building official tells you, or a public health agency tells you. Even many times, the advisory commissions, such as conservation commissions and agricultural commissions, may tell you, this is where the real world comes in. And the real world is not on a piece of paper. The real world is actually out there in the real world. And I've seen it firsthand when it comes to these types of things of wanting to take single-family residences, and in a sense, move them away from certain types of accessory dwelling resonance, and try to do a different way to make them a de facto multifamily, even if it's not by blood relatives or any other relationship. And those don't always work. And I can tell you that what may work in a city or a suburb may not work at all in a rural small town. The converse is also true. Something that might work well in a small town may utterly fail in a suburb. This is where local planning and zoning commissions, the vast majority elected by the people in those communities, know their communities. The people of Connecticut know best the communities in which they live. Local officials working with people in the community. Those situations work very well. And if you actually haven't availed yourself of learning that firsthand, then it's kind of tough to make some of these decisions coming out of committees. Because then decisions get made distance from and divorced from the real world where people live, including people who are seeking some of these housing opportunities. We want to do well by them. And to me, there's a right way and a wrong way. This isn't fully a right way, because it really misses real world issues. I can tell you when we spent a lot of time in my town working through some of these types of issues, not sn/rr 91 just B&B, but things similar to this, there were a lot of issues we had to work through. Some of it was very particular certain parts of the town, just given certain makeup of that town relative to the streets, to the residences themselves, lot sizes, access to fire safety. My town doesn't have public water, so we rely upon a lot of lakes, streams, water bodies, and dry hydrants. And we had to spend a lot of time delving into this, and it was not a process you can do as of right. Some of the concerns I have, if we really want to do this right, then I would say, let's spend time working on this to really address the real world issues, including real issues to make certain we do well by people who want to rent these. Because according to the bill that's amended, you could have someone just do it for seven months, could even be seven years, could be indefinite as long as someone is living and wants to rent, and the renter wants to rent. So, we're just not talking about some short-term hop, and thus, we need to be very mindful of long- term issues. Some of these are not fully attended to in the way this bill is written. And I think this bill is well-intentioned, but the way it's written is poor because it's not based on reality. And if anyone doubts that, come out to my town, and I can show you exactly. I still have boxes of my old notes on things like this from my Planning and Zoning Commission days about all the ins and outs we had to look into and work through. Some of the issues are very serious. We've heard about parking, and that's not a minor issue. We've heard some arguments saying, well, if you're renting to up to, I guess, two or three people and each one of them has a car, maybe they even have a pickup, the homeowner, he or she, may have with their family just as many cars or pickups. sn/rr 92 That might be true. But it also is possible that they don't, and they don't really have enough off- street parking. And now you're going to start adding to off-street parking. I can tell you in many small towns, that is considered a very serious public safety concern because you may not get a fire truck down the road, or an ambulance down the road. And I've lost track of over the years how many times I've had EMS captains and fire chiefs in my town highlight that when we had to make land use decisions, and we would listen to them. We would also know those roads so we had a good understanding of it, including demonstrations of having cars parked on a road, and then seeing that you can't get a fire truck or an ambulance down a small country unpaved road with no lighting, and trying to do that in the winter with off-street parking. So those are real concerns, and regulations to try to match that as is doesn't fully cover it. Because those are decisions that have to be made application case by application case within a broader general framework of zoning and subdivision regulations. And that's extremely important. That's why we have zoning permits, and different degrees of zoning permits. We don't have to put people through public hearings or lengthy or expensive meetings, but it's something that a commission needs to look into and make a proper decision that a zoning enforcement officer likely is not fully going to be able to do because all they can do is just read through the regulation. And many times, they get hamstrung by it, they can get hobbled by it because the way regulations may try to be worked and not giving full flexibility to work things out. And that's in major part why people elect planning and zoning commissioners. There's other things as well that raise a concern, and part of it as well sn/rr 93 gets into who is really doing the proper check that if one's going to be renting out space separate from public health, for example, is it appropriate? We do look at things such as over density in certain parts of municipalities. That's a real thing. That gets into infrastructure. The other is who would take a look? Would it be a building official perhaps? Maybe not always, if there's going to be adequate electrical supply and things like that. So this bill as amended is well- intentioned. The nickname Golden Girls doesn't at all describe this at all. As I said, it's a marketing ploy. I don't stand in the way of people looking for new housing, but we have to do it in a good way that works for communities and works for individuals. Again, just saying we're going to do something for new housing may be catchy. It may look nice if somebody writes it up or post it. But what matters is are we doing right for the municipalities and doing right for and by the people who are seeking the new housing, who are going to rely upon municipalities to have their back in that regard. This bill doesn't at all get to that. So again, I understand the intent of the bill, and I think if this bill had gone through a better process of trying to match it with the real world, understand the real world, it could potentially be a bill I would support. But this bill did not, no matter what people may say. It may have gone through a legislative process, but that's not always grounded in the real world and grounded in common sense. So, unfortunately, to me, this bill fails. And I would love to see efforts to make this bill better, more workable, more meaningful, not just for municipalities and communities, but for those who would want to seek these types of housing opportunities. That's a worthwhile effort to do. sn/rr 94 That wasn't done. But there is hope that maybe we can do something. I encourage my colleagues to keep that in mind. I'm mindful that the proponents of the bill in general, whether they're legislators or not, are wanting to support this bill, just be mindful that there will be some real world unintended consequences, and those will likely have to be worked through. There'll be next session. But what a shame that we couldn't work them through now and see what can really be done. But the process that happened is the process that happened, and we're at this point in time. So I encourage my colleagues to think seriously about that. And again, if you want to learn more about actual real world land use, spend time doing that. I think it will inform you in a much better way in making decisions. I can tell you my 15 years chairing land use, some real complicated matters we had to do involving lawyers at times, has helped me tremendously in making decisions about laws and regulations. That's not at a municipal level, but here at a state level. So I encourage my colleagues not to support this and to endeavor to work together, to see what we can do to really bring something good about. But if this were to pass, let's endeavor to work together next session then to see what we can do to make this better. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I was very interested to see this bill's progress and to speak on it. If sn/rr 95 everyone agreed, even within the political parties, 100% of the time, either someone isn't thinking critically, or someone isn't fully being transparent about what they think. And I think today, you'll see within our caucus that there's a little bit of divergent thinking on this proposal. I think this is an interesting policy proposition that has been discussed in years past, and I have actually publicly shown support for in the past. We have had some extremely contentious debates in this capital about zoning, housing, and local control in recent years. And I do think there are concerns on both sides of that debate that have been important for us all to consider, no matter where many of us find ourselves aligning. It is important to improve housing affordability and availability in the state of Connecticut. At the same time, we have a great tradition of local control of decision making in our state, because there is a built-in understanding tracing back to colonial times over 100s, over 250 years ago in Connecticut, that local decision making is the best form of decision making. And also, I'm a firm believer that the benefits of this system in Connecticut can be seen in modern day, where we have strong and engaged communities and a high degree of social capital. Connecticut residents for centuries are accustomed to being engaged in local decision making. And I do believe that that has built the muscle in our communities, in our society, and in our culture here in Connecticut and in New England generally, where we share a lot of these concepts of home rule more than other states across the country that have made us stronger as communities, that have made us build social capital. Social capital, of course, meaning that people are involved in their towns, in their cities, in their sn/rr 96 neighborhoods, that they volunteer, that they contribute to local government and other community organizations, that they show up and vote, that they're informed, that they're concerned about what goes on around them, and that they do not simply expect some external power or figure to make all the decisions for them. They understand that the political process is not just a yes or a no vote, but rather it is an engaged process where people volunteer, they speak out, they show up at their town halls, in public hearings, and so on, and make contributions. And there are downsides and upsides to every system. And the home rule system could potentially have downsides that local governments, localities make mistakes. And maybe many of them make mistakes. But generally speaking, I'd say it's more negative when mistakes are made in a centralized way than when they are made in a decentralized way, because we can see the benefits and the cost of those decisions on a local level and correct that there's actual political competition. If one town or city is consistently making bad decisions, people might leave that town or city for greener pastures where there are better policy decisions made, there is better political leadership. And that the ones who are making those policy mistakes will correct because of that. If bad decisions are made politically in a more centralized manner, then there are fewer outlets, there are fewer alternatives, which is why we have a system of federalism nationally. And we were discussing the 10th Amendment yesterday. The political competition between states probably leads to better decision making on the whole for the United States. Similarly, home rule and local control in New England and in Connecticut in particular leads to better political outcomes because there's a competition, there's feedback, and sn/rr 97 yes, there are mistakes made on the local level, and even frequently, because so many decisions have to be made all the time politically. But overall, it gives people an opportunity for trial and error and for the best decisions, and the best policies to rise to the top. I hold my bona fides in defense of local control up against anyone, because even though I disagree with some of the decisions that can be made locally, and I served on my town's RTM, and in some ad hoc committees in local government, I do believe that the system as a whole results in better outcomes, certainly than if all decisions were centralized here in the state capital. At the same time, there is a natural balance, and there are incidents and examples where state government should take a leadership role, and set certain standards. It should be less common than it is here in the state of Connecticut. There is no doubt about it. And one of the reasons why we see housing costs higher than they should be in the state of Connecticut is because so many decisions have been centralized in our state. CCM put out a study last year that found that there are 1,400 unfunded mandates that the state imposes on our towns and cities. And so it should be no surprise that Connecticut now has the third highest property tax burden of any state in the country. If, and I've made this calculation before and talked about it on the floor of the Senate before, if Connecticut had the same property taxes as the average American, as the average state in the country, our housing costs as a percentage of income would actually fall to below the national average. We wouldn't even be having a discussion of a housing crisis in Connecticut, but here we are. And there are ways that the state needs to make reforms to make housing more affordable, while also preserving and protecting local control. And I do think in the sn/rr 98 long run, that will actually mean more local control and more affordability. If we remove or roll back so many of these unfunded mandates, which will reduce the cost of local government, reduce property taxes, make it easier to create and maintain the housing, and more affordable for the average person to live, to own a house, to buy a house, and to rent a house, because we know that the cost of property taxes and other costs are always simply going to be transferred in the cost of rent to the renters. Zoning, I think, typically entails the exterior of structures and the use of the structures. And in this policy question today, I think we're mostly dealing with the interior use of residences in a way that is within the realm of state policy. The policy today, I think, is a protection to property owners and a reasonable change in state policy that will not in any way substantially disrupt neighborhoods, but will somewhat increase the availability and the affordability of housing in the state, and flexibility to property owners in a non-disruptive way. I believe that this state can protect local control of decision making and make housing more affordable and available for our residents. We should reduce the burden of property taxes on Connecticut residents. We should make it easier for small property owners to make housing more available. This is a policy that falls into that set of parameters. This will slightly improve housing affordability and availability while protecting the general system of home rule and local control, and giving flexibility to property owners while respecting property rights. I will be supportive of this proposal today, and I hope that this type of proposal can be part of grand bargains in the future, which I ultimately think are necessary to address questions of housing costs and affordability. sn/rr 99 There are so many statutes on the books in Connecticut that undermine local control and actually probably make it more difficult to find a solution on housing policy in the long run. 830g is a failed policy ultimately that needs to be undone or significantly changed. If we revisit that, if we revisit the errors in House Bill 8002, which I hear consternation with all across the state, no matter where I go, rural towns, suburban towns, and cities, perhaps most of all cities, if we reform those, change those, there can be more ways that we can come together to find sustainable solutions to make it easier to create housing and make housing available in an affordable manner by small property owners through small developments in ways that do not remake and turn neighborhoods on their head, but also address questions of costs, and create more economic opportunity and more housing in our state. There can be a balance. There can be a lasting solution. There can be a grand bargain. But there has to be willingness in this state legislature, in the governor's office to bring people together across party lines, across geographies, across district, to reduce the long-term property tax burden, reduce the cost of mandates imposed on our towns and cities, to give flexibility to the small builders, the small property owners, not just benefits to the large developers. I do think that there is hope on this subject for the state of Connecticut. We just need the right leadership to bring people together and get the right things done. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I have just a few comments, I guess. There's some pros and cons regarding what we're doing here. This rental of the bedrooms sounds pretty good. I think we all can put ourself in that position where if we're having a hard time making a mortgage payment and we have available two or three bedrooms perhaps that might help out make ends meet and so forth. But along with that, I think a lot of people may not understand that some of the drawbacks regarding when you start renting, you're now a landlord. And there are things that you're going to be responsible for, but now also you're going to be living in the same dwelling as maybe a stranger. Perhaps it's somebody that may be a family member. And I think maybe a lot of us here are thinking, yes, I could have a relative live with me, but for some, they may be going outside the family. And then by doing that, actually they are going to be managers of a property because you're going to be entering into a lease agreement with these individuals. So that raises concern as to sort of creating house rules and what are the do's and don'ts, in addition to sometimes you may have to evict someone. And for some, that's going to be something new to them. There are also going to be insurance issues that maybe some may not even think about. You typically have a homeowners policy, but the rules sort of change regarding insurance once you start renting a portion of your home. So, along with that are hitting costs of additional wear and tear, as well as tax reporting. I know we're talking about single-family homes, but having developed property, going through zoning and change of zones, helping the municipality in Bristol with a master plan of development years ago, there's a sn/rr 101 process regarding all of that, and even creating a new zoning regulation, such as a planned unit development in my hometown. My question is for planned unit development, it is so similar to a single-family home. Is that zoning going to be able to qualify under this statute? Because it is a single-family home. It's detached. It has its own lot. Some have garages, some don't. But through you, just so that somewhere when this passes, are those going to be qualified to be bedroom rentals? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Through you. Yes, this is for all single-family homes.

Just to be clear, we're talking about a planned unit development where there are HOA fees tied to it. These are single lots, they have a common area, perhaps the road, and then off of that road, there are lots. The whole development could be four or five acres. You've got 40 homes on smaller stamp sized lots. You pay your taxes based on that lot and the single- family home, but the road is owned by everybody in the development. So it's similar, that's what I'm saying, it is so similar to a single-family home. Will that be able to qualify? Through you, Madam President. sn/rr 102

Yes. Through you, Madam President. Yes, if they are single-family homes, so, yes, they would qualify.

Yes. I guess I'm not sure if they qualify or not, Madam President, that's why I'm raising the question. So, they are detached homes, they're all separated, but yet they are part of a HOA? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Through you, if the HOA addresses it, they have a contract with their HOA. I am sure that if they needed a caregiver, that caregiver would be able to come and sleep in an extra bedroom, or if they needed an aupair, although I think you're kind of talking about the 50-plus housing communities. But let's say you didn't and that they needed an aupair, an aupair could live in their single-family home if that HOA is silent on this matter. So I would say that if the HOA is silent on this matter, or if you had a boyfriend or a girlfriend, they could stay in their single-family. They could stay in their bedroom. sn/rr 103 I don't see the problem that you are trying to create, to the good Senator. But I think if the HOA addresses it, then that absolutely would come first because that is a contract between all of those people in the community. If the HOA is silent, then I would, although I am far from a lawyer, that I would say that they are single-family homes and that, yes, this legislation would be pertinent for those homes.

Yes, I don't know the legality of all this. I just want to clarify because I think that is going to happen. I think those documents regarding a planned unit development, the language uses the dwelling and not necessarily single-family home. So, if you're saying that if it's silent on that matter, I foresee some issues regarding this, because some of them, these are small stamp sized lots. You start renting one or two. You said an aupair. Usually, an aupair. You don't charge an aupair for living with you. You're paying her. But the blight will be an issue in these HOAs or planned unit development complexes. And I see this as we're trying to address blight in all our communities. I think we even tried to address issues here in the state, here in the circle regarding blight in communities. And I know cities are asking for our help regarding blight. And I think we are absolutely opening up the door to another sort of, hey, this is blight just because this is an example, because these are small size lots. They usually have one single-family or single garage. And you start renting, now you've got another car on the outside. You've got a husband and wife. One car is inside. sn/rr 104 You've got another car for the other spouse, and you start adding a third. Now you've got a car perhaps parked on the grass. No different than what our two or three-family homes used to be. They were built in the '40s and '50s, perhaps starting in the '30s. And they were side by side, small lots. And they were built and designed with only one car, if you're lucky, in the three-family unit, you had one car for that whole family, because everything was all walkable. You walk to school, you walk to the ball field, you walk to get your groceries. And through the years, because of our housing demand and the sprawling and building single-family homes, and some were small lots and then eventually they went to larger lots, these duplexes and triplexes and quads, they started to rent all these homes. And what they lacked and zoning today tries to address this as best as they can, and that each unit now has two units. The second floor, two cars. Two cars on the first floor, two on the second floor. And if you have a three, then there's another car there. And it just creates this blight issue. I just see that this may be happening in some of the smaller developments. Single-family homes don't have a garage. They park outside and they still having hard time making ends meet. So, gee, I'm going to rent out one of my bedrooms. And all of a sudden, you got three cars on this small stamp-sized lot. And now you're starting to see all this blight in various neighborhoods, I'll say. Thank you. I only had that one question, but I just did want to raise some concerns, some drawbacks regarding this piece of legislation. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I stand thinking this is an excellent bill. I am curious what Blanche, Sophia, Rose, and Dorothy would like to say right now. I wish I could hear their responses. Are they all dead? Oh, okay. They're all dead. I live in that kind of neighborhood. My house was built the same year I was in 1963. We had a one-car garage, and my driveway was for one car. And my ex-husband, father of my four children, made it two cars could fit in the driveway. I have four children in five years. They all had cars at the same time. There were cars everywhere with their friends, and I didn't think it was blight. I thought it was just being a family. And my entire neighborhood is like that. We all have small homes. There's lawyers, there's doctors, there's nurses, there's state employees. And when you live in a small city, New London is incredibly small city, that's what your life is like. It certainly is not blight. I would say that my neighborhood is absolutely beautiful. Every neighbor knows each other. I can still, if I need an egg, well, now I can. When they were expensive, I wouldn't ask for an egg. But now I would go to the next door neighbor and ask for an egg. But if you need an extra cup of sugar, if you are afraid that you left your garage door open, you can call your neighbor. And we did have the one-car garages, and we had the one-car driveways because women were supposed to stay home and be barefoot and pregnant, so we weren't supposed to work. So times have changed since I was born in 1963. This is a bill that there are many people who make $50,000, $60,000 a year that are single, that are sn/rr 106 having a hard time finding an apartment. We had no homelessness problems in our municipalities until we started to have such exclusionary zoning where we did not allow people to rent rooms in homes. I live near electric boat, and I can tell you in Groton, there were so many homes that would rent a room to somebody that worked at Electric Boat. So, that is all we are talking about here. We are not changing zoning. We are not talking about multifamily homes. Believe me, my neighbors are much happier with me with a roommate than they are with me with four teenagers. So I think this bill, I don't see any unforeseen circumstances happening. There is always problems when you put two people together, whether it's a landlord, tenant, whether it's a husband and wife, whether it's parents and children, that there is human nature and things happen. And that is why having this lease that will cover all of that. It will spell things out before the roommate moves in. It is a roommate. And as Senator Maher said, we have heard how important having companionship and having people to talk to. And over COVID, I think we all saw how important that person at work that you just saw at the water cooler or at the printing machine and just saying, hey, how so and so? Hey, did you watch the Masters this weekend? Hey, whatever. Those little conversations are so important. And it's actually one of the number one contributors to good health. And in order to let adults live together and men too, right? We could have the odd couple or we could have Three's Company. It doesn't have to be the Golden Girls. There's lots of other things that we can say. They're just TV shows, but TV shows are kind of what people have said they aren't the real world, but in many ways, they are the real world. So I see the real world off us often. I think this is a really good bill. I didn't understand why we sn/rr 107 need this bill. I just think if you have a house and you want to rent out a room to somebody, rent out a room to somebody. Don't tell me whether or not I can rent out a room to somebody. But there are municipalities that make it very difficult. And so, I bet there's a lot of people there whose children have gone off to school, even couples who having somebody else there gives them a little purpose in life. Purpose is very important to happiness. And I hope that people use this bill. I thank those that brought it to me. I would have never thought that we needed it. And that's one of the privileges and joys of standing in this circle. We have proposed a bill, and Senator Sampson and Senator Fazio are voting with me. So when those say that we're not going across the aisle, wow, look, we are. Senator Martin, I bet you want to. So it's a really nice bill. It's a bill that will help people. It will help people that might be afraid of losing their house, who are having a hard time paying those property taxes, who are having a hard time paying that heating bill. And more than anything, it's going to bring people together in this world where community is so hard to find. So I would really ask those not to go into the weeds too much with this bill, but really just come down to what it's about. And it is about Blanche and Sophia and Rose and Dorothy, who lived together and made the end of their lives kind and caring, and gave each other a purpose, and helped each other out financially. And it's a really wonderful thing. So thank you, Madam President, and I hope everybody would really consider voting for this bill.

Thank you, Madam President. And Madam President, it's a pleasure to get up here and stand in support of the bill. I think Rose, Blanche, Dorothy, and Sophia would say, "Thank you for being a friend," if you know theme song. Madam President, I do think this is an important bill. Is it going to solve the housing crisis that we have? Absolutely not. But we know that one thing isn't going to solve the problem outside of building a large number of housing units across the state of Connecticut. And while we're working on building more housing in the state of Connecticut has invested in hundreds of millions of dollars to build housing here in the state, and we want to make it easier to build housing across the state of Connecticut, we know that that takes time and it takes money. So, we have to also look at other solutions in order to be able to find ways in which people can afford housing and be creative about those things. This bill, S.B. 339, is one of those creative ways in which we can help solve a problem. It isn't going to totally solve it, but it will help solve a problem. And I commend Senator Marx and Representative Felipe and the Housing Committee for bringing this issue forward. And I commend the fact that it is a bipartisan bill, and we have been able to find ways in which we can come together on a small part of a big problem. So we have a small solution for a big problem, but that's okay. We want to find ways in which we can find solutions to some of the big problems that we have in our state. Madam President, I think that this not only helps to solve a problem of housing and especially for those who may be empty nesters who don't want to who don't want to sell their homes, but it may be a way in which we can help others live lives that are more sn/rr 109 fulfilling. We talk about a loneliness epidemic across this country. And I think Senator Maher mentioned it as well when she had an empty house herself that it gives people a little bit more purpose, a little more social time with others who they may not have had before. And it probably helps mental health. So I'm not saying that this is going to solve all the problems of the world, but I do think that it does certainly take a step in the right direction. And whether it is Golden Girls or Three's Company or whatever it is, I do think that it is one that I'm glad that we're advancing here in the State Senate, and I would hope that the House takes it up as well because it will make a difference in our state. And again, thank you, Senator Marx, for your work on this. Thanks to the Housing Committee, and thanks everybody who supported the legislation. Thank you, Madam President.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the ACT ALLOWING LONG-TERM RENTAL OF BEDROOMS IN A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AS OF RIGHT. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. Immediate roll call vote in the Senate on S.B. 339 as amended. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

S.B. 339: Total Number Voting 36 Total voting Yea 29 Total voting Nay 7 Absent and not voting 0

Page 14, Calendar No. 122, substitute for S.B. No. 147, AN ACT CONCERNING A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY FOR ELECTRONIC NICOTINE DELIVERY SYSTEMS AND VAPOR PRODUCTS AND INCLUDING AEROSOL PAINTS UNDER THE PAINT STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM, There are several amendments.

Good evening, Madam President. I move acceptance of Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

Thank you, Madam President. The clerk is in possession of an amendment LCO 4101. I seek waiving of the reading and ask that I be given leave to summarize. sn/rr 111

LCO No. 4101, Senate Amendment "A".

Thank you, Madam President. This amendment becomes the bill, but all it essentially does is strike section 1 of the bill that came out of committee, and it makes a couple technical changes to industry recommended changes to the language for efficiency.

I move adoption.

Aye. sn/rr 112

I'll yield, Madam President, to Senator Lopes.

I figured he beats up on Betty White. Now he wants to go ahead of me in the description too. So, this bill, as people are aware for the last 10 years, we have had a Paint Stewardship Program in Connecticut where there is a fee put on the retail purchase of paint. That fee goes into a system that involves the industry recycling the paint so they don't end up in the environment, and they're taken care of properly. This bill simply adds aerosol paints to this Paint Stewardship Program. They were not in the original bill, and they will now be in the part of the Paint Stewardship Program. It's somewhat significant that I believe we're one of the first, if not the first in the nation, to add aerosol paints to our Stewardship Program. I ask my colleagues to support.

Thank you, Madam President. Through you, Madam President. So, if the good proponent could describe how this program is going to be formed and then sn/rr 113 essentially paid for. Obviously, there's financial aspects to implementing these EPRs, which is always a concern with any extended producer responsibility. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. This program actually already exists. The state Paint Stewardship Program was created, I believe, in 2013 for architectural paints, which is essentially paints you would put on with a roller or brush. And that system has been in existence since that time. At the point of retail sale, there is a fee when you buy paint. You'll see it. It's on the receipt. That money is collected by a state Paint Stewardship EPR Program that uses the fee to run the program and to recycle the paints, and make sure they're recycled properly. This bill adds aerosol paints to that existing Paint Stewardship Program.

Thank you, Madam President. So is it my understanding, through you, that the aerosol paints currently do not have that fee that you just referenced attached to them currently? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. They should not.

Thank you, Madam President. So is it your understanding pursuant to this legislation here today that the fee now will be assigned at purchase to the aerosol paints now? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Yes, upon the creation of the program, I believe, is 2028, fee should be assigned to aerosol paints as well. I don't know if it'll be the same fee as regular paints, but the Stewardship Program will create a fee that makes sense. It's not a fee they can make a profit on. It's audited. That fee can only be used to run the program.

Thank you, Madam President. Through you, Madam President, does the proponent know how much the current existing fee is on the architectural paints that were referenced that presumingly will be passed onto the aerosol paints? Through you, Madam President. sn/rr 115

Thank you, Madam President. Embarrassingly, considering how much paint I buy, I do not know off the top of my head. I do have Sherwin-Williams. They do send me receipts via email. I can show them to you later, but it's a couple dollars.

Thank you, Madam President. And so, I'll reference a summary of the bill that we have before us here in a moment. I do want to segue into another topic related, obviously, to this particular bill, Madam President. I understand why we've created a system where there is extended producer responsibility on a lot of different products. At first, when I started seeing these created in my term on the environment committee, it seemed like it was related to kind of rather unique products that required this EPR, because the recycling of said products or removal of said products were unique in some manner. It seems like we've been in this process now, expanding these programs even further to products even outside of that realm. And again, I do understand why, because there is a necessity in many of these cases to organize a structure, to make it easier for the consumer to recycle or remove these products from their homes, or their businesses, wherever they may have them. And however, I am cognizant of the fact that sn/rr 116 Connecticut is a very unaffordable place, unfortunately. I continue, and many of my colleagues continue to work to make it more affordable. But I think we also have to be understanding of the fact that despite the fact that these programs make sense in many respects, they do cost money, and that cost is directly passed down to the consumer. There's a reason I asked what the price was because that's important for me to know, because every cent that goes in addition is another cent that's leaving the pocket of our already overburdened constituents. And so, I'm reluctant in my position to support programs that add any level of costs to products here in the state of Connecticut. So, there's a level of reluctance, generally, with any EPR program, despite the fact that there may be merit towards a necessity for the removal of those products. With that said, in the same exact vein, if we're going to start looking at things that truly do need a structure to help recycle, to help remove, I think one of the things that we've been missing, in my term in the Environment Committee, in that same realm is related to solar. And I don't think that we've done enough to address recycling or removal of those products. It's getting cropped up across our state. We're seeing more and more solar panels get placed on farms across our state, on rooftops. And I don't think we've really contemplated, effectively, what we're going to do with that product when it reaches its end life, for whatever reason. And so, that's the reason, Madam President, that I do have an amendment. It is LCO No. 4152. I ask the clerk to please call the amendment.

LCO No. 4152, Senate Amendment "B".

Thank you, Madam President. I move adoption of the amendment, waive the reading, and seek leave to summarize.

Thank you, Madam President. I urge adoption of the amendment, and when it's taken, I do ask that it be taken by roll.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. So as I mentioned before, it's a very simple amendment. All it does is it's an add-on, so it keeps and retains the original bill that's here before us. And after the last section simply adds in an additional section, which would direct the commissioner of DEEP to implement a study, not implement, but implement at least a study of an Extended Producer Responsibility program in the state for discarded solar panels and also wind turbine blades as well. sn/rr 118 So, I think it's completely cognizant with the Environment Committee. We're always looking at energy resources. Those are two green energy resources that have been growing in infrastructure throughout our state. Some would argue growing too much, particularly in certain parts of land, particularly farmland. But again, we don't have, in my opinion, enough of an endgame approach or plan to address the removal or recycling of this type of waste, which is solar panels and wind turbines. And all we would be doing is implementing a study to see how we address that issue potentially through an EPR, or some other mechanism to address that waste removal, which is going to be necessary at some point in time when that infrastructure reaches its end life. So, I ask my colleagues to please support this measure, and thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. This amendment does align with the bill quite well, in fact, that it was in it before. This is something in the committee we debated and talked about quite a bit. We are very interested in finding out in how we're going to recycle solar and other aspects of green energy as we go forward. But during the public hearing, it was testified by the Green Bank representative that the Green Bank actually has already done this study. And I did read it a year ago. It came out July 22nd, 2024. Roughly two years ago, I read it. It's 185 pages. It is quite detailed and technical. But to summarize, they did say that at this point, they felt it was premature to start working towards an EPR for solar, although aspirations of the committee and the study sn/rr 119 said that the next two to three years, some say five years, we would be having to move forward towards an EPR for solar. So, that is why the section was removed from the bill during the committee process. And although it's something we do want to do, I would, at this point, not want it in the final product for this year. So I'd urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the No. 147. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. This is not the bill, we're voting on the amendment. This is Senate Amendment "B", S.B. No. 147. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Amendment "B" for S.B. No. 147. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the 147. An Immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're voting on the amendment. This is not the bill. This is S.B. 147, Senate Amendment "B". An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on Senate Amendment "B", S.B. 147. An immediate roll call vote in the We're voting on Senate Amendment "B" of S.B. 147. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Total Number Voting 35 Total voting Yea 10 Total voting Nay 25 Absent and not voting 1

Thank you, Madam President. And just really to summarize, I, again, have apprehension about creating any program that adds more fees to a product, considering how unaffordable so many things are. And for that reason, I'm inclined to not support the measure despite the fact that I do understand the necessity in many of these cases. But again, at a time where everything is so unaffordable to add an additional fee to a product, I'm reluctant to support. So thank you, Madam President.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the seven as amended, AN ACT CONCERNING A STUDY ON THE NEED FOR EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY FOR ELECTRONIC NICOTINE DELIVERY SYSTEMS AND VAPOR PRODUCTS AND INCLUDING AEROSOL PAINTS UNDER THE PAINT STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM. sn/rr 121 An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're voting on substitute for S.B. No. 147 as amended. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We are now voting on the bill. This is the bill, substitute for S.B. No. 147 as amended. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate.

S.B. 147 as amended: Total Number Voting 36 Total voting Yea 28 Total voting Nay 8 Absent and not voting 0

Page 17, Calendar No. 185, substitute for S.B. No. 446, AN ACT REQUIRING THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS TO CONDUCT A STUDY CONCERNING THE FEASIBILITY OF AUTHORIZING MUNICIPALITIES THAT HAVE ENTERED INTO REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENTS TO ADOPT DIFFERENTIAL MILL RATES. There are no amendments.

Good evening, Madam President. Madam President, I sn/rr 122 move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

Yes, Madam President. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, AN ACT REQUIRING THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS TO CONDUCT A STUDY CONCERNING THE FEASIBILITY OF AUTHORIZING MUNICIPALITIES THAT HAVE ENTERED INTO REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENTS TO ADOPT DIFFERENTIAL MILL RATES. Madam President, reason for the bill, this bill requires the Office of Policy and Management to study other municipalities that participate in the revenue sharing agreements can adopt differential mill rates for properties included in those agreements that study must be reported in the Planning and Development Committee by January 1, 2027. Madam President, these bills came out from the committees unanimously, and this is the Study Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. And as Ranking Senator on the Planning and Development Committee, this bill does what it says it's going to do, which is to look into a study. So I do support the bill, and I do want to say a thank you to the members of the Council on Intergovernmental Relations. They do good work. They've been doing it for a long time. And I do also want to do a shout-out to a long time member of ACIR and a past Chair, John Filchak, who sn/rr 123 was recognized last month at an ACRIR meeting. And I was pleased to attend it for decades of service in public service, including on this very council. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to thank the good chair of the committee, Senator Rahman, for taking this bill and bringing it to the committee and to the Senate, and to all committee members for supporting the bill. And I just wanted to give a shout-out as well to a former state representative, Lee Samowitz, who had this idea for a long time to see whether or not the differential mill rates will be beneficial for towns that want to enter into revenue sharing agreements. So thank you for bringing that to our attention to former State Representative Lee Samowitz, and thank you to the committee for bringing this forward. Thank you, Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the requiring the Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations to conduct a study concerning the feasibility of authorizing municipalities that have entered into revenue sharing agreements to adopt differential mill rates. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Bill No. 446. sn/rr 124 An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the roll call vote in the Senate.

Total Number Voting 36 Necessary for Adoption 19 Those voting Yea 33 Those voting Nay 3 Those absent and not voting 0

Page 7, Calendar No. 70, Substitute for Senate Bill No. 132, an act establishing the Connecticut-Germany Trade Commission. There is an amendment.

And good evening, Madam President. I guess it is evening, and it is likewise great to see you, Madam. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint sn/rr 125 Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Yes. Yes. Thank you, Madam President. The Clerk is in possession of LCO 3903, and I ask that the Clerk please call and I'd be granted leave to summarize, please.

Thank you. And we'll put it on the board and very good. We have it. Senator Hartley.

Thank you. The question is on adoption. Will you remark on the amendment?

Thank you, Senator Hartley. Will you remark further on the bill? Senator Martin.

Very good. And will you remark on the amendment before the chamber? Senator Gadkar-Wilcox.

Thank you. Will you remark further on the amendment? Because I do believe we should be adopting the amendment before we vote on the bill. So will you remark further on the amendment before the chamber? If not, let me try your minds. So all in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. sn/rr 130

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the We're voting on substitute for Senate Bill No. 132 as amended. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. We're voting on the bill. This is the bill, Senate Bill No. 132, an act establishing the Connecticut-Germany Trade Commission as amended. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. Substitute to Senate Bill No. 132, as amended.

Total Number Voting 36 Necessary for Adoption 19 Those voting Yea 36 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 0

Page 36, Calendar No. 315, Substitute for Senate Bill No. 468, an act concerning reporting requirements and payment of nonprofit human services providers. There's an amendment.

Hello, Madam President. Madam President, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, the bill before us this evening is an important measure that this Senate has supported many times on a bipartisan basis to advance the interests of our nonprofit providers here in the State of Connecticut. I think almost all of us in the circle have heard concerns of nonprofit agencies in recent years that there is often some slowness in the payments they receive for the critical and vital work that they do supporting so many people in the State of Connecticut. Madam President, in the Government Administration and Elections Committee, we have had great conversation with those nonprofit providers and had bipartisan conversation in our committee around similar proposals in the past. And the bill before us today aims to address the concerns of those sn/rr 132 nonprofit providers and try to ensure that they are paid in a timely fashion. Madam President, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO No. 4088. I would ask that the Clerk please call the amendment, and I'd be given leave at the chamber to summarize.

Senator Flexer.

Thank you. Will you remark further on the bill? Senator Sampson -- actually, on the amendment.

Thank you. Will you remark on the amendment before the chamber? Will you remark on the amendment? If not, let me try your minds. All in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I want to thank my colleagues for their support of the amendment. Again, I know that the original bill has garnered great support in the past, and I regret that we had to make this change. But I am hopeful that the remaining provision, ensuring that these providers to the extent legally possible will be paid within that 45-day window will garner the support of my colleagues here in the Senate. As I mentioned, this has been a bipartisan effort in this chamber for several years now, and I hope that this proposal has once again garnered my colleagues' support. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I just want to rise in support of the legislation that is before us. I think this is a critically important piece of legislation. I appreciate the chairman of the GAE Committee and her comments. I'm in complete alignment. It's been a concern in recent years about the timeliness of payment to some of our key nonprofit providers in the state. I believe that this 45-day window is more than adequate. And it's actually surprising to me that we were unable in the past to be able to properly compensate folks that are doing this important work. And as a result, I am in complete support of this legislation. I'm proud to cosponsor it and look forward to a positive result. Thank you.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the No. 468 as amended. We are voting on the bill. Substitute for Senate Bill No. 468, an act concerning reporting requirements and payment of nonprofit human services providers. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're voting on the bill. This is Senate Bill No. 468 as amended. This is the bill. An immediate roll call vote in the

Total Number Voting 36 Necessary for Adoption 19 Those voting Yea 36 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 0

Page 38, Calendar No. 329, Substitute for Senate Bill No. 393, an act concerning special elections to fill vacancies due to the death of certain elected officials. There are no amendments.

Thank you, Madam President. Nice to see you up there this evening. Madam President, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, sn/rr 136 the bill before us this evening makes some changes to our statutes covering vacancies when there are vacancies in certain elected positions due to death. Madam President, in recent years in the Senate, we haven't had to deal with this type of sadness directly with our membership. But, in recent years in the legislature overall, we've had three House members pass away while still serving in office. And God rest their souls, Representative Linda Orange, Representative "Q" Williams, and Representative Kevin Ryan. And with the event of each of their passing, for those of us who are lucky enough to serve in this circle, very similar to the experience of our colleagues downstairs, we know that the people who support us are often the people who are also involved in local government. And in each of those cases, when Representatives Orange, Williams, and Ryan passed away, in those communities, the people who were mourning the loss of their friends also had to deal with a special election calendar that was triggered upon their friends' passing. And those folks had to be in the process of mourning their friends, mourning a person that they loved, and also dealing with a political calendar. As someone who called all three of those great legislators a friend, while I was not intimately involved in the special elections that were triggered by their passings, I did see the impact on their friends and their families, that in each of those situations they had to have a conversation about when a convention would be held to fill the vacancy for that House seat before plans for memorializing, for having a funeral, or other type of service were finished upon each of those passings. And so, Madam President, the bill before us today seeks to make an exception to the existing timeline for special elections when there's a vacancy. Only in the event of someone's passing, this legislation, sn/rr 137 if it were to become law, would give an additional week to that special election calendar that is triggered upon the passing of a sitting elected member of the General Assembly or other, excuse me, not just members of the General Assembly, but other elected positions in our state as well. Madam President, I think this is an important measure for us to move forward with, trying to strike a balance, trying to be sensitive to the concerns that I just laid out, watching people who are deeply mourning, someone that they loved, someone who was a great public servant to our state, also having to deal with those difficult and challenging and sometimes shocking conversations to fill a vacancy that they didn't know was going to happen, that isn't happening in a timely way. Balancing those concerns with the need for people in that particular district, the constituents, to be able to have representation in any of these elected roles that are affected by the bill before us. So trying to find a balance here between being sensitive to the loved ones and colleagues who are dealing with the passing of one of these elected officials, but also making sure that that elected position doesn't go vacant for too long and the constituents can have the voice that they need to have in that particular elected role. In each of those situations, I think there was also mourning of the people who had been represented by these legislators. And so this gives constituents a little bit more time to process that loss as well. So, Madam President, I'm hopeful that my colleagues here in the circle today will choose to support this legislation. I'm hopeful that on balance between trying to be respectful when one of our colleagues in elected office passes away and also ensuring that people have the strong representation they need. I think that this proposal here does that, and I'm hopeful that our colleagues here at the Senate will sn/rr 138 choose to support it here this evening. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Senator. Madam President, you look great up there. I appreciate those congratulations very much. The bill that is before us is a very straightforward bill. I believe the chairman of the Government Administration & Elections Committee explained it thoroughly. It is a very modest, more or less technical change to the timeline for special election, and I believe it's a very thoughtful accommodation that ought to be made. And I encourage my colleagues to support it. It's a good idea, and I'm surprised no one's thought of it till now. And I want to congratulate the chairman on moving this important piece of legislation. So thank you very much.

An immediate roll call has been ordered in the the Senate. We're voting on Senate Bill 393. An immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate.

Total Number Voting 36 Necessary for Adoption 19 Those voting Yea 36 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President, and good evening.

Good to see you up there. Madam President, the next bill, Calendar page 38, Calendar 331, Senate Bill 399, I'd like to PR that for today, please. And if the Clerk can call the next bill, please.

Page 3, Calendar No. 40, Senate Bill No. 156, an act establishing a task force to study the voluntary surrender of infants. There is an amendment. sn/rr 140

Thank you, Madam President. Good to see you. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Yes, Madam President. This bill has its origins quite a while ago. Let's go back to 1988 when a child was found frozen in a parking lot in Meriden. And over the years, the need arose was clear that we needed a bill for safe surrender of infants. And in 2000, that bill was put in place. At the time, we had a different understanding of what cultural competency was. This bill is, and over the years, in the 26 years since the bill was put in place for safe surrender, there have been about 57 infants surrendered and then gone on to be adopted in Connecticut. This is an important bill that happened in 2000 and was amended in 2018 because it takes care of our most vulnerable and allows for the surrender of an infant within 30 days. Now we need to look back at this bill, and that's why the task force is here. How can we make sure that we are being careful in the way that we take children in, that we put supports around the parents, so perhaps they won't surrender their child, and then look at the racial, ethnic, health, economic, and socioeconomic disparities that might give rise for the surrender of a child? So this bill came out of the committee unanimously, and I urge passage. Thank you. sn/rr 141

Madam President, thank you. Good evening. The Senator is absolutely right, but it's the last bill of the night. So I would hope that you would kindly open up the machine so we can hit the green light.

I do apologize, Madam President. I did not call the amendment. I do apologize for that. Sorry, Jason. Oh my god. Okay. The Clerk is in possession of LCO 3650.

LCO No. 3650, Senator Amendment A.

The amendment in line 34 strikes the word and, and sn/rr 142 after line 34 adds the chief public defender or chief public defender's designee. And in line 35 strikes nine, and in certain lieu thereof, ten. And I move adoption.

Thank you, Madam President. I support the amendment. I would urge my colleagues to do the same.

Those opposed, nay? The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. [gavel] Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Senator Maher.

Thank you. Madam, will you remark further on the bill as amended? Seeing no further remarks, will the Clerk please announce pendency of a roll call vote? sn/rr 143

Have all the members voted? If so, please check the roll call machine to see that you -- have all the members voted? Okay. If all the members have voted, please check the roll call machine to see that your vote is properly recorded. The machine will be locked, and the Clerk will announce the tally.

[gavel] Bill passes.

Senator Lesser? Senator Cabrera, you have the floor, sir. sn/rr 144

Motion is acceptance and passage. Will your remark, sir?

Clerk is in possession of LCO 4096, Amendment A, if the Clerk could please call it.

Senator Cabrera.

The motion is adoption, sir. Will you remark?

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further on the amendment? If not, I will try your minds. All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I'd like to refer this item to the Appropriations Committee.

Page 26, Calendar 261, Substitute for Senate Bill No. 9, an act supporting commuters and microtransit services. There is an amendment.

Good evening, Madam President. I move acceptance of sn/rr 146 the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Yes. Madam President, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO 4071. I would ask that the Clerk please call the amendment.

LCO number 4071, Senate Amendment A.

Thank you, Madam President. I move adoption of the amendment. Waive its reading -- Thank you. We're moving right along, Madam President.

Thank you. This amendment simply strikes section 5 in its entirety and renumbers the remaining sections. sn/rr 147

Opposed, nay? The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. [gavel] Senator Duff.

So ordered. Mr. Clerk?

Senator Cohen.

sn/rr 148 Motion is acceptance and passage. Will you remark, madam?

Clerk is in possession of LCO 4119.

Senator Cohen.

And you moved adoption, did you, madam?

Opposed, nay? The amendment carries. [gavel] Senator Duff.

So ordered.

Senator Duff.

order. Senator Kushner, you have the floor, madam.

Motion is acceptance and passage. Will you remark, madam?

Missed that number, but the Clerk got it, I'm sure. Will the Clerk please call?

You have the floor, Senator Kushner.

Thank you. The motion is adoption. Will you remark?

Thank you. Senator Kushner, will you remark further on the amendment? If not, I'll try your minds. All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I'd like to refer this item to the Appropriations Committee.

Page 26, Calendar No. 259, substitute for Senate Bill No. 3, an act concerning health care affordability.

Yes. Good evening, Madam President. Madam President, sn/rr 152 I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Yes. Madam President, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO 4183. I would ask that the Clerk please call the amendment.

LCO No. 4183, Senate Amendment A.

Yes, I move adoption of the amendment.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I'd like to refer this item to the -- oh. Oh, we have to adopt the amendment, Madam President. sn/rr 153

Opposed, nay? The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. [gavel] Yes, Senator Duff.

So ordered.

Senator Kushner, you have the floor, madam.

sn/rr 154 Motion is acceptance and passage. Will you remark, madam?

LCO No. 4165, Senate Amendment A.

Thank you. I move adoption of the amendment, waive its reading, and seek leave of the chamber to summarize.

Thank you, Madam President. This is an amendment that would raise the unemployment dependency allowance by a phase-in that would start in 2028, and it would phase it into $25 in 2028, $35 in 2029, and $45 in 2030.

Opposed, nay? The ayes have it. Amendment is adopted.[gavel] Senator Duff.

So ordered.

You have the floor, sir.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered. sn/rr 158

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered, sir. sn/rr 161

Senator Martin.

Please proceed.

Thank you, sir. So noted. Seeing no further business, Senator Duff?

Motion is to adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair. sn/rr 162 (On motion of Senator Duff of the 25th, the Senate at 6:35 p.m. adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.)