May 2, 2026 · 32,269 words · 33 speakers · 347 segments
Alright. The chamber will come to order. (gavel) Will members, staff, and guests please rise and direct your attention on the dais where Deputy Chaplain Rodriguez will lead us in prayer?
Let us pray. Eternal Creator, let us begin by saying thank you for the grace that sustains us and for the opportunity of us gathering here today. We're here in a shared mission to serve and strengthen the cities and towns we represent, not for us, but for all. Let Your peace take hold of this entire room. Let me/rp 2 every corner, every seat, every space bring upon us calm hearts, focus minds, and guide every word that is spoken. Give us wisdom to those who speak, discernment to those who hear, and the commitment to explore the common ground. Allow the efforts and sacrifices made for the wonderful people of Connecticut produce meaningful and lasting results for years to come. So as we begin this session, we ask that this be a place marked by integrity, productivity, and forward progress for the good of all. Amen.
Would Representative Walker, Representative Horn, Representative Nuccio, and Representative Polletta please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? REPS. WALKER (93RD)/HORN (64TH)/NUCCIO (53RD)/POLLETTA (68TH): (ALL MEMBERS) 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. me/rp 3
Any business on the Clerk's desk?
Mr. Speaker, I have communications from the Governor, Declaration of the Existence of Extraordinary Circumstances.
That is ordered to be printed in the journal. (gavel)
And favorable reports, substitute for Senate Bill No. 1, An Act Concerning Affordability, to be tabled for the Calendar.
Mr. Majority Leader.
Sure. me/rp 4
Yes, I can do it on my own on that one. Sorry about that. So we'll table that for the Calendar pursuant to House Rule 11(G). (gavel)
And the daily Calendar.
Thank you. Sorry about that. Announcements or introductions? Let's try to keep these quick, please. Representative Gucker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A point of personal privilege.
Proceed. me/rp 5
I just wanted to welcome my hometown. This morning got two new Eagle Scouts as an Eagle Scout myself, and I know there's a few in the room. I wanted to give them a sincere congratulations from the floor. Christian Eckert and his sister, Louisiana Eckert, both became Eagles this morning. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (applause)
We do have a birthday, at least one to my knowledge. If I'm forgetting somebody else, my apologies. Representative Jacobson, happy birthday. (applause) Another birthday. Well, Representative Carpino, why don't you inform me and enlighten me of the next birthday? Sorry.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We should all also wish Representative McGorty happy birthday. He can't think of anywhere else he'd rather be tonight, sir. (applause) me/rp 6
Happy birthday to both of you. I've spent a birthday in here. It's not the worst birthday of all time. Representative Quinn of the 82nd.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise for purposes of a final announcement. Just want to let everyone know that through your generosity in this chamber and elsewhere throughout the building in the LOB, we raised a grand total of $2,255. So give yourselves a round of applause. (applause)
Representative Gaiewski of the 40th, looks like you have a guest and a cup.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for the purpose of an announcement. me/rp 7
You may proceed, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On April 13th, we had the Annual Legislative Kickball Game at Dunkin Park here in Hartford, and the Democrats won 1-0 this year. So I'm very happy that I am now 2 and 0 in my kickball games, as a player for the wonderful Majority Rules team. But also more importantly, we raised $1,400 for the United Way of Connecticut. So I wanted to thank everybody in the chamber for making it such a great event, and we hope to continue it next year. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (applause)
Thank you, sir. It's a fun tradition. It's a great game. And thank you to the Appropriations Committee. You kept some of the House Democratic members away from the field, which I believe helped in victory. And with that, let's get down to business. Any more announcements or introductions? Seeing none, me/rp 8 let's get to work, please. Will the Clerk please call Senate Bill No. 1?
Substitute for Senate Bill No. 1, as amended by Senate A LCO 5762 in concurrence with the Senate, An Act Concerning Affordability. Favorable report of Finance.
Chairman Horn, you've the floor, madam.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report in concurrence with the Senate, as amended by the Senate LCO 5762.
Before is Chamber's acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill as amended by Senate me/rp 9 Amendment Schedule A, LCO 5762 in concurrence with the Senate. We're good, Representative Horn, you may proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased and proud to be here today to represent this budget we have in front of us. Budgets are, in essence, the ultimate expression of our values, and I believe strongly that that's exactly what this budget does. This budget in a sustainable, responsible way invests in the most important things that we have heard from everyone in this chamber over the last years, but certainly in the last several months. We have strong revenues at the moment, and this has enabled us to address a moment of chaos and uncertainty with help for municipalities, and increasing pressure on property taxes, education costs. It includes 300 million of relief for cities, towns, and schools, including direct support for education, and direct support to help municipalities avoid pressure to raise property taxes. me/rp 10 It also provides, on the revenue side, a number of affordability relief that's focused on families. For example, expanding our tax free week to include more items, as families start to think about preparing to go back to school. Also creates a caregiver tax credit for families and eliminates the taxes on school supplies. We also extend some of the same tax relief to our businesses. For example, we extend our current R&D tax relief to small businesses to enable them, at the moment of most explosive growth, to get some investment from the state. This budget has also allowed us to reaffirm and make sure that we live up to our commitments with respect to the Early Childhood Education Fund. We have provided some additional revenue to put into that account to make sure that the revenue is there as we have promised. 300 million in revenue to make sure that we can make the investments that we have promised. This budget also is a historic moment of investment in our hospitals. Seven years ago, we had a settlement agreement that is now on the verge of expiring, and we are in the midst of negotiating a new agreement. The agreement that is included in the bill we are looking at today maximizes federal resources for me/rp 11 our hospitals, ensuring that we help that at a time when their costs are going up all across the board, their uncompensated care is going up, and they really need the support of the state. This is, again, without increasing taxes in the State of Connecticut or a burden on taxpayers. It will ensure that people have access to these hospitals and that we can continue to invest in them, which is really important. I will, in a moment, pass my mic to the good chair of appropriations for the many excellent things that are on that side of the budget in there. But before I move on, I just want to make sure we all appreciate what it takes to create this document, which, yes, is long. We have been working on it for a long time. It involves a lot of work across the aisles here. I certainly have were enjoyed very much working with my ranking member, Representative Polletta, who's been a real resource, and perspective on the things that we work on. I want to thank my co-chair, Senator Fonfara, who is one of those people who is always thinking about how to make life better for his constituent and is a pleasure to work with as we try to make our values manifest in this document. And as has me/rp 12 been said before, we cannot thank our staff enough for what they do for this. If we are all a little tired and cranky today, and it is Saturday evening, I'm sure people might have had other plans. Our staff are operating on fumes, although they don't appear that way. They're pretty cogent right at the moment. But they really have taken all of the things that we have put on their plate and double checked everything, make sure it shows up on the places that it's supposed to show up, and made it possible for us to do the work that we do. So I really want to extend deep gratitude to all the staff that worked on this, everyone on the finance committee, of course, and, of course, my friend and chair, Toni Walker. Through you, Madam Speaker. I urge passage, by the way.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on this bill as amended? Will you remark further on this bill as amended? Representative Walker of the 93rd District, you have the floor. me/rp 13
Thank you Madam Chair. And thank you Madam Chair of finance. Thank you for all you've done, and thank you for being a ways and means in this process. It's been great for us. It's been great for the committees and things that we actually have a much tighter collaboration. The bill before as everybody has heard, has been a work of love and hard effort and ideas and collaboration. Because we know that Connecticut needs certain things and it doesn't matter whether you're a Democrat or Republican, whether you live in Hartford or in Westbrook. You have the same needs. We have certain things that need to be addressed and addressed in a way that we bring home today. In this budget before us, we have several things that I think we really want to talk about, which is education and education funding. We have put in this budget a $190 million in education funding to support schools and support programs that we know need to be made whole in most of our cities. We know that we've had addressing before for special ed. We also had changes in the ECS formula. Well, this one this time, me/rp 14 we are looking at the foundation. And the foundation is one of the main items that are in the formula for ECS. We are raising it to $13,080 and that way, with that, we are looking at how that impacts what we pay to the towns to make sure that we are being equitable in our funding. Many times we have heard from cities coming to us saying that the funding that we receive is not enough for us to cover everything that we are being required to do by the bodies here in the hall of the house. These items we have to also look at because sometimes we forget that they have limited staff and limited opportunities for us to do it. And also because we are all venturing into the different realms of how we educate our children. In this budget of 190 million, there is $163 million that is set aside for all towns. It is on top of the ECS. It is not, included instead of the ECS. It is on top of the ECS. What we also did was we found out that when we did this, the expansion on the foundation, it ended up still not reaching all the towns in Connecticut. So then we add an additional 2% on that amount to see if we could get and reduce the number of people that were not going to me/rp 15 get an increase in their budget. With that, we saw still another group of people towns that weren't getting it, so we added another 2%. So no matter what town you live in, each town will get an increase in their education spending. We also added $12 million dollars for school meal meals, something that is very near and dear to so many of our hearts because we fight every year to make sure that we sustain the food. Because we know that so many of our children, do not have a continuous strengthening food foundation that they need in order to survive when they go to school. We also did grants to towns associated with construction and purchasing for education, for things that are in the districts that they need for schools. There are also additional dollars that were put in here for special education. I want to say, like my friend from the finance committee, the most important thing that we should do also is thank the people that get us here. Thank the people that brought us here. Thank the people that stand up for us here in this building, and that's our staff. Our staff, our partisan staff, our nonpartisan staff, our individual people that work in our committees, they have worked me/rp 16 tirelessly for us to put this together. And the hours that they have put in have been just phenomenal. And, yes, they look happy, but the reason why they're happy is because they know they're going to get some sleep tonight. Trust me, I know that because that's what I'm excited about. So I stand before you today to say I have the other opportunity to work with my friends across the aisle at all times. And I want to thank her for being my partner in this and always coming in. I love our conversations because our conversations usually start out as mom, and then they go into our neighborhoods and things like that. And it shows us that we are all the same. It just we just have to spend the time talking to each other. So with that, Madam Chair, I want to thank you, and I turn it back to you, Madam.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on this bill as amended? Will you remark further on this bill as amended? Representative Napoli at the 73rd District, the great city of Waterbury, but not the center of the universe. You have the floor. me/rp 17
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, thank you very much for recognizing me. This bond package reflects our continued effort to make responsible, long-term investments in Connecticut's future. This session, our bipartisan subcommittee met with 17 state agencies to discuss how state bonds would be utilized. These capital investments are designed to modernize state-owned facilities, enhance public infrastructure, and strengthen community resources, and reinforce essential services that our residents depend on. This legislation also is, supporting capital projects, including upgrades to facilities, advancements in technology, investments in public safety, and improvements to educational infrastructure. Together, these investments will ensure that state agencies, public colleges, technical institutions, and correctional facilities are equipped with infrastructure and tools necessary to operate safely and skillfully. me/rp 18 A significant portion of this measure focuses on upgrading systems and improving facility safety. This includes support for the department of correction security enhancements and electronic health record systems, technology improvements, DEEP to expedite permitting and environmental review process, and development of a public-facing DCF dashboard to expand access to statewide information. These are practical steps that improve how government serves both its residents and its employees. This bill also increases the state's commitment to local and community-based projects. Funding is allocated for public safety facilities, neighborhood infrastructure, veterans memorials, our local police departments for their crisis response resources, and the American School for the Deaf. As a state, we share responsibility to support our cities and towns, our community, and other taking capital projects that might be otherwise beyond their financial reach. Madam Speaker, I'd like to recognize a few people, starting with the co-chairs of the Finance Committee, Maria Horn and John Fonfara, who allow our subcommittee to do this great work and give us guidance along the way. me/rp 19 I also want to thank our bond and committee co-chair, Senator Pat Miller, who is one of the hardest working people in state government I've ever had the opportunity to work for. And the people of Stanford and Darien and the state are really lucky to have her. I also would be re-missed if I didn't thank our ranking member, John Piscopo, who is a real partner and real resource in this process. Also, the nonpartisan staff, Eric Michael Gray, Claudia Rodriguez, Katrina Stratton, are some of the hardest working and, again, smartest people in the building. To our partisan staff, Zoe Gluck, who spends tons of hours on this process and is really accessible to every member in the chamber. We really appreciate all of their support. And so, Madam Speaker, I respectfully support the bill. Thank you.
Thank you, Representative. Will your remark further on this bill, as amended? Representative Nuccio of the 53rd, for your remarks. You have the floor. me/rp 20
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And thank you for recognizing me to speak today. As his par, I have no questions for the proponent of the bill. I'm just going to go through my comments, and break things down. But first, I would like to say, I am very appreciative to have such a partner in Representative Walker. We do spend a lot of time chatting and it starts out one way and ends up getting into the nitty gritty eventually. And for the most part, there are so many things that we absolutely agree on. And I find, myself, that's the best way to do this. I will say I've had four years as ranking member, and every year has been a little bit different. And I think the years that we actually are able to sit down and talk with each other and to each other we get a better product, when we're listening to each other and when other people don't decide for us who can and can't be in the room. So I think if you just let the women do the work, we get it done. So, I would just like, hey. I'm sorry to Mr. Polletta here. I'm talking about Toni. Okay. So, I just want to say again thank you for that. I look at this budget. It's a little bit of everything. It's a little bit of stuff I don't like. It's a me/rp 21 little bit of stuff that I do like. It's a hard pill to swallow. Sometimes you got to swallow the pill. There are things that I think are definitely positive and good, and then there are things that I'm worried about. And I would say, you know, having the combined bill I go back and forth, having the bond bill, the implementer, the deficit bill, like, all of the other pieces in there, the implementers, problematic. Because you get so many different pieces of legislation that are kind of thrown in. You're not quite sure how you would have voted on those, but when they become part of the implementer, it takes away that power. It takes away the, the ability to kind of look at all these things individually. So as I've said a couple of times now this session, I'm not really a fan of these huge aircraft carriers. I would much rather have the issues laid before us and the ability to kind of vote on them independently, to really show where we agree on things and where we don't agree on things. So I don't love that part. And I would feel remiss if I did not say, at some point we should really look at the rules because the12-hour thing is a little exhausting. It would be me/rp 22 much better to do a little bit of what we did this week and have a little more information sharing going ahead of time so you're not sitting here at 04:00 in the morning trying to figure out what's in there and what's not in there. It's just not conducive to really understanding the bill, and it's not conducive to a healthy way of doing things. So I would be remiss if I did not say that is something that we should reconsider. The things I want to talk about in here, there is an emergency declaration that has been signed by the governor as being submitted to the secretary of state. And that's for about $413 million, which is allowance in excess of the cap that we currently have. And one of the things that are in there is about $80 million in Medicaid overspend. Then there is this money that Representative Walker talked about that we're talking about, which is about a $183 million in supplemental -- actually, added together, it's about $283 million of supplemental money that is going to go directly to our towns. And then there's the maneuver, which, again, I'm very happy to see that actually got into the budget of moving the hospital tax off budget and putting that in an area where we can really me/rp 23 look at it and scrutinize it and make sure it's doing what we need it to do. And I think that is definitely the way to go with it. And I said, I know that's weird because, typically on this side of the aisle, we're all about nothing should be off budget. It should be one thing, but it was an oddity and that it was the only time we were dealing with federal revenue and the general fund, which murkied it. It really made the waters murky. And by pulling it off and putting it somewhere else, it helped. I think that compromise that we came to, it gave spending room in the budget without any gimmicks, without any trying to figure out how we were going to maneuver that money into there. And it's just a good fiscal decision to do that. Where I'm concerned, and I think we have to acknowledge this, is this is the first time in eight years that the comptroller is projecting a deficit. And we're looking at about a $109 million deficit, according to his release yesterday. And this current budget does not bring all those deficits into correction. The difference between the 109 and the 80 that we have here, there's a few moving pieces here and there, but the biggest piece of it are the three areas that I spoke about last me/rp 24 year when I voted no against the budget. We did not address in the underlying budget the deficit that we knew we were going to have in Medicaid. We did not address the deficit that we knew we were going to have in active employee health care, and we did not address the deficit that we knew we were going to have in the retiree health care. I pointed all of those things out last year, specifically. We were told it was going to be more than what was in the budget, and we just didn't plan for We knowingly made that decision to not plan for it. And because of that, for the first time in eight years, the State of Connecticut has a deficit. I wish I could honestly say that I think it's going to be the last time we have a deficit, but I can't. I truly think that we will see a deficit again next year and probably the year after that where I think it's going to be exasperated and get significantly This budget though is an adjustment to the underlying budget. And I think it's important to note, there are some corrections in here. There are some areas where we've seen deficits in certain departments that we're correcting in this me/rp 25 budget, and that is part of our increase in spend. But you have to adjust for those. If you're putting forward an honest to goodness budget, you have to adjust for where you see deficits. You should, though, correspondingly be also addressing where you have, lapsed dollars. We don't really do that in this budget because a lot of those lapsed dollars they use to cover the deficits. It's just not really as above board as I would like. Some of the deficits that we are going to continue to see, though, in Medicaid, we've been doing a lot of research on this and looking at it. This underlying budget had $45 million increase in Medicaid, and we just added another 30 million, which I think is laudable. The problem I have is that the intent of that money is to increase rates, but we're already at an $80 million deficit. So 45 plus 30 is 75. We're adding 75 million to Medicaid. We have an $80 million deficit. And if you increase Medicaid rates like we want to and we intend to, you're going to exasperate that deficit. You're going to increase the rates. You're going to make the deficit bigger. And when I look at me/rp 26 Medicaid, since 2024, our Medicaid spend has increased over 20%, and that didn't include the $80 million that we're deficit So it's over 20%. The problem here is that this budget also has a $25 million reduction built into it for Medicaid efficiencies, and I'm not quite sure what we're doing to actually find those efficiencies. Like, what are we proposing to do for those efficiencies? And where I'm really concerned is in 2029, we're looking very loomingly at, if we don't bring our error rates down to 3%, we are going to get additional fines. And the State of Connecticut is currently, as of February year, at a 5.6% error rate. So we need to reduce our error rate by almost half. We're adding for rates, but we're not accounting for the deficit. I think Medicaid is going to continue to be an issue. It's something that I think we are going to continue to have a problem with in the upcoming years, and I just don't know what we're doing to rein that in, to try to figure out why it's growing as fast as it is. We know about a third of the population in the State of Connecticut is on Medicaid. I actually had OLR pull a report because the argument up here a lot tends to be, you have to give people more me/rp 27 First, it was the race of 15, and then we linked the minimum wage to CPI and inflation. And now we're at 16, I think, 94. We're the second highest minimum wage in the country. So I went back to OOR, and I said, okay. Go back Go back to when we were at, like, $10 minimum wage. How much poverty did we have, and how many people were on Medicaid at that point? And at the point, we were at 9.9% poverty and almost a million people on Medicaid. And I said, okay. Now compare all the changes that we've had in minimum wage. We're at the same poverty rate, and we're at the same people amount of people on Medicaid. What I think this building doesn't understand is that you can't just throw money at a problem. You have to find out where the core errors are. Like, if we're raising minimum wage continuously and we're just making the products more expensive that people are purchasing with the people who are working, you're not going to find any cost savings. And that's what we're seeing here in Medicaid. Like, we're looking at updating the rates, but nobody has been able to say, you know, why are we seeing such a high spike? Why have we gone a 20% growth from 2024 to now? And I think that's concerning. And it's the same sort of thing when you look me/rp 28 at the, the employee health. If you look at the employee health, we've had a 27.7% increase before the deficiency, a 27.7% increase from 2024 to 2027. That's a huge number, and we have a deficit of $41 million on top of that. That deficit, though, is being handled in this bill under the deficiency piece, and we're taking lapses that I talked about before to pay the employee health piece. We are currently, right now, in this budget, looking at $801 million that we spend on employee health care. That is a large number. That includes that we're putting 21 million in this budget to try to correct that. We know we've got this $41 million deficit, but we're not even funding the deficit. We're only funding half of it, which means, I'm going to tell you now, and if I get reelected, I'm going to tell you next year when we're looking at this, we're going to have a deficit in Retiree health care is the same thing, same story, higher number. For retiree health care, we're looking at a 43.7% increase in their healthcare costs from 2024 from now. And this is huge. In 2024, we spent $693 million on retired employee health care. This year alone, before deficiency, we're at 996 million. It was a 44% increase year over year. me/rp 29 And we've got a $40 million deficit that the way we're addressing that is through OPEB savings, which is not done often. So we have these three major areas where we spend massive amount of moneys, where we're in deficit, and we're not adjusting it in the budget. Well, we're making some slight adjustments. Again, like, the 75 million is going to get eaten up, not even for deficit, before we raise rates. And the 40 million for active employee, we're putting 20 million towards it, but we're not covering what we need to cover. This is going to continue to be a problem that haunts us in every budget going forward. At some point, we have to accept the fact that the healthcare costs are growing exponentially, and we have to fund them in the budget, which means we have to prioritize what we're looking at. Now the next thing I want to talk about is the ECS, the money that's in here, for supplemental town money, the education money. This is something, since I have been ranking member, every year -- actually, I think if you ask Speaker Ritter, I've said this publicly. The very first time he called me, he said, hey, congratulations for winning. I was like, hey, thank you. Hey, do you know your ECS formula is really bad? me/rp 30 It's really bad. And you have to do something for these towns. You need to hold them harmless. It was an entire conversation. I think he was taken aback a little bit because I was just diving right into it. But this is something that I have seen that has an actual effect on my towns all the time. And it's something that I've noted right from the beginning is just it's a terrible formula. And then when I started looking at all the other educational formulas, I think across the board, our education formulas are terrible. So when I became ranking member of appropriations, every budget that the House Republicans has done has had exponentially more money in education funding for our towns because I recognize it as the priority that it is. Our formula is fatally flawed. It is not doing what we want it to do. Across the board, the amount of issues that are now coming to light that people are seeing just goes to reinforce the fact that we have to do something about this. Just this year alone, we saw a reduction of over 11,400 enrolled kids, and it's not that this 11,400 kids just disappeared. It's the change in the amount of number of kids that are in school because of the birth rates. me/rp 31 These birth rates are not new, but I think about five years that we have not replaced the amount of kids, for the amount of people that have died. So the people that are dying, we don't have enough people that are born to fill that gap, which means as a world population, we're shrinking. As a United States population, we're shrinking. As a State of Connecticut population, we are shrinking. And our ECS formula is highly dependent on the number of kids. So when this 11400 number came up, and you started seeing, like, everybody with the exception of 20 towns was going to lose ECS money across the board, and you are going to have to hold all of these other towns harmless or see a reduction what are you hearing. Every board of ed budget is just growing. They're growing exponentially. They're not coming down, but the enrollment is coming down. And the formula is so heavily dependent on that, you're going to lose ECS money because of a formula, not because of the actual cost of educating a kid or the state paying any share of it, but just because of a formula. The second thing that's the problem with the formula is, I'm sure a lot of towns in here have gone through evals recently. Like, it's an every-five-year cycle. And every town me/rp 32 that I know of that's gone through a reval has seen an amazing uptick in their net grand list. So if you think about that, if you bought your house at a $100,000 20 years ago, and they just come and do a reval and say, your house is worth $250,000 yet, in the accounting world, that's called an unrealized gain. You can tell me it's worth $250,000. It doesn't make any difference. It's still the same $100,000 house that I bought. So you're being taxed now on an unrealized gain. And if you think about it, the value of your house, how does that change the amount of services that you need at a town? Because your house goes from a 100 to $250,000, does that now mean you need more road work, or you need more schools, or you need more garbage pickup? No. It doesn't. It does not change the services that you're using. It just changes this number that supposedly you could get if you sold your house. Well, our ECS formula is highly dependent on that net grand list. So we've seen towns increase in their net grand list, and all of a sudden, the ECS formula says, hey, you're rich. You have to pay more of your education costs. The state has to pay less. me/rp 33 So now this is the second point in the formula that is reducing the state's support for education. One, being the enrollment, and two, being an unrealized gain on net grand list value. So when you look at that, and you look at the actual cost of educating in the State of Connecticut, I read an article, and I did not double-check it and triple-check it. So if it's wrong, don't scare me for it. But I read that it cost about $12.2 billion, and it was up from $11.9 billion last year, which is a two-and-a-half percent increase, to educate the children of the State of Connecticut. That was the public school number, dollars 12.2 billion. The state funds 2.5 billion of that 12.2. It's just right around 20% that the state is paying for the cost of education. I don't know that I think that's fair. I don't know that I think that that's rationale that the state should only be paying 20% of the total cost of educating the children when it is the State of Connecticut's constitutional obligation to provide a free and public education to every child. But our formula dictates that 2.5 billion, which would be decreased, by the way, by the two factors that I just talked about, enrollment and an unrealized net grant list increase. me/rp 34 So if you look at the ECS grant and you say, okay, what are the key goals? After our bill yesterday, I searched this in AI. And I said, what are the key goals and purposes of the ECS grant in the State of Connecticut? One, and the first one, educational equity to equalize educational funding across town lines so that all students have access to similar educational opportunities. Does anybody think our ECS grant is doing that? I don't. I think we're failing in that aspect. There is not educational equality, either of the two that you look at. And the formula, as it is right now, is not ensuring funding across town lines that all students have access to similar educational opportunities. It's failing. That's key goal number one, key goal number two. This one is really going to get you, it's tax relief. Our second key goal for ECS is property tax relief to provide state funds that help towns offset the high cost of education, thereby reducing the dependency on local property taxes. We're failing. That's two. We're failing two now. There's only four goals. We're already at 50%. The third goal is equalizing wealth. The formula considers both a town's property tax base and the income tax of its residents, dictating more me/rp 35 funding towards towns with limited ability to raise funds through the property tax. I would say that our formula does recognize wealth, but only in the perspective of people who get free and reduced lunch. Which I absolutely agree with. There should be a waiting for that. But it is not equalizing wealth. So that's three, and you could say that's partial. That's maybe a partial, partial failure. And then the last one, to support student needs, it's to adjust the per pupil expenditures based on student population characteristics and the number of students receiving free and reduced lunch and English language learners. Do we feel like the 2.5 billion that we have in education cost grant is supporting student needs? I don't. I think out of the four, you're lucky if we have three and a half of these goals that are being met. Then you look at the excess cost formula, another formula that I think is absolutely flawed. To say that a school district has to cover the first four and a half percent of all special education costs without having a cap on outplacement or any of the other things like that. me/rp 36 If you look at some of our smaller towns, and they say it's $25,000 to educate a child, the first $112,500 has to be paid by the town before you will get even a penny. The next dollar, you'll be lucky if you get 60¢ on that dollar of education costs for special ed. My question for this chamber is, do we think that is enough? Do we think we are prioritizing education enough to say that this budget covers those costs? And I guess the commission that the governor is putting together is what we think is a fair amount? Honestly, if we went around and I said to all of you, what do you think is a fair amount that the State of Connecticut should be paying for public education? What amount would you throw out there, and is it as low as 20%? Probably not, because I think this chamber recognizes the value of education and why we need to be paying for it. Connecticut's school age population is projected to see a continued long-term decline. The public school enrollment hit a 20-year low this year. We're under 500,000 kids for the first time in 20 years, and this drop is supposed to keep declining out till past 2040. Between declining birth rates and aging residents, we are going to continue to see a drop, and it is me/rp 37 going to be exasperated across the board because board of ed budgets go up and state funding stays flat. Across the board, any town that I've talked to, for the most part, local budgets are failing. They're going to referendum two, three, four times until people have voter apathy, and then something passes. I think the reason that that is something, again, that we don't necessarily adjust in this budget, and that is your local government, where your local boards of ed and your local towns are, you have the most amount of power. They put a budget in front of you, and you can say, hell no. I'm not paying that. I'm voting no. Or, hey, I support that. I'm going to vote yes. Local politics are the closest politics to you. Local government is the one that most impacts your life. And people across the State of Connecticut are voting no. My question is, if we put this budget in front of the people of State of Connecticut, how do we think they would vote? Do we think we are prioritizing what the taxpayers of Connecticut are asking for? People can't control what happens up here, but they can control what happens at their local level. me/rp 38 And their voices are very clearly and very loudly saying, enough is enough, and we need relief. We just passed a four-year contract for the state employee unions that amounted $2 billion increase over the life of the contract. $2 billion on a $28 billion budget. It was around 8% increase just for the state employee contract that we just passed. That means there's going to be additional pressure on our pensions, additional pressure on the budget, which is already taxed, and then we already have a deficit. We are in it. We are living in deficit times now, and this is going to continue to put pressure on that. And while we have the money in the reserve salary account right now for the raises through 2027, the ongoing expenses look a little more. We're fortunate, from what I understand, that the federal government is sending us more money this year and next year to help offset those revenues. And the increase is going to help bail us out. But beyond that, it's like the great unknown. So here's the real tricky part of this budget. While I am not supportive of changing our fiscal guardrails or robbing them me/rp 39 to increase spending, I'm struggling because I am in support of giving back money to our taxpayers. Our budget did that across the board. I'm happy to say again, while working with Representative Walker, there were things from our budget that were taken into consideration here. As I mentioned, for the last four years, we have been saying we need more ECS funding. We have been talking about how we need to get more money back to the towns. We were the ones who rang that bell, rang it early, and rang it loudly, and we continue to do that. The negotiations going back and forth, as Representative Walker said, just ECS wasn't enough. We were pushing. We need money. We needed the 4%. I would have gone higher if I could have, but that 4% is what we compromised on. And that was fine. 4% gets us money back to every single town in the State of Connecticut, and that was our goal. It wasn't just updating the formula because the formula doesn't help everybody. It is not going to help everybody. The only way we helped everybody was by putting in that extra 4% to ensure that every town saw something. So, for me, I am supportive of lowering the budget of taxes for our residents overall. I may not have gotten what I wanted, me/rp 40 which was including no income tax on Social Security, no taxes on children's clothes, an increase in the property tax. But what I am getting here is a modest return to the taxpayer in form of money to the towns to lower their mill rate adjustments. The towns need to hear -- I think Representative Walker will laugh at this one because I say it every single time a lot of the other people come before us. The towns need to hear and understand that this is one-time money. It's not going to be there next year, and it's not something that they should use to increase their budgets. This money, with the corresponding language in this bill, is intended to lower mill rates. It is property tax relief. So while it's not the House Republicans' plan of $380 million, it is $270 million of relief. It is a return of taxpayer dollars to the towns for use for relief for every growing municipal budget. It is a stopgap until the state does the work that it needs to do in correcting not only the trajectory of our spending but also prioritizing our spending to what is important. At the end of the day, like I said, there's stuff that I don't love. There's stuff that I like. I am grateful to hear me/rp 41 that the Senate is supposed to be taking up our air earmark reform bill today and passing that. I think that is going to have a positive impact on budgets going forward, and it is going to bring more transparency that we need. I am happy at the end of the day that part of that $413 million that is being taken out of the volatility cap is going to go directly to our towns for property tax relief, because that is where people need the relief. They need the money back in their pockets. They need the money. They can't keep dealing with increases, steady increases at the property tax level. While we do not recognize that relief in our budget. Sometimes, like Mary Poppins said, spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down. Sometimes you have to plug your nose and push the button. Sometimes you have to realize why you're not always going to win. You might be able to get something in the vicinity of what you need. And sometimes that has to be good enough. So we know there's an issue coming up in the next couple of years. When you look at the revenue projections, we are showing reduction in revenue. We've seen reduction in revenue for corporate taxes. We're seeing reduction in revenue in the out me/rp 42 years. We know that it's coming. Somebody yelled at me, but I compared it to the Titanic. Well, there is an iceberg. It's dead ahead. We can't avoid it. We can't miss it. You can't turn it that quick. We might be able to make some adjustments and change the trajectory a little bit, and that's going to be work that we're going to have to do in the next biennium. God willing, I'll be here to help you next year, but we have to clean up the mess. Thank you, Madam
Thank you, Representative. Representative Polletta, the 68th ranking member of the Finance Committee, you have the floor for your remarks.
Good evening, Madam Speaker, and I hope you're well.
Thank you. Good evening. me/rp 43
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks this evening, I would just like to acknowledge the very hard work of my ranking member, Representative Tammy Nuccio, and the work that she did in putting into this document that we see before us today, especially as it relates to some increased funding for some of our towns and cities across the State of Connecticut. And I would be remiss if I didn't think, my good chair on the finance side, Representative Maria Horn and Representative Walker, the rank of the chair of the Appropriations Committee for their continued efforts in the budget process each year. So I thank them for that. I would like to echo a few of the words of what my good colleague from town said. But before I start those remarks on today's budget, I would like to talk a little bit about what our side of the aisle put forward as an alternative to the document that we have in front of us today. I really was proud to stand with my house republican colleagues to present a balanced budget, just a few short weeks ago. And in that budget, it included long-term sustainable tax me/rp 44 relief for the residents and taxpayers, and small businesses here in the State of Connecticut. It also included additional tax relief, which I am so sorry that it was not included in today's document, in the form of eliminating once and for all the tax on your Social Security benefit. The House Republican budget was properly vetted and presented, and led by our House minority leader and the leader of the Appropriations Committee, excuse me, the ranking member, and of course, myself as the ranking member of the Finance Committee. One thing we had in mind was how to ensure that residents can remain in their homes and afford to live in the State of Connecticut. We wanted to make sure that residents could afford to retire in the State of Connecticut. And we wanted to be sure that we fully funded education because what is more precious than our children? The most precious asset that we have in the State of Connecticut is the future generation. That is our children. The children that are educated in our public schools. Mayors for selectmen advocacy groups around the State of Connecticut came to the capital to ask for more funding for education and for me/rp 45 basic services so that each town and city could individually build their budget on something sustainable here from the State of Connecticut, a sustainable form of revenue, a sustainable stream of revenue so that the property tax burden that is impacting everyone on the scale could at least be halted or tamed because every single town is seeing this across the State of Connecticut. We are seeing gaps in budgets. We are seeing budgets increase over the last four or five years to the tune of 30, 40, 50%. Mill rates are skyrocketing. Property values are increasing. The people that pay taxes in the State of Connecticut in the middle class workers are finding it ever so hard to get by. That's why my hope was that the house republican budget adjustment would have been adopted. Unfortunately, a lot of what was in that document is not in this document today. Our focus on property tax not only in the form of education, fully funding education, but it was also in the form of Hartford telling and sending a message to municipalities that we had their back. I was pleased to see that in today's budget adjustment, there is a significant investment in education. And me/rp 46 even though it's one time, an appropriation to our towns and cities so that residents can feel at least a little relief. Now, I would like to think that because of our advocacy and that document that we put out and we stood in solidarity with, those ideas were included in this budget adjustment today. And I'm grateful that some folks in this chamber will see some real tax relief. I served for four years on the town council in the town of Watertown. Every person that came in to speak in public participation around the budget time would say, please help us out. Please. We are struggling. Our Social Security has not increased at the same rate as our property taxes. I can recall a great Aunt of mine having a long conversation about how she worked her entire life, only to find out that she couldn't remain in her home. So when I got elected to the legislature, one of the things that I felt was most important was trying to make Connecticut more affordable for those people. Not the folks that are at the way high end of the scale that don't feel the inflation. No. The folks that have worked me/rp 47 their entire life that might have saved a little bit, that might have helped their children through school, that are now finding it harder and harder to get by here in the State of Connecticut. So property taxes remain a focal point of mine, and it was a focal point of the House Republican alternative budget. Now, Madam Speaker, I could speak for a long time about that, and I will offer an amendment shortly on it. But what I will say is that I have to give credit where credits do that, the allotment of money that was placed into SB 1 will at least start to recognize that this is an ever-growing, increasing issue around the State of Connecticut. And when we reconvene next year to set our biennium budget, I hope I hope that that is at the top of the list of priorities, fully funding education and making sure that if we tell a town or city to do something, we back it up with funding. The unfunded mandates need to end. A few moments ago, we spoke about properly vetting requests in the budget. I was pleased to see that that passed the House and it now sits on the today upstairs that the Senate will take that bill up and that the governor will ultimately sign that bill because every single me/rp 48 dollar that we send home to our districts out of this place should be properly vetted, and legislators should stand by their requests because we have seen too many times in this building taxpayer money misused. So we owe it to the taxpayers in Connecticut to properly vet every single dollar that goes back into the districts. And I hope, and I will stand right there if that bill is passed and signed into law. And quite frankly, it would be a shame if it's not signed into law. Another part of this budget deals with the hospitals. And Madam Speaker, I do have a brief question for the good chair of finance. I was just wondering through you if the good chair could briefly explain how we are going about the hospital tax, how can we ensure that our hospitals are sustainable, especially those that have struggled over the past several years, and what the long-term outlook is through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Horn. me/rp 49
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I thank the excellent ranking member for unerringly pointing his finger to the most complicated part of the document in front of us. And I refer back to my earlier comments about the tremendous work of our particular nonpartisan staff in OFA and LCO on this one. So, I will back up a little bit. So we are currently operating in the last few months of the hospital settlement agreement, which defines taxation of our hospitals, and it's a system that many other states also use, in which we tax the hospitals, and we reimburse them, and we get some payments from the federal government in order to make them whole and provide a little extra revenue for the hospitals. That is expiring this summer, and so this document contains a new agreement. In our underlying budget that we passed last year, before we were really able to get to any sort of agreement, we put some numbers in there because we knew we would have to change it. But among other things, we need to adjust that because those numbers are out of compliance with the federal rules, which changed since we passed the budget last year. me/rp 50 I will note the current long-term position of our hospitals. The overall, statewide marginal profit of our hospitals is a negative 2.3%. So our hospitals are struggling. I think we all know that. We've had to recently been here in order to effectuate a joint venture with UConn to take over several hospitals in the state that we feared were on the verge of failure. So this is a significant problem. What we have in front of us represents a strong and equitable way to provide the most revenue that we are able to under the structures of this federal taxation structure, so that the hospitals get as much financial resources as we can give them. It maxes that out, again, without any burden to Connecticut taxpayers. It will process wise. Whatever we pass today still has to be presented to and approved by CMS at the federal level. And so, we believe that this is in compliance with that, and we hope that it will. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Polletta. me/rp 51
And thank you, Madam Speaker. And I thank the good chair for her answers. And I am pleased to say that these were bipartisan negotiations keeping our hospitals in mind, but also keeping their long-term sustainability, and of course, the taxpayers here in the State of Connecticut in mind. So I thank the good chair for her answers on that. I represent part of Waterbury, and it's no secret that we've had a struggle with a local hospital in Waterbury, and thanks to good work, people in this chamber in the governor's office, we did have a new day and a bright future for the former Waterbury Hospital. But I would hate to see other hospitals in that same situation. And time and time again, we have heard that our hospitals are struggling. So we must do everything we can to build that relationship with them, not be an adversary, and make sure that we're working together with them to provide not only great access to health care, but at an affordable rate and not overtaxing them. And that is so important here. And we've heard from the advocates that health care is too expensive. What we've also heard from our hospitals that it's getting harder and me/rp 52 harder to compete and to do business. And we want to make sure that we're keeping that in mind. But again, I'm very happy, pleased that this has been negotiated on a bipartisan basis, and hopefully will provide some long-term structural relief. I have to mention, it wasn't too long ago when we heard someone say that when you want to rob a bank, you go to the hospitals. That was unfortunate. That was probably one of the lowest points when I sat on the finance committee, some nine years ago. We've moved far past that, and I think we're in a better light right now. And that's good news. Through you. Madam Speaker, another question to the proponent of the bill. So federal funding has been a bone of contention here in this building for a long time. We've heard a lot about the potential loss of federal funds. We went as far as to create an emergency fund that the governor could use. Should we lose federal funds? But the recent briefing, with our revenues and estimates, we received some news that, for one time next year, we were looking at over $130 million in federal funds, that would be available here to us in the State of Connecticut. I was wondering if the good chair could just speak briefly about that me/rp 53 one-time revenue that we will see in fiscal year '27 through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Horn.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And again, thank you to the good ranking member for the opportunity to talk about this, which is really important. Yes. There is in our revenue schedule a reflected significant increase in federal funds. That is not a reflection of the federal government to provide more resources to Connecticut. It is a timing issue. As you all may know, there was a great deal of complexity that was introduced at the federal level quite recently, and that delayed some revenue that we expected to get, some federal grants we expected to get in '26, and push them. So that number came down and push that revenue into '27. So it is, as the good ranking member noted, a temporary timing-related thing. It's not me/rp 54 something we should depend on in the future through you. Madam Speaker.
Representative Polletta.
And I think the good chair for her answer. I will just say that I am pleased that the potential cuts that were once mentioned continually here have not necessarily been realized. And I will say that because for a while we were extremely concerned about the element of the unknown down in DC, but for a good reason, I guess there's, Congress has been somewhat dysfunctional, for the past several decades. It seems like they get nothing done. I wish that we could change that, but it doesn't ever seem to happen. So, as someone who just can't remember a time when Congress actually worked for the betterment of our state and for our people, I hope that one day, we can have a more steady stream of me/rp 55 revenue and have more predictability, no matter who is in charge. And Madam Speaker, one more question. I did speak a little bit about our small businesses around the State of Connecticut, and I think we need to keep them in mind, especially as it relates to how difficult it has become here to do business in the State of Connecticut. So I would just draw my good share over to Section 274. And in this section, it calls for OPM to submit a plan to the legislature for a productivity surcharge. It's a proposal that I'm a little concerned about. And I was wondering if the good chair could just answer that. If there are any productivity surcharges, can we guarantee that they will have to be voted on by the General Assembly and signed into law by the governor if any surcharge were to be adopted? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Horn. me/rp 56
Through you, Madam Speaker. Again, my great thanks to the ranking member for emphasizing some really important parts of this document. I want to back up a minute and talk about because he emphasized the importance of small businesses, and I just want to make sure I don't lose the opportunity to mention two revenue policies that are in here that are targeted at small One is the extension of the R&D tax credit to small businesses, and the other is to offer tax credit to small businesses to encourage employers to offer health care reimbursement accounts to their employees. And with that, Madam Speaker, I'm going to ask if the good ranking member would mind repeating his actual question to me.
Absolutely. Through you.
Representative Polletta. me/rp 57
Through you, Madam Speaker. And this is in Section 274, and it talks about a surcharge potentially for small businesses. And my question very simply is, can we guarantee that any surcharge, for productivity, would have to have a complete and total vote through the general assembly? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Horn.
Thank you. And thanks to the good ranking member for his patience. Yes. So, that particular section grew out of an inquiry and a conversation in the finance committee this year about potential losses due to AI. And so this is a study, and, yes, if there are any surcharges that are recommended out of this study, it will certainly come to the finance committee, I would expect, and to this chamber as a whole. Through you, Madam Speaker. me/rp 58
Representative Polletta.
And thank you. And I thank the good chair for her answer, and I'm happy to hear that, because anytime I see a surcharge, or any threat of raising fees, especially on our small businesses, it certainly is a little concerning to me. I don't have any more questions for my good chair of the Finance, Revenue Bonding Committee, and I thank her for her responses. So, back to affordability. This document has a lot of great measures for increased funding to our municipalities. And that does get to the crux of my next part. And that is about how can we create long-term sustainable relief. As I mentioned before, the alternative document that we had presented had sustainable relief to our towns and cities. It created a number of tax reductions for the average resident here in Connecticut. And it also ensured that those folks that were working here paid taxes here. me/rp 59 It's no secret that the governor has said over and over that he would prefer increased taxpayers over taxes. And I couldn't agree with him more on that. We want to see the State of Connecticut thrive where more people are in the workforce, whether they be in a trade, whether they take their route of a four-year degree or more. But if they're working here and if they're working remote, they should pay taxes here. It's only fair. We are missing out on hundreds of millions of dollars in precious revenue here in the State of Connecticut, because many folks that work remote do not pay state income tax here in the State of Connecticut. Actually, they're getting ripped off because they're paying a higher rate to the state of New York. I don't want our workers that work here to pay their taxes to the state of New York. I think we're better stewards of taxpayer dollars here in the State of Connecticut, and they should pay income tax in the State of Connecticut. And I hope that in the future, we can tackle this in a bipartisan way. We have a new budget coming up next year. What better way to start than to take a look at our convenience tax? Now I spoke a little bit about property taxes, me/rp 60 and Madam Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment, it's LCO number 5790. And I ask that the Clerk call the amendment, and I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.
Will the Clerk please call LCO 5790, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule A.
House Amendment Schedule A LCO Number 5790 offered by Representative Candelora, Representative O'Dea at all.
Representative Polletta.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, this amendment does three things. And in light of talking about property tax relief and in light of talking about affordability, this amendment creates a new municipal property tax relief fund. me/rp 61 We spoke a lot about this in the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee about dedicating a streamline over to our municipalities, where they can tap into those funds, to provide property tax relief. It directs excess sales and use tax revenue to this fund, and it provides excess revenue to town so they can use it to offset tax increases. Section 501 creates a new municipal property tax relief fund, which shall be a non-lapsing fund to contain monies deposited pursuant to Section 502. And I just, be remiss if I didn't mention that it wouldn't start until fiscal year '28. Madam Speaker, I move adoption. I ask that when the vote be taken, it be taken by roll.
The question before the chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule A. Will you remark further on the amendment? Representative Horn, you have the floor.
me/rp 62 Thank you, Madam Speaker. My first note on this, always appreciate the discussion and the ideas coming from my good ranking member, but a budget is a complicated document. We received this bill from the senate, which passed as amended, and, therefore, I strongly, do not, suggest that this amendment be supported in this chamber. Then I'd also want to add to that, though, that the issues here are really interesting ones that we should discuss, and I would hope that we could engage in a bipartisan basis in conversations on this very topic, perhaps this summer. Through you, Madam Speaker.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark on the amendment? Representative Yaccarino, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, and good evening. I stand in support of it, but I do through you, Madam Speaker, I have a question to the good proponent. And then, through you, Madam Speaker, how will this work? Will it be through a trigger, me/rp 63 through revenue like the dollar amount, when you hit a certain amount, a trigger? I might have missed that? Through you, Madam Speaker.
Representative Polletta.
Through you, Madam Speaker, yes. It will create a new municipal tax relief fund, and it directs the excess sales and use tax revenue to that fund. So it'd be above and beyond that. So, yes, it would be the excess, which would go to our cities and towns to offset property taxes. Through you.
Representative Yaccarino.
Thank you. It's Saturday. We're out of practice for Saturday evenings. I appreciate that. I think it makes sense. A me/rp 64 couple of reasons because of inflation, and our sales tax numbers have been fairly steady or robust over the last couple of years. With inflation, I think they'll be a little more to give property tax relief to our towns. It might not be as consistent as we want, but give them relief. There are a lot of ways, and I went to DRS, that the state is missing out on tens and tens of millions of dollars at conventions, and they don't go out and check how many people are not paying their taxes. I believe the increased sales tax revenues over the last few years, the capture of more sales tax through the Wayfair decision years ago, from the Supreme Court, where states could collect these sales taxes. That's one of our reasons our revenue have gone up. So to help our municipalities with more tax relief, I think this is a good amendment. Anything we could do to help our taxpayers, especially our seniors, people on fixed incomes, single moms, single dads, anything we do will help everybody. Obviously, it's not going to pass tonight, but to the good chair mentioned, we should really look at this. This is something serious that we could possibly do. In. Even if it's in small amounts, we should do what we can to help. So I stand in me/rp 65 strong support, and I thank the proponent. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Representative Candelora. Candelora, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I also wanted to rise in support of this amendment. Part of the conversation I don't think we've had enough about is property tax relief in the State of Connecticut. Years ago, when we created this structure, where education dollars were sustained through our property taxes. I don't think any of us realized how much it would end up absorbing the education budgets. When my wife and I first bought a home, about 30 years ago, I remember doing our budget and budgeting our property taxes, thinking they would be sustained around $5,000 a year. me/rp 66 And I thought that was a good number, and it was something I could plan on for my future. Our taxes are now 12,000 a year after. And I think we all sit in that same boat. It's a universal issue. Connecticut is one of the most unaffordable places to live because of the property taxes. And I think we're number three in the country, but we are far exceeding everyone else. Where our median property taxes are ranging in, I think, the $6,000 ranges. Other communities are much lower. Just in my towns of surrounding towns in Durham, our property taxes are at 11,600. North Brantford is 8,000. Guilford is 11,400. East Haven is $7,600. And it's interesting to see, no matter what the median income is in these communities, those taxes are all around the same. So we are not taxing people's ability to pay. We're just taxing them based on the asset that they have, which is their homes, which we all care very much about in this chamber. So, I like this amendment. I think it will put the conversation in the right direction to start paying attention to the costs that are really impacting our homeowners. Thank you, Madam Speaker. me/rp 67
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Representative Ackert, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I also rise in strong support of this amendment. It is only Saturday. There's plenty of time to adopt this amendment and send it back upstairs. They could come in tomorrow and work on it. It would be okay by me. But we do have time to send it back up. If this was Wednesday at this time, I would say, okay, maybe not. But this is an important issue, I think, for our property owners in the State of Connecticut. We had, unfortunately, a reval in town and taxes went up 56%. 56% overall. The most creative thing that we did in the past was bury your property taxes into your escrow, and in your mortgage, so that you didn't really get to see overall that individual line item. And so if people had to go and pay every six months their property tax, they would be shocked. Shocked at how much they actually pay to stay in their home. me/rp 68 I read at some point, you never actually ever own your home. Because if you don't pay taxes on it, it's not yours anymore. And we pay a lot of property tax in the State of Connecticut. The good minority leaders. Correct? We are number three in property taxes across the country. We have an opportunity to maybe create a fund. I want complete structural changes, and I'll talk about that later, as they address the bill. But we need to do something. And this is an area that we can really work on. And I think creating a fund that would help, anything that we can do to help with property taxes to keep people here in Connecticut is what we really want to do. And so I stand in strong support of it, and I thank you for the time. And I thank the good gentleman for bringing the amendment out.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further just on the amendment? Representative Bolinsky, you have the floor.
me/rp 69 Thank you, Madam Speaker. And for the benefit of the chamber, just a little bit of life experience. I don't have a day, in any week, in quite some time, where I don't hear from multiple constituents, residents, neighbors about the incredible burden of our property taxes in Newtown. And I know that it's happening, those conversations are happening in towns all around the State of Connecticut. And one of the things that was in the Republican budget proposal that I had hoped might be one of the features that stuck was permanent tax relief for the property tax burden, which has become incredible enough that, for the first time in eight years, Newtown overwhelmingly rejected a budget referendum this week. And it sort of leaves us scratching our heads about where the heck the money to fund our schools is going to be. So, there are a couple things in this proposed budget that are very, very good. There are things in here that just don't take a long-term approach and a really good critical look at the problems our constituents face living in Connecticut today. The sustainability issue, people are tired of hearing the word sustainability. They don't need to be told that anymore. They live it every single day. me/rp 70 We need to accept this amendment, and then we need to go back, and we need to work on something that's not temporary because in the early stages of these conversations, we discussed things like changing the ECS Foundation as opposed to one-time relief, which is what we just got. So we're going to be right back here next year with a bunch of folks that are still paying unsustainable levels of taxation. So, I think this is a great amendment, and I think that having permanent policy, gives us a foundation from which to work forward and actually fully fund our schools, fully fund special education, take care of the permanent needs that have become, incumbent on the property taxpayers, because the State of Connecticut, just plain old, is not doing its job and not paying its fair share, and all of that's landing on the homeowner. So, this amendment is the stuff that good policy is built on, and I ask my colleagues to consider that and give it a nice, encouraging yes. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
me/rp 71 Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further just on the amendment? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machines will be open.
The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.
Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine their vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked. The Clerk will take a tally, and the Clerk will please announce the tally.
House Amendment Schedule A: Total Number Voting 148 Necessary for Adoption 75 Those voting Yea 49 Those voting Nay 99 me/rp 72 Those absent and not voting 3
The amendment fails. (gavel) Representative Polletta.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I'm disappointed that this amendment failed because I truly believe it would have been a steady stream of revenue to our towns and cities to provide long-term sustainable tax relief, that same tax relief that we talked about in our alternative budget. So I'm a little disappointed that this amendment did not pass and become part of the bill. However, I will take the good share at her word that we can have a robust conversation about long term sustainable relief, once our legislative session adjourns. So as I wrap up my remarks here, I just want to talk a little bit about where we were and where we are. I think it's very important to mention the dire fiscal climate that we were in just short 9 years ago. It was 2017 when the numbers were a me/rp 73 lot closer in this building. The Republicans were tied in the evenly. And while I was sworn in during the midst of a very contentious session, I got a firsthand experience at what it was like to truly have a bipartisan budget. As a result of that bipartisan budget, we instilled fiscal guardrails that have worked and paid dividends for future generations here in the State of Connecticut. But we have to remember how we got to that bipartisan budget. We got to that bipartisan budget because the residents and the taxpayers and even the politicians in Connecticut said that they had enough. It was tax increase after tax increase. We were known as the land of steady taxes. We were taxing cell phones, plastic bags, prepared meals, you name it. There was a tax on it. And we got the reputation as being one of the most tax states in the nation. Unfortunately, nine years later, it seems like we're taking a step back rather than forward. And there are some great ideas and proposals in this document, many of which I can support. And I just want to caution my good friends on both sides of the me/rp 74 aisle that we have to be careful that we don't return here next year facing budget deficits, potential cuts, and then having to go back to the drawing board to raise taxes. That volatility cap that so many people talk about, the average person in the State of Connecticut probably doesn't fully understand the volatility cap. But what that has done, and I have to give some deference to my friend upstairs, Senator Fonfara. He has talked about this volatility cap at length in the finance committee. We have been able to pay down upwards of $800 million of long-term debt. We still remain one of the most indebted states in the nation per capita. But thanks to that fiscal policy, we've been able to lift ourselves up and pay down some of that long-term debt. And what does that mean? When we pay down that debt, it creates savings in our budget. Eight X savings. You've heard that term used before. Okay? That money is not necessarily index, which some of us, both sides of the aisle, hope that it would be index so we could truly see the benefit of paying down that debt. But that money is swallowed into the budget and oftentimes unrealized. But the benefit of that volatility cap and what it has done to the State me/rp 75 of Connecticut over the last nine years is unbelievable. It's unspeakable. We should all be proud of that. We shouldn't go back on our word to the people of the State of Connecticut. Now this budget adjustment seeks to return some of that volatile revenue one time, albeit to the taxpayers, the towns and cities across the State of Connecticut, in hopes that it will be used to lower property taxes. And I applaud that. That was something that we championed, and that's something that the majority party has included as part of their document today. But I need to caution everyone that we should be finding that education money, that additional money in our operating budget. There's a way to do it. We presented a document that fully funded education without taking the one-time volatile revenue. So, it's tempting, I'm going to admit it, and it's easy for us to go back to our districts and say, hey, we have some money for you, town manager, select mayor, town council. But we have to remember that we are now paying down our long-term debt less than what we would have done had we not rated our volatile revenue. That's very important to note here today, and we have to be cautious about just grabbing that money each year. me/rp 76 Remember, people paid that money. Taxpayers paid that money. If it's going to go anywhere, it should go back into their pockets. It shouldn't be used for gimmicks. It shouldn't be used for one-time plugs. It shouldn't be used to balance budgets. It should be used, or excuse me, disseminated back to the folks that overpaid. So the original document had a 750 or so million-dollar one-time volatile revenue grab. This document, to my understanding, has a $413 million diversion. I'm glad that it's only 413 million, but at the same time, I'm a little concerned that is $413 million. If that makes sense, we have to be sure that we are adhering to these fiscal guardrails. I know that core programs are shouting at the rooftops for more funding. I know that boards of education are asking legislators to provide more funding to their districts. But I can assure you that if you open up our $57 billion biennium budget, we can find $170 million to provide our boards of education additional funding. We can find $100 million to provide our towns with some one-time funding. We can find revenue for long-term sustainable tax relief without going back on that covenant that we made with me/rp 77 the residents and the taxpayers in 2017. For those of you that were here, we were in session all year. We didn't leave. We adjourned, and then we immediately gaveled back in. And we were told it seemed like every week we had to come back in to adopt a budget. And I think it was all the way up until October that we did not adopt that bipartisan budget, which by the way, was the first ever bipartisan budget in the nation. If you were here in that room, I don't care if you're a Democrat or Republican, you should be proud of yourself for supporting such a document, a document that has led us to some stable fiscal ground. But just as quick as we pass that bipartisan budget and we patted ourselves on the back, we could revert back to the days of yesteryear when we were cutting military aid at funerals. When we were telling local towns, we didn't know if we had the money that we promised them two months before. That's what I'm concerned about. I want to be cautious anytime we break our promise and our covenant that we made with the taxpayers on those four very important fiscal guardrails. me/rp 78 So, Madam Speaker, I will conclude my remarks with a little bit of optimism. A little bit of thanks, but some caution moving forward. First of all, I'd like to thank again the chairs of the committees both in the Senate and in the House for their hard work in crafting the document, including some Republican ideas, as well as who's sporting a very nice hat. Representative Nuccio to my right for her hard work and the leadership on both sides of the aisle for taking into consideration our towns and cities. I have to say that I want to be optimistic about the future of Connecticut. The report that we received this week still shows robust growth, and our volatile revenue is still increasing. That's a good sign. Thanks to a good stock market. Thanks to some wise investments. That's a good sign. We should be using that to pay down our debt and lift ourselves up out of the bottom of the barrel in so many categories that we find ourselves in. But I want to be cautious moving forward. I want to make sure that we don't go back on our word, that we don't have to come back here next year and present a budget that raises taxes or fees in any way, because that would be a shame. me/rp 79 Hand out some money this year and then tell the taxpayers next year we need it back. I don't think that will happen, but I'm worried. Madam Speaker, I'll say that I hope that the majority continues to include the minority party in their discussions and negotiations that our ideas, I think, are important to include in any budget moving forward that the ideas that we've brought to the table in the past have been fruitful. They've served us well, and we should continue to operate like that. Not the way they operate in DC, the way that we operate in Connecticut in a bipartisan way. So we can be happy of the product that we go home with, not fearful of it. So with that, I'll conclude my remarks this evening. I will listen to the debate. I know that there are so many good points that are going to be made on this budget in the coming hour. And I hope that in the future we can continue to make good policy here in the State of Connecticut to have steady streams of revenue to our towns and cities, to provide long-term tax relief to our retirees, to our folks that are struggling, and to have balanced budgets so that we don't need to raise taxes in the future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. me/rp 80
Yes. It is Mr. Speaker, not Madam Speaker. Good catch. Thank you. The distinguished dean of the Republican caucus and my classmate, Representative Piscopo.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just wondering how many Saturdays we've spent together since we've been --
I can't count that high.
But it's good to see you up there. Thank you very much. I figured I should just get up and say a few words about the bond package. I'm ranking member on the Bonding Subcommittee. Our good chairman of the Bonding Subcommittee summed it up very well. me/rp 81 So I don't have to go into too much more detail. We worked very, very well together. He's my buddy from Waterbury. The good Representative from the 73rd District, and I'm proud to call him my friend. We developed a friendship from our committee work, and so I'm very proud to call him a friend and working very close with the senate chair too. I've gotten to know her very well and think very, very highly of her. She's one tough negotiator, but she's a good lady, good woman. And I'm proud to work with her. I said it in committee, but it's worth repeating here, that if things go real well for us on this side of the aisle this November and I become chairman of the Bonding Subcommittee, I hope to treat my ranking members as well as they treated me. They shared everything with me, and they were forthright in every step of what they were doing. They accepted some of my actual ideas about bonding. I approach the bond package with the philosophy that I believe we are borrowing too much money. So I always try and pair back the amount we borrow. So I come at it with that mindset, and they were very, very good to listen to me and take some of my ideas. And I'm very me/rp 82 appreciative. I don't want to bore anybody with a lot of numbers. You hear numbers, and you just gloss over right away. So very, very quickly, the bond biennium package came to our committee, $2.4 billion roughly. The governor had added about 300 million, a little over 300 million, to that 2.4. Basically, with that addition was the UConn Health. We were acquiring the hospital. So that was a big, big expense with that add on by the governor. Our committee worked on the budget, and we came out under the governor's increase. So we reported a budget out of committee below the governor's suggestions. Which I think was very, very good move. And on my part, I thought that was a very good move. And unfortunately, the bond package is a Senate bill. So it goes to the Senate. So it incubates up there in the senate, and it comes out of the Senate. A little different than we've sent out of committee. And the Senate added about 650 million more. I understand it's pretty much agency. I went through it real quick. Pretty much agency asks. There's a lot of things that come up in different agencies. Not too crazy, I gotta say, me/rp 83 as a whole and in my experience. So it's a package I could accept. It's a package that, if it was clean bill in front of us, I would vote for and ask my colleagues to support it. And so that's just a couple quick comments from me. And, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, sir. Gentleman from the 54th, Representative Haddad.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation in front of us and the adoption of this budget. I do so largely enthusiastically, but I have a couple of cautionary notes that I'd like to add as well, Mr. Speaker. First, I just wanted to thank Representative Walker as the chair of the Appropriations Committee. She's been a stalwart leader of that committee for a number of years. I've always enjoyed working with her, and I know that she endeavors as best me/rp 84 she can to put together a budget that makes sense and includes all sorts of good stuff for the people of Connecticut. Also like to thank Representative Horn and Representative Napoli, who I know do the same on the finance and bonding side, and the Republican counterparts. I think our conversations on the Appropriations Committee, I think, are matched as well by the Finance Revenue and Bonding Committee, takes perspectives from all sides. And that's what leads, I think, to the best product, at the end of the day. I think there are a lot of really good things about this budget. I'm really impressed at the work that has been done to establish the childcare endowment. A number of years ago, I had the pleasure to serve on the as the board chair, I'm sorry, on the board of directors of a non-profit, childcare facility in my local community. And was always really shocked at how difficult it was to maintain a staff at the staffing levels and staffing, salaries that we're able to provide, given the difficult environment it is, and how difficult it is for parents to be able to afford daycare. So I think the childcare endowment is a great step forward in helping to resolve a long-standing issue in the childcare me/rp 85 industry. I'm enthusiastically supportive of the investments in education, a $180 million additional support for local boards of education and municipalities, for education, and the $100 million extra money, for municipalities for other projects that they might need or for tax relief. The state needs to be a strong partner for our municipalities, and I think this budget demonstrates that, we can be. Mr. Speaker, I also really appreciate the work done by so many people, Representative Turco, and many others who've been supportive of school breakfast support, and universal school breakfast initiative in this budget, I think, is a long overdue and a great step forward. And lastly, I'd like to say, in terms of the bonding section of the budget, I'm really appreciative of a number of the investments that are being made in the University of Connecticut and our other public institutions. There's money here for facility improvements and faculty recruitment that is much needed at our public institutions. What I wish I could say is that priority of investment in higher education also extended over to the operational side of the budget. And I think that that's where I'd like to just spend me/rp 86 a few minutes. I'm tempted to say that you should just go back and look at my last year's speech, floor speech on the budget, or the year before that. I feel a little bit like it's Groundhog Day, and I'm about to say the same thing again. Investment in public higher education, significant investment in public education is lacking in this budget. I don't want to belabor the point, funding for the University of Connecticut and University Health, combined, is declining, not increasing. This is in the year where we just passed collective bargaining agreements that will -- across all of our public institutions, add an extra $200 million to their bottom lines. So we add $200 million of expenses. They're well-deserved raises for our state employees. I don't know that we could run our institutions without quality staff and faculty, and that is a necessary ingredient to maintaining quality at our institutions. But we provide no additional money in this budget to help cover those costs. I do know that there is a state statute, 5-278C, that requires that the state appropriate funds to cover collective bargaining agreements. I trust that when the RSA and other sources of money are distributed across the state agencies to me/rp 87 help pay for collective bargaining agreements, that there will be a strong case made to invest some of that money in our public institutions, to help them, too. I wish it was reflected in this budget, but I am hopeful that that will happen, anyways. What, in the end, Mr. Speaker, I just want to just put this in perspective. A few days ago, I heard someone say that they're really proud that the University of Connecticut is highly ranked as an institution as it is. But it is no longer ranked as high as it was just a couple of years ago. In 2017, The US News in their college rankings listed UConn as the 18th best public institution in the country. And this year, it is number 32. It has been a steady decline over the last 10 years. The University of Massachusetts is now ranked higher than the University of Connecticut as the top-ranked public institution in New England. I wish I could say it was still UConn. I can't anymore. The eighth article of our State Constitution requires that we must maintain a system of higher education, which shall be dedicated to excellence in higher education. I feel like what we're doing when we continue to fall short in our investments in me/rp 88 public higher education is that we're aiming for the middle. Maybe I should propose a constitutional amendment to take the word excellence out and just replace it with average because that seems to be what we're doing. I would like to end on a high note, though. There are some very good policy decisions here, and one of them is investing money in the Finish Line Scholars program. We've maintained a system of free debt-free college at our community college system for a number of years, and we are extending it in this budget to include students who are graduating out of our community colleges with an associate's degree. That promise of extra support is being extended to when they transfer into a state university system. And I think that that's an important way that we can ensure that there is a affordable pathway in Connecticut for students who are looking to earn a bachelor's degree. And I wanted to say that earlier this year, when many of us learned that there were some devastating cuts that came out of Washington, in particular, in my area, the budget, the cancellation of the graduate student loan program, the grad plus student loan program at the federal level, we knew that we had to do something about it. me/rp 89 And so a lot of folks, and I'm going to give it some names, some names here. Chief among them is Representative Shake, who's standing in the well of the house, and my co-Chair Representative Rochelle, my Vice-Chair Representative Rochelle, but also my ranking member, who I don't see in the chamber, but Representative Bronko, as well as my Senate, co-chair, Senator Slap, and ranking member, Senator Martin, work together with CHESLA to find an alternative to help replace the grad plus loan program. That loss of that program will lead to eventually to a reduction of $90 million of support for graduate students in Connecticut. It is essential money to help ensure that they can earn a graduate degree. This budget sets aside state bonded support, and allows CHESLA to use additional, private activity bonds to create a replacement program that will be relied upon by nurses, and teachers, and social workers across the State of Connecticut to ensure that we have a successful system of earning graduate degrees in Connecticut, despite the loss of federal support. On that high note, Mr. Speaker, I will close my remarks by saying I think there's a lot of good in this budget, but I think me/rp 90 that we need to be mindful of what we're doing to our public institutions and hope that in future years, we can make a stronger case for a greater investment in public higher education. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, sir. Gentleman from the 8th, Representative Ackert.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good to see you.
Good to be seen.
Thank you. Gotta start with a couple questions to the good chair of appropriations. I gotta say that being on appropriations the last two years has been quite enlightening in me/rp 91 a good way. In a good way. I always like to say how the sausage is made, and this is a lot harder to make. That's all I can say. So they do a great job of doing this. I don't agree with the numbers all the time, but I know the work effort that they put into this is extraordinary. I know that when my good minority leader said, I'm sorry, Tim. I need you on appropriations. I go now. I know why because it's a lot of work, and they even work harder the ranking, and the chairs do a fantastic job of putting a budget together. We may not agree with the numbers and how we could have done it differently. But I do know it's a lot of hard work, and they care about the State of Connecticut. Through you, a couple clarifying questions on some of the line items for you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like to start off with -- I believe I'm in the department of housing. Line item T-281 and T-285. Looks like me/rp 92 there's just some movement on the funding in that department. And it looks like we're moving money out of the housing and homeless services, maybe to the rental assistance program. Is that correct? Through you, Mr. Speaker. And why did we make that move? We’re investing different? What is that?
Representative Walker, do you care to respond?
Through you, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question, sir? Because I was trying to find T-281.
Yes. So it's under the Department of Housing where we created a line item T-281 rental assistance program, which had no budget, and now it has 94 million. And then there's a reduction in T-285, housing, homeless services of about similar amount of money in reduction. So it just a different me/rp 93 classification that we're moving from one area to the other and making a new line item. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Walker.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Thank the good gentleman for the question. That is exactly it's we're creating a separate line. It was their request to move it out and put it in an indicated line that you see on the budget through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Ackert.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And the investments are the same, though, in the department from what they've been doing. Is that correct? Through you, Mr. Speaker. me/rp 94
Representative Walker.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. That's correct.
Representative Ackert.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And then I did notice again, one of the things that we did is a new line item called various grants, which, again, is more transparency. We took different investments out of the OE or operating expense budget, made a various grants line item. But the one line item that I wanted to ask about was the various municipal grants, through you, Mr. Speaker, and what that $22 million is going to be for? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
me/rp 95 Representative Walker.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, there are several municipalities and towns that have spoken to leadership about some issues that they were having. Actually, we're putting some monies into there that will go with the review of the municipality, and then possibly turned over to them. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Ackert.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So they're legislative asks, per se, for their communities?
me/rp 96 Okay. And I think that it's very similar when we look at the various grants line item. Through you, Mr. Speaker, the various grants line items are again similar to the investments that we've made in the past that were found under OE, and we could call them all again. Essentially, legislative ask, continued legislative ask, let's say that the department of the boys and girls club that we've funded in the past. And so I throw out that document, I've come up with -- including the various municipal grants, about 103 million plus dollars in the various grants. And those were investments that we made into those different line items in the past that we're in OE. Oh, we just moved them to various grants, but it averages about a hundred -- I've seen about a 103 million, including the various municipal grants. I don't like using the term earmarks. I don't know what else to call them, but they were asked by a legislator for their communities, boys and girls clubs, different areas. Is that true to you, Mr. Speaker? I'm not asking that in a negative way, but I'm just saying that that is what we've highlighted that they're being used for. Through you, Mr. Speaker. me/rp 97
Representative Walker.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. That's correct. Yeah. Earmarks is a negative term, but it's a request from communities. Communities have certain needs. We've had a variety of different requests from different areas, even from boards of ed for different things for support. And they go through their legislators because they don't know who to contact up here. So the appropriate way is to contact people like you and I and say this is what I need for you to help me get connected with. And so we put a negative tone to it, but it's not a negative tone. It's people using their government the way that we should. With communication and an understanding of what the needs are, we can vet it and then find out whether it really is solid. So through you, Mr. Speaker, that is correct, sir.
Representative Ackert. me/rp 98
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to think of a different term to use. We'll call it a community investment grant in a way. How is that? Through you, Mr. Speaker, a couple areas that I struggle with this document is education cost- sharing formula and the funding component of it. I know, and I'll ask it as a question. The base grant for each community is 4%. Is that correct for every town? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Walker?
Through you, Mr. Speaker, are you talking about the EEC grant that we're doing or -- because ECS is a different type of funding. So there are two different types of fundings here.
Representative Ackert. me/rp 99
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess it would be the supplemental. You would call the supplemental grant, is a base of 4%. Is that correct? Through you.
Representative Walker.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. There are two tranches. One is the one with the $13,080 foundation grant? Then there's one with foundation plus 2%, and then there's one with foundation plus 4%. So there are different methods because some towns lost money because of low student participation. So that's one. Some had other issues that caused their dollars to go down, so they're different things of focusing. So what we tried to do is come up with different tranches so that we made sure that everybody got at least 4% in some way, shape, or fashion. Through you, Mr. Speaker. me/rp 100
Representative Ackert.
Thank you for the good chair and the answer on that. I think that my five towns that I have received the 4%. Through you, Mr. Speaker. That investment is a one-time investment. Through you, Mr. Speaker, is that correct?
Representative Walker.
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. It is one time because, as you know, the governor has created a blue ribbon panel now that's going to actually start to dig into the formulas and things. So we want to be cautious about how we do anything going forward until we study it, and we actually get some more data and hard data to help us understand the different components of the ECS grant. This way, we'd make sure we're still keeping me/rp 101 everybody somewhat whole until we find out what we're going to go forward within that. Through you, Mr.
Representative Ackert.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I believe that if they use it for education or they're supposed to use it for education, that that does not change their minimum budget requirement. Is that correct? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Walker.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. That's correct.
me/rp 102 Representative Ackert.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I guess in a way, I wish we were a little less cautious. I want us to have that 4% next year and the following year and the following year and on and on. I think one of the things that our community struggle with is the unpredictability of this building. And we want predictability. All of us do. Whether it's our businesses in our town, I've got my budget vote is on Tuesday. Tim, what are we getting? How much are we getting? Could you share the document? I can share it after today, but that doesn't help them with their budget. So they gotta get a little extra money. They're going to be happy about that. But then I'm going to say, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, time out. Don't plan that for next year. What do you mean? Are you going to take my money back? Well, I'm not taking money back. I'm just not going to give you that extra amount. And that's kind of where I struggle with what we me/rp 103 I want to have structural changes to this educational formula. When I look at what I'll call the community investment, I use in terms of -- those come up every year, perpetually over and over and over. We give them to these investments in those towns that the legislators ask for. That's year after year after year. For the most part, I see them document every I want to see that go into the educational formula for our towns or education investment for towns year after year after year after year. So we're still back to the 2013 funding. We add a little bit for this year, the 4%, but don't get comfortable with that because we're not sure what the blue ribbon, committee is going to come up with. That's kind of where I struggle with what we're doing with this budget. I have a small ask in here. I know that I only serve on three subcommittees, which is funny to say that. I know that the good chair and ranking serve on all the subcommittees. I think there's 88 of them or something. I'm not sure how many subcommittees there are, but there's a lot of them. We did talk about T-85/09, the Office of the Educational Ombudsperson. And we said, we are definitely going to keep that. We're definitely going to keep that. We're definitely going to me/rp 104 keep that, and then we go, we're not keeping that. So what was the rationale to take that one piece out, through you, Mr. Speaker? Sorry, Mr. Speaker.
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker. T-85. We talked about this one position. And I think during all the committee meetings, we were asked what is one position, and I do see that that was granted, but I heard all the good talk about why to keep, and I see that if we're not funding it through you, Mr. Speaker. Is there a reason why on T-85? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Walker.
me/rp 105 Through you, Mr. Speaker, I believe that that was a decision that was done through several caucus -- the couple of caucuses, and the governor's office. And the main reason is one of the problems we do have is we really don't have enough staff that are in a state department of ed to actually carry out the options and things that we have. And taking people for different positions sometimes takes away from what we need. We need people focused on certain things in education. And with the ombudsman, that is somebody that's taken off the grid, I guess, off the line. And that was not something that we thought should be doing right now. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Ackert.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I thank the good chair for her answers and the work again on this. I struggle with supporting this because to me, it's not a structural change to the funding me/rp 106 to our towns. And that's really where I pause. I came in hearing that we've raised the base. Wow. All right. We've raised the base on our funding for our towns. Can't wait to go back and tell them that. And I know that building a budget is not easy. Priorities are, there's not many people that have come up to me and asked about making sure that they had a breakfast in there -- and I know that was a key work for some breakfast in their schools. All I heard over and over, what are you doing about property tax? And I said, you know what? I think we're doing something this year with the educational cost-sharing base grant. I think we're going to do something with that. It's resonating throughout the building. And then I hear it's not. And I was not too happy driving. We got this document 12 hours ago, whatever. People ask what I read. When I read, I said, I read these things called statutes and bills. That's my enjoyable reading. So, like others that are probably happy with what they're seeing in this budget, I can say, it struggles that I want to give my towns predictability. I want to give our tax-payers me/rp 107 predictability, and this document gives us a one-year shot. And I'm just going to leave my comments at that, but I do appreciate the work by the finance chair, and the appropriation chair, and our good ranking members on the committee for hard work done. I think it falls short, though, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for
Thank you, sir. Gentleman from the 63rd, Representative Case.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good evening. Just a few comments and some questions to the good appropriations chair. So we have a document. It's great. There's a lot of things moving forward. 700 plus pages. If the good appropriations chair, I know she has the chair of human services in front of her. Where do we sit in this document as far as rates in the rates bill? Through you.
Representative Walker. me/rp 108
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to hand it off to the chair of the Human Services Committee.
Representative Case, would you be okay to redirect that to the chair of Human Services?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you to --
Representative Gilchrest.
me/rp 109 Thank you. Through you to my good ranking member on Human Services. It is my understanding that the document before us has a net increase of $5 million on top of what we put into last year's two-year budget for the Medicaid rates. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Case.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Five million. Is that what I heard? Through you.
Representative Gilchrest.
Yes. When all is said and done, I believe it is a net increase of 5,000,000. Through you, Mr. Speaker. me/rp 110
Representative Case.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I know the good chair she understands where I'm coming from with this. We have two studies that cost us $6 million. It says we need $400 million. Last year, we put $15 million. This year, we're putting $5 million. These are our people who take care of our most vulnerable. These are the people who are out there. Our doctors getting reimbursements. We know what we have to spend for rates that haven't increased in -- correct me if I'm wrong, 13 years or more. We know what we have to do. I believe beginning of session, we're at 30 million. We're down to 5 million. Wow. I didn't think it was going that low. Through you, Mr. Speaker, through legislation or through this, is there any increases to our nursing homes through this bill? Mr. Speaker.
To whom was that directed, Representative case? me/rp 111
I will go to either appropriations or human services, sir.
Volunteers? Representative Gilchrest.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. In the Medicaid pool of money, there is an increase to nursing homes. Nope. Wait. No. I stand corrected. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, no. There is a decrease to the nursing home in this budget. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Case.
To a gross decrease to our nursing homes about $19 million. If you look at the acuity's. Through you, Mr. Speaker, is there me/rp 112 any increases in here for our workers or our group homes for IDD population? Through you.
Representative Gilchrest?
No. There is not. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Case.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Something we have a lot of press conferences around here. I believe this would be for the good chairwoman appropriations. Anything for the homeless, the unhoused people in the State of Connecticut? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
me/rp 113 Representative Walker.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry. Could the good gentleman please restate it? And I like the jacket changed too. And just do.
It's very natty.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hey. So, since COVID, we had money in the budget and also COVID money that went toward cold-weather sheltering and homelessness. Is there anything in this budget that sustains that for the cold-weather sheltering we have here in Connecticut? Through you.
Representative Walker. me/rp 114
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes.
Representative Case.
Through you, Mr. Speaker's at still a $3.5 million from this past year, down from 5 million year before? Through you.
Representative Walker.
Just one second. Through you, Mr. Speaker?
Mm-hmm. me/rp 115
Through you, Mr. Speaker, we did not add any additional dollars in there. We just maintain what we had some of the underlying budget. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Case.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Do we know what that number is? Through you. Is it the 3.5 or 4.5 or the original 5 million that we had for cold-weather sheltering? Through you.
Representative Walker.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, the original amount, 3.5. me/rp 116
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Case.
So we started COVID with five million down to four, went to 3.5. So we have the 3.5 we're sticking with. So we have 13% increase in homelessness, but we have less money. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Walker.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. What the housing agency has decided they are changing the way they're funding that population, and they're trying to put them more into stable me/rp 117 facilities. So that's why they're doing their shift of some of the dollars in their budget. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Case.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the good chairwoman of appropriations for her answers, and maybe I'll get back on that committee sometime soon. There's a lot of questions, and there's a lot of things that go into this budget, and a lot of things between appropriations and finance and the things that they need to have and know. And when you're there, and you're working in subcommittees, you learn a lot of things. Mr. Speaker, there's a lot of things in here that I agree with. Some things that are coming back to my communities, some things that are happening with this document, but I put my hat on as human services, and I think my good chair would agree. Every question I asked on human services in this budget is a decrease. me/rp 118 Everybody in this room talks about Connecticut not being affordable, but we're decreasing our funding for the most vulnerable people in this state. Remember that when we talk about it. Connecticut is not affordable, but every question I asked about the nursing homes, the group homes, the homelessness decreases in this budget. Press conferences about this. We need more money. It's not here. Those are the people we talk about. Those are the people I deal with in human services with the good chair. I want to support it. I don't know if I can. Once again, every question I ask in the human services world because it comes from everybody out here, we're not affordable. Everything in my community that deals with the most vulnerable people is a decrease in this document. Remember that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, sir. The gentlewoman from the 18th, Representative Gilchrest. me/rp 119
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. want to start by saying I have a great deal of respect for the good chairs of the appropriations committee and the finance committee and all of the staff who have put in hours upon hours in this budget. And I'm very pleased that there are much-needed investments in education to help our towns. But with that said, just this week, we learned that revenue projections for the next fiscal year and this fiscal year are more than $580 million. And with this news, rather than it being all positive, this news came with a warning to this legislature not to spend recklessly. Since 2008, and you just heard my good ranking speaking to this, since 2008, we have not raised Medicaid rates for a number of providers here in the State of Connecticut. These are nurses who go into homes to administer medication. These are clinicians who work with children who have autism. And by not increasing Medicaid rates, we are impacting small businesses who employ these providers. We are sending Connecticut's workforce to other states who pay higher Medicaid rates, and we are impacting the entirety of the health care system. me/rp 120 We're also denying people access to care because when we don't pay rates, that means that people can't be employed, and then people are denied the care they need. We're also not paying our nonprofit providers here in the State of Connecticut what we owe them. These are folks who provide services to those who are homeless. These are folks who provide services to those with intellectual and developmental disabilities, those who have experienced domestic and sexual violence, those who have mental health conditions or substance abuse. When we don't pay our Medicaid rates, when we don't pay our nonprofits what we owe them, Connecticut is contributing to creating the working poor. And so, upon hearing the significant increase in the revenue projections this week, the message was clear to this legislature. We were told to make strategic investments, pay down our debt, and keep Connecticut on stable financial ground. Well, I believe that paying Connecticut's nonprofits, social service providers, and our health care workforce is a strategic investment. I believe that we should pay off our debt, but not me/rp 121 at the expense of our citizens being paid a living wage and people being able to access the services they need. And I believe that we can't consider ourselves on good financial ground if we're not paying our bills. And we owe our nonprofits and our Medicaid providers money. So in the next fiscal year, analysts are projecting 375 million more in revenue. And rather than 80% of that go into the savings program, I hope a greater percentage of the tax dollars our citizens pay into this government is reinvested in them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, ma'am. Gentleman from the 23rd, Representative Carney.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Through you, just one question to the good chair of appropriations. I'm just wondering, was there an increase in the tourism fund? And if so, what that increase is? Through you, Mr. Speaker. me/rp 122
Representative Walker.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, there was no direct increase in the tourism fund. No.
Representative Carney.
Okay. No. I certainly appreciate the good chair's response. And I've been here now for 12 years, and it seems like every year, we meet and it's bipartisan. We meet and talk about the tourism fund. We talk about how other states fund tourism more than we do. We talk about the nine-to-one return for every dollar you spend on tourism promotion, you get $9 back. And tourism has been woefully underfunded for a long time. And I know others know it. The good Senate chair of me/rp 123 appropriations even said earlier this year, it should be funded at about 50 million per year. We have high occupancy taxes. We now have an additional meals tax that I believe has raised about $550 million since that additional percent was implemented back in, I want to say 2019, and it really has not given much back to tourism. There was legislation proposed to take a half of that percent, and give it to tourism, the other half percent to towns, and that is not in this budget, unfortunately. I would hope that in the future, we can, as a legislature, come together to support tourism. It's extremely important, not only in my neck of the woods, but a lot of areas. And I think, taking that half a percent would make a huge difference. And I think taking the other half and giving it to the communities that have a lot of tourism makes sense as well. Looking at some of the funding for some of the communities along the shoreline that provide a great deal of tourism, Madison Waterford, Old Saybrook, and Westbrook, do not get nearly as much as many other towns, because in a lot of ways, the ECS funding, for example, the equalized net grand list average is higher than the states. me/rp 124 So it really knocks down that ECS grant. And one town I do want to focus on that I mentioned is Westbrook. And I'm hoping in the future that ECS, formula can get changed because a town like Westbrook, the median household income is actually much lower than the state average. That equalized net grand list is a lot higher, but it ends up really giving the town very little. And there's several other towns that are in the same boat that get that, only that base number. So I would hope in the future that that formula can get looked at, especially for a town like Westbrook. And as I said, I hope in the future that tourism will get funded more, because we need it. We've been talking about it for too long, and I know we can do it. I do want to take a moment. I've been doing some reminiscing, obviously, over my time here in the legislature. And I was thinking about the 2015 budget, which was much more contentious than this. And we were here, I want to say, until about 10:00 in the morning or 10:30 in the morning, and the budget passed by very But, since then, there have been four different finance chairs, four different appropriations ranking members, three different finance ranking members, and one appropriations chair. me/rp 125 And I just want to take this opportunity to thank Representative Walker for her work as appropriations chair over my 12 years. She is always held herself very well, whether it's tonight or, as I said, at 10:00 in the morning, in 2015. So I do want to just take this moment to thank her, because she really has made this budget process better, in my opinion, over my 12 years here in the legislature. So thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, sir. And I agree with you, Representative Walker. He's a gem. Representative Zupkus of the 89th.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise for one question, but I will say there are some things that I like in this budget, and there are some things that I really don't like in the process, and those things. But I do have a question, if I may, through you, Mr. Speaker. me/rp 126
Thank you. And I'm not sure who this is directed to. I think I know, but I'll ask the question to the proponent of the bill, and we'll see who answers it. So in lines 16381, Section 383, it talks about a nonprofit organization, and this whole section, Mr. Speaker, I've never seen. And so I'm curious, number one, if it had a public hearing or was talked about in the education committee. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
What's the subject so I can call on the right person?
It's education.
me/rp 127 Education?
Who would like to take a shot at this? Representative Leeper? Representative Leeper, would you care to respond?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Appreciate the patience of my good ranking member. My understanding is that CPAC dissolved, and this is allowing the state to fill that role in our engagement with families. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Roseanne Zupkus.
me/rp 128 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess my question is, this section did not have a public hearing to my knowledge. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, was this discussed, or did it have a public hearing in the education committee or any other committee?
Representative Leeper, she's asking about public hearings on this section.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. This was a recommendation of the State Department of Education, and I'd have to double-check if this was in the agency bill. If it was, it received a public hearing. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Zupkus.
me/rp 129 It did not have a public hearing. So, again, is that the chair doesn't know if it had a public hearing or it did have a public hearing? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Leaper.
I don't think I have a different answer than the one I just gave. I would have to confirm whether or not this particular ask was in the agency bill. If it was, it had a public hearing. If it was not in the agency bill, at least in the education committee, it didn't have a public hearing. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Zupkus
me/rp 130 Could the good chair look for it through you, Mr. Speaker, to see if it had a public hearing, if it was in the agency bill, or not through you, Mr. Speaker?
I believe she's answered that a couple of times. Basically, I understand. If it was an agency bill, or not.
So, through you, Mr. Speaker, was it in the agency bill?
Representative Leeper.
Mr. Speaker, can we stand at ease so I can confirm?
Representative Leeper? me/rp 131
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the patience. It was not in the agency bill that came to the education committee. It did not have a public hearing. This is replacing the education ombudsman and is federally funded for the next five years. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Zupkus.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate the answer that it did not have a public hearing, and we didn't discuss it, or come through the agency bill. So I do have a couple of questions regarding this. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, this is a parent training center, which is a nonprofit organization. Are these new nonprofits that are going to be created? Does it exist right now? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
me/rp 132 Representative Leeper.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I believe this is replacing the parent advocacy organization that has dissolved. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Zupkus.
Through you, Mr. Speakers, were they a nonprofit organization, and this is changing the name, or is this completely a new nonprofit organization? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Leeper.
me/rp 133 Through you, Mr. Speaker. This is the state partnering with a new nonprofit.
Representative Zupkus.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, Mr. Speaker, how are these nonprofits formed? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Zupkus?
I'm sorry. Representative Leeper. I was puzzled. me/rp 134
Three of Mr. Speaker. Could the representative repeat that question?
She wanted to know how these nonprofits are formed.
I couldn't clarify if you would prefer Mr. Speaker.
Go right ahead, Representative Zupkus.
I understand nonprofits. You have to have a 501(c)(3) and all of those kinds of things. However, since this is new, has anybody come to the state and they're talking about it? Is this going to be one organization? Is it going to be one in every me/rp 135 town? How are they going to be selected? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Leeper.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Do you mind if we stand at ease for a moment?
Of course. Representative Leeper.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. So this is just enabling the State Department of Education to find existing parent advocacy organizations and partner with them to fill the role that was previously done by CPAC. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
me/rp 136 Representative Zupkus.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I really don't mean to be nitpicking, but I just have never seen this before. And these are a new nonprofit that is going to be created in getting money from the state, and we don't know anything about them or what they're going to be made up of. And I guess I could go out and start a new nonprofit or anybody in here and do this work. So it's just a little concerning to me. I'm really on the education committee, about accountability and responsibility, and so I just want to make sure we have hundreds of groups and organizations that help in our education system, and we need to do better, in my opinion, with those groups. So every time a new group is formed, I literally go through bills and count how many councils and organizations that we work within a piece of legislation, and I don't see us making really strides. And so I'm hopeful that this group that I'm just trying me/rp 137 to find out about is going to be able to do something with the special ed, as I understand it. So that's why I was concerned or questioning what this is and how it evolved. What's it going to cost? I believe there's some awards through you, Mr. Speaker. What is the cost or the money that is going to be given out? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Leeper.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. So this is not creating any new organizations. It's just enabling the state to engage in partnerships and agreements with existing organizations that do this advocacy work, leveraging federal dollars. And the incentive is to save the state money by better partnering, to utilize federal funding for these purposes. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
me/rp 138 Representative Zupkus.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the good chair. I thought new organizations could be created under this. I understand we're going to be partnering with what we have. I just wasn't sure of what we have already in existence out there. And so they're going to be working with our special ed kids, as I see it, and provide training. Do we know of groups that already exist that kind of have all these things in place, so we're not recreating the wheel or having SDE to create all of these things that they don't have the staff for now? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Leeper.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the good representative repeat that question? me/rp 139
Representative Zupkus?
I guess I was saying that these groups, I understand, the good chair said they're organizations that already exist. I've been under the impression reading this. Some new ones could be created. They get these awards, and I want to make sure that there is accountability and responsibility. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, what is that accountability?
Representative Leeper.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would imagine that will be spelled out in the cooperative agreement that SD will be entering into with these organizations to deliver the services. Through you, Mr. Speaker. me/rp 140
Representative Zupkus.
Thank you. And we have any idea on how many -- I believe there was an ombudsman talked about prior in the education system for this, and I always thought it would be a lot of work for one person, one group, because we would have to create not a department, but basically a department to do that. And so with all of our schools, do we know how many of these organizations we're going to be working with? We can't give awards to everybody. I know it's in underserved communities as I see through you. So, do we have any understanding of how many groups, one in each town, one in a region, do we have any idea of what that is going to look like? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Leeper. me/rp 141
Through you, Mr. Speaker, no. I do not.
Representative Zupkus.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I do see in here that they will be submitting a yearly report, and I am hopeful that the education committee, because they have to give them to the education committee, that we really take a look at accountability and responsibility, and this group has some goals on what they have to meet, especially if we're going to fund them. And so we'll be watching. Hopefully, we'll have some good news next year, but I am disappointed that this came in, and really, I don't believe either one of us really knew anything about it. So, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
me/rp 142 We just hold off for a moment. It was a path like the motto. I understand you would like to recuse yourself.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. I'd like to recuse myself for conflict of interest.
Very good, ma'am. House will stand at ease for a moment. House will come back to order. The gentleman from the 81st, Representative Poulos.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's good to see you up there tonight.
Good to be seen, sir.
me/rp 143 Okay. I do have a question for the chairwoman regarding the supplemental education aid funding. Through you.
Which chairwoman?
Of appropriations.
Appropriations. There are three. So proceed, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the municipality used to supplemental education aid grant funding to lower their mill rate, or are they required to increase their education spending by the amount of the grant? For example, if a district sees a grant of a $100,000, can it then reduce its local municipal appropriation for schools by a 100,000, which would lower the me/rp 144 mill rate, or are they required to increase their education spending?
Representative Walker.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Could you just repeat the question? I think I heard most of it. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Poulos, kindly repeat the question.
Not a problem. Thank you. Can a municipality use the supplemental education aid grant funding to lower their mill rate, or are they required to increase their education spending for the amount of the grant?
me/rp 145 Through you, Mr. Speaker? No. They cannot.
Okay. So, if it must be used to increase education spending. Is there any guidance in this document or anywhere, such as using the funds for a one-time non-recurring expense to prevent a fiscal cliff scenario for municipality?
Representative Walker.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, we will be doing the training and everything that is necessary to make sure people understand, but that it's not in the document.
Representative Poulos.
me/rp 146 Okay. And just to confirm, for the record, this supplemental education aid is for the next two fiscal years.
Representative Walker.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, it will be recurring aid, at least for at least the next two years.
Representative Poulos.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have no further questions. Thank you. me/rp 147
Thank you, sir. Representative Farrar, 20th.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise with a brief question for the incredible chair of the finance committee and then a brief comment.
Proceed, ma'am.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the good chairwoman, if she could please inform us as a chamber in this bill before us, what is the approximate deposit into the early childhood education endowment?
Representative Horn. me/rp 148
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If you could give me a minute to make sure I get the appropriate exact number that the good representative is asking for, because I'm very happy to highlight it.
No problem.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to answer the question.
Proceed, representative Horne.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And excuse me for the pause, but we made some adjustments to that number very sort of relatively late in the budget process because we wanted to make sure we had me/rp 149 a healthy true-up. But the money that should be available to the early education fund is approximately $320 million. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Farrar.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the good chairwoman for clarifying that. And I just have a comment on the budget before us, and I really appreciate the good chairwoman's work on this budget as well as chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee because I know fully that if you are a parent or you know a parent, you know just how expensive it is to find affordable child care in our State of Connecticut being one of the highest cost states for child care. And if you are an educator who is caring for our youngest children, you know how hard it is to make ends meet on the wages that you are getting paid as an educator. And if you are an employer out there looking for employees, you know how hard it me/rp 150 can be to find an employee when they lack access to affordable and accessible child care. It is why, as the House and the Senate and with the governor's partnership last year, we established this historic early childhood education endowment to start to make an investment, not just for now in the children in our state, but for the future. And last year, we made a down payment into that endowment to make sure that we could start creating this investment. And because of that down payment of $300 million that we made last year, already this year, we've been able to expand to create a thousand new childcare spaces. We have increased rates to per early start providers by 8%, and we've also increased the scholarships available to our early childhood educators so they can continue to pursue this important field. But we know in this building that it takes a lot to have focus on an issue and to keep investing in it. And that's why I am very proud of this budget before us that really make sure that there's an additional deposit that is significant enough that in these future years, as we continue these deposits, that we can make real the promises around bringing down costs for me/rp 151 families, paying educators what they're worth, and also making sure that we are expanding childcare spaces throughout our entire state. I know that for so many families right now, they are struggling to pay the bills. And I hope that this commitment to early childhood education indicates to them we're not just thinking of them, but we know as a state that the best return on investment we can make is in the earliest years of our children. And for so many of our families that are struggling to pay their bills, I hope they also can see from us that in the years ahead that we will recommit to providing other additional direct tax relief that can support them to pay those bills. I know we've had discussions here today, even about the dollars that are going to our municipalities is the hope that that can stabilize our property taxes. But I do hope in this building and in our work moving forward in the years to come, we can look how we can truly acknowledge how much it costs to raise children in the state with affordable child care, with a child tax credit, and with the investments so that children are fed, they're housed, they have high-quality education throughout our entire state. me/rp 152 And I just want to, again, thank the good chairwomen for their work on this budget because it indicates that here in the State of Connecticut, we don't want to leave any child or any family behind. Thank you, Mr.
Thank you, ma'am. The gentleman from the 99th, Representative Zullo. One moment, representative Zullo. Could I have this aisle cleared, please, so I can see representative Zullo?
Representative Zullo.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not quite the vertical -- I don't have the height. Let's just say that these gentlemen, I me/rp 153 was trying to be cute about it, but I can't be cute. I'm just not tall. Okay? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We'll not argue with you, Representative.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise with just a couple of comments, if I may.
Go right ahead, sir.
Thank you. Last evening, when we were all here not too long ago, obviously, I stood up and lamented the fact that we were debating a bill that would seek to bring a very unwanted, very burdensome airport in my backyard, burden my constituents. And I'm saddened to see that in the midst of those provisions, which me/rp 154 obviously would not have passed last night, have been included in this budget package today. Obviously, once again, we know that that did not have a public hearing. I'm not going to ask anybody if it did. I know it didn't. It didn't get a public hearing locally. It didn't get one here. It hasn't followed one single shred of the procedures that we all propose that we stand by here, and yet it's here today. Very disappointed in seeing that. But I'll tell you what I'm more disappointed in. I'm disappointed in the fact that what this budget really does is it's about the current. It is not about anything structural. What we're saying in this budget is we're going to blow through what's left, frankly, of the fiscal guardrails, that we're going to ignore that volatility cap. But I know that these are terms that the average resident of Connecticut doesn't necessarily fully understand. And who could blame them, quite They're busy trying to make ends meet rather than feeling empowered enough to get ahead. We have retirees that are fleeing the state still in droves for other states with more friendly me/rp 155 tax treatment because, quite frankly, they just can't make it here. It doesn't make sense. I do hundreds of real estate closings a year. And I can't tell you how many of them end with somebody telling me, I just can't take it anymore. I can't afford to be here. I want to stay. I want to see my grandkids get their softball games and at their school plays. But I just can't afford to do it, which is sad because we really can and should be doing so much And so, because of that, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment. It is LCO 5808. I ask that the Clerk please call the amendment, and that I be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.
The Clerk is in possession of LCO 5808, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule B. Mr. Clerk.
House Amendment Schedule B, LCO No. 5808, offered by Representative Candelora, Representative O’Dea, et al. me/rp 156
Gentleman’s asked leave of the chamber to summarize. Without objection. Representative Zullo.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a very simple amendment. As you all know, over the years in the State of Connecticut, we've made strides in making sure that those who collect Social Security are not taxed on it as much as they used to be. I believe that started somewhere in 2015. And if you're lucky enough to be an individual who makes less than $75,000 in your retirement or perhaps a couple who makes over a 100,000, you don't really have to worry very much about social security benefits. But let's face it. This state is expensive to live in. And quite frankly, while those numbers are generous, they don't necessarily mean what they used to mean. And so what this amendment seeks to do is it seeks to make a very simple change to our tax code. It says that basically, we are not going to tax your social security benefits anymore in the State of Connecticut. Bottom line, you don't have to worry me/rp 157 about taking your AGI, deducting from it. You don't have to worry about if you qualify or if you don't qualify. What we're saying to our seniors, what we're saying to those who collect Social Security in the State of Connecticut, is we want you to stay here. We don't want you have to do a bunch of math and decide whether it's economically efficient for you to stay here. We don't want to make you choose between doing math and seeing your kids' plays or your grandkids' plays, your grandkids' softball games, wondering if you can make it here. We're going to make it easier for you. We're just going to say, hey. We want to incentivize you staying here. And because of that, we are not going to tax your Social And that's a very modest price tag. It's something we can certainly afford, particularly based on the consensus revenue estimates that are coming up. And, by the way, the funding mechanism for this is very simple. It says that if consensus revenue beginning April 2027 is two and a half percent higher than what we expected, then this gets funded. Bottom line. Otherwise, we don't fund it. So the bottom line is if we're making more money, the taxpayers benefit. Rather than if we're making more money, we go out and spend it. We take that money if me/rp 158 we're generous enough or lucky enough to have it. We give it back to the taxpayers, which is where it belongs. Mr. Speaker, I move the amendment, and I ask that when the vote be taken, it be taken by roll.
Question’s on adoption of House Amendment Schedule B. We will do it by roll call. Representative Horn.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And again, this is another interesting idea. We have had some conversations in the Finance Committee this year about providing tax relief that is conditional. The challenge with this one, in addition to some other is that we are tying in this proposal a permanent relief to what is, by definition, a volatile revenue, because that's where the growth in our Connecticut's revenues are. They are, by definition, volatile, and it's pretty risky to tie a permanent piece of tax relief to something that we know may not exist for more than one year. As in my earlier me/rp 159 conversation, I very much welcome the opportunity for further conversations about looking at conditional ways to provide tax relief that depend on other fiscal measures in the State of Connecticut, and I invite the good representative and to engage in those conversations. But I would oppose this amendment to you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, ma'am. Would you remark further in the House B? Representative Yaccarino.
Good evening. Yes. Good evening. Mr. Speaker. I stand in strong support of this. I think we all probably want to support this. It's just having the foresight to do it. And I think our revenues have been up about two and a half percent per year. And anything we could do, like I said earlier in the other amendment, to help our seniors, to keep people in Connecticut, the more people we have here to the governor's words, the more people spend money here. me/rp 160 And a simple economic equation is if you have a $50 more a month in your pocket, you're probably going to spend 30 of that for yourself, goes back in the general economy. We keep a little money for your own stuff, your grandkids. So I stand a strong support of this. Anything we could do to continually help our seniors, to keep people in this state and people in their homes that they worked really hard for, to stay in Connecticut and stay in your town. So I want to thank the good proponent, and I stand in strong support of this. Thank
Thank you, sir. Will you remark further on House B? Are you ready for the question? If not, guests, please come to the well of the House. Members, take your seats, the machine will be open.
The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. me/rp 161
Have all members voted? If so, the machine will be locked and tallied. And the Clerk will announce the tally.
House Amendment B: Total Number Voting 148 Necessary for Adoption 75 Those voting Yea 48 Those voting Nay 100 Those absent and not voting 3
The amendment is rejected. (gavel) Now, we’ll stand at ease. House, come back to order. Representative Zullo, you still have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you all know --
me/rp 162 Just a moment. (gavel) Could I have a little quiet? Please take your conversations outside. Thank you. Representative Zullo.
I appreciate that courtesy, Mr. Speaker. As you all know, I am fluent in Tweed. I gave you all plenty of runway for that amendment. I am sorry to see that it did not take off. But in all seriousness, I'm going to conclude by saying that I believe in a very simple principle that taxpayer money is better left in their pockets, better returned to their pockets than in the state's coffers. They work hard for that money. They deserve to have it whenever it's possible. Over the years, as some of my colleagues have noted, we have seen revenue fluctuate. We've seen more revenue come into the state, and yet this state has continued to spend, to spend, to spend. We have a bloated government. Spending is out of control. We have done nothing, not certainly enough to return enough money to those hardworking taxpayers. This was an opportunity to me/rp 163 return some of this money to people who really need it, to people who are fleeing our state, who are telling us time and again they are leaving because our state is not affordable. They cannot justify being here. I hope that as we move forward from today that we take a serious look at some of this conditional revenue. We find a way to return it back to the people who worked hard for it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, sir. Gentleman from the 13th, Representative Doucette.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good evening. I rise, just with a few comments, and I do rise in support of the bill tonight. I want to thank the chairs for all of their hard work. I want to thank our fantastic staff. I know, Zoe Gluck and Manchester's own, Tim Burgin, play a big role in this and spent a lot of hours on me/rp 164 I also want to thank our good speaker. It's one of my favorite moments of the session, when the speaker comes galloping into our caucus room to declare that we have a deal on the budget. He spends a tremendous amount of time on this document every year. So in all seriousness, I do want to thank him. Certainly, there are a lot of good things here, and I think the board will reflect that when it's time to vote. I want to talk briefly about two things that are not in this budget tonight. The first thing is new We, for the first time that I can remember since I've been here, faced a structural deficit in our general fund. Certainly, we've been fortunate for a good many years, since the 2017 budget, where we've been in a position of tremendous surplus and been able to do a lot of good things with that. But, for this year, we had a structural deficit in our general fund. We also, of course, have an affordability crisis, which is now very commonly referred to as an affordability crisis. But it's very real. It's very real. And I think we here in this chamber on both sides of the aisle acknowledge that we wanted to do our best to try to help our constituents this year, me/rp 165 particularly those in the middle class and the working class. And, why not? Because, as we know from our 2024 tax incidents report, the middle and working class in this state pay a much larger percentage of their overall income to state and local taxes than do the wealthiest among us. And, we have great wealth in this state. I don't have to tell folks here that we enjoy a reputation of being one of the wealthiest states in the country. Driving in tonight, I listened a bit to the remarks of the 46th, I think, if I have the number right, budget or budget adjustment bill. And of course, he himself also plays a great part in crafting this document. But he talked a lot about how oppressive our tax system is on those that can least afford to pay it. And we've all heard of these anecdotes. We heard the words of Warren Buffett, who laments how his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. Senator Looney talked about in his 46 years, we have done things incrementally to try to make our tax code more progressive. But of course, the property tax, which is a large me/rp 166 percentage of that burden for most people in this state, is inherently regressive. And we're doing something this year, of course, to hopefully alleviate that by sending the money that we are to municipalities. But, in order to do that, we've had to dip into our surplus. Instead of using the opportunity to create a more structural revenue source, to help fund. Because that deficit that we're experiencing in our general fund, certainly there's a lot of uncertainty on the horizon, with everything happening in Washington and the current occupant of the White House, and everything happening on the international scene. There's a lot of uncertainty out there. So again, I think we pass on an opportunity to talk about some structural reform to our tax code to provide relief to those that need it the most. And I know in the finance committee we talked, and for the second year we did pass a progressive revenue policy of looking at capital gains, which would be paid by those who make over a million dollars a year in this state, and would add progressivity to our tax code. So that's a conversation. I think perhaps in the spirit of Senator Looney, when he is not here, next year that we will me/rp 167 continue to have. The second thing that's not in this budget tonight is some long-term structural reforms to our fiscal guardrails. They've been very good. I was not here in 2017, when they were implemented. I arrived in 2018. And as I mentioned earlier, I've been fortunate since then to have a lot of good times in terms of our surplus and reserve. And we've been able to pay down debt. And that, of course, has been wonderful. But we do need to acknowledge, I believe, that there are structural deficiencies in the way that we calculate our guardrails. In the way that we calculate our volatile revenue. And again, since I've arrived here, the volatile revenue has been anything but really. It's been steady, and it has steadily increased our surplus, our budget reserve fund, and the paying down of our long-term pension debt. Which, of course, I think we all can acknowledge is a good thing. But, again, with respect to those who devise those guardrails, I think we need to talk more about long-term structural reform for the second year now. We are dipping in to our surplus to take something out to pay for the things that we need to pay for. And in this case, again, we're doing a lot of good things in this budget. me/rp 168 But frankly, I don't think that we can continue to do that. We need to talk about long-term structural reforms and acknowledge that those deficiencies are there. We shouldn't be back here again, dipping into that surplus on a one-time basis next year. So just two things that I think, that certainly we're bridging the gap this year. But these are things that we are going to continue to have to deal with. And I'll be supporting this budget tonight to bridge the gap to get us there, and to get us back here next year to hopefully talk about these reforms. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Mastrofrancesco?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise. I do have a couple of questions to the proponent of this budget adjustment, if I may.
me/rp 169 Please proceed.
Thank you. I'm looking at lines, let's see. On page six, I guess it's T-180. There's a series of grants available for people, and there was one of them, T-180. I was wondering if the good chairwoman of the appropriations, or whoever, can tell me what that program is and what it's for. Through you. Oh, here she comes.
The chamber will stand at ease. The chamber will come back to order. Representative Mastrofrancesco, would you mind repeating the question?
Certainly. Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I've had a little bit of time to go through this budget. I didn't go through this budget adjustment. I haven't gone through every all 700 pages, but there were a few things that kind of stuck out to me. And me/rp 170 I'm looking on, I guess they're called grants, earmarks, I call it, or grants, online T-180. I believe it's on page six of the budget adjustment, and it's called the JEEP program For 338,600. And I was wondering if the good chairman can explain to me what that is. Through you.
Representative Walker.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. That is a grant to a program that does activities in Waterbury. I don't know exactly the details. Hold on one second. Through you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize. It is a program through the military department.
Representative Mastrofrancesco.
me/rp 171 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for clarifying that. And I look at some of these grants that we're handing out that are in this thing. And you look at the name, you don't really know what they are. I'm looking at Section 466. I believe it starts on line 19146. And there's over 200 organizations in there getting grants, airmarks that total over, I believe, $7.5 million, which is a lot of money. Through you, Mr. Speaker, all the various grants that are in this proposal before us today, can you tell me what the increase is over from the previous budget? Through you.
Representative Walker.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, there is a flat amount depending on how many people are actually participating in the program, but the funding that you're talking about there's not an increase. It's a number of participants that are in that program. Through you, Mr. Speaker. me/rp 172
Representative Mastrofrancesco.
Thank you. And I believe that is just on that one section. It was $7.5 million just on that one section, four six eight, which there's over 200 organizations. But my question revolves around outside of that section. Just all the grants, not including municipal grants, that are going to various organizations. Can you tell me what the total is in this adjusted budget and what the total was in the previous budget? Through you.
Representative Walker.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the total amount was before because we just now created the various grants that we moved the items into from OE into the various grants. So me/rp 173 this is a new category or a new said that we're doing with this throughout the budget. And I don't think that there is an increase in that. I'm not sure. I did not compare the two. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Mastrofrancesco.
Thank you. Thank you for that. Would you be able to tell me, through you, Mr. Speaker, can you tell me what that total is in this new category? Through you.
Representative Walker.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I don't have the total for all of the various grants throughout the budget. I just know about certain specific ones. The ones that you started identifying are me/rp 174 in one category. I think that was judicial. Then you also have various grants in state department of ed. You have various grants in Department of Economic and Community Development. You have various grants through social services, DSS. I'm trying to think. There's some in the higher ed. So you have various grants in mostly all of the agencies throughout the whole budget. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Mastrofrancesco.
Thank you. Thank you for that answer. I was not really concerned about the municipal grants. It's these grants going to organizations that we don't really know much about. And if I heard you correctly, the process when you were speaking with our Representative from the 8th District here, that these grants or airmarks are requested by legislators. Now, during this session this year, and this is where I have the concern. We voted on a bill here, 5039, and gave me/rp 175 transparency and oversight to these organizations, to these grants, these earmarks that are being requested by legislators. So it provided transparency because we have a list. When I look at just this one section, 466, there's over 200 organizations that are getting grant money, and we know nothing about them. We don't know if they were vetted. We don't know if they have a website, if it's an LLC. Do they have a corporation? Do they have a business? How many employees? We know nothing about it. And yet we did pass that bill this session. Overwhelmingly, everyone in this chamber voted for it. But sadly, today, it sits in the Senate calendar. It just sits there. We don't know if it will get passed. We don't know if there's time for that to get passed. So, these organizations can be vetted and go through the proper process when they're getting money that belongs to the taxpayer. My point is that we are getting late in the game. We don't know if that is going to just sit on the calendar. But if we really were concerned and we wanted transparency, we could have put that bill in this implementer like we have done with other bills that had passed through here. me/rp 176 That could have went into this implementer, and we wouldn't have to worry about whether or not the Senate is going to have time to change it or not. And that is a big concern. I looked based on our numbers here. It was over $60 million more in grants. Don't know if that number is correct, but it's just somewhat of an estimate. So that is my concern on these grants, airmarks, whatever you want to call it. We definitely need to provide more transparency, as we have seen in the news. What happens when it comes to certain organizations having more privilege over others, getting taxpayer money, and not really knowing where it is going is a big concern of mine. Aside from that, overall, in this budget, I do think there's -- most likely, there are some good things in here. I'm glad to see that our towns and cities are getting a little extra funding that may help them. I don't necessarily know what's going to help them bring down their mill rates. Every town is different. It may in some cases, and it may not. But in this state, we have a real problem with our citizens depending so much on taxpayer money. And our towns depending so me/rp 177 much on our grants and the money that we're getting from the state, or I would say, actually, from the taxpayers. The problem I'm having with this budget is that it doesn't cut any spending. It actually increases spending. It doesn't address affordability at all, in my opinion. When I talk to my constituents, the first thing they're complaining about is affordability. And there's nothing in this budget that's going to help them on a daily basis, and that is my concern. I talked to many businesses, and they are overwhelmed and overburdened with regulation and taxes. And they want to stay here and do business in Connecticut, but they're finding it very difficult. This budget before us today doesn't address that. It's really interesting when I listen to the debate where there is praise that this budget doesn't raise taxes. And perhaps it doesn't, but I think we've had our constituents accustomed to that. It's okay if it doesn't raise taxes, but we're not going to lower them, and that's okay. Our residents are still being overtaxed. We shouldn't be praising a budget that doesn't raise taxes. We should be angry that it is not lowering taxes. It's not acceptable, in my opinion. It falls very much short. Even on our local property me/rp 178 taxes that we have that we pay for, our mill rates are reflective of the amount of taxes that we pay on our property, our home. It's unrealized gain that we're paying taxes on. There's nothing in this budget that addresses any of that, which I find very concerning. And again, as our representative, in our 63rd District, talked early about our nonprofits, our most vulnerable, are being cheated out of this budget. But yet we have all this money in earmarks for organizations that we don't even know anything about. And yet the ones that are most vulnerable, I think, are getting -- well, they're not having justice done. I guess I would say. And I also don't see in this budget adjustment a path for the future for affordability. Every time you increase spending, I hear a lot that people say, your budgets are always going to increase because things go up. When your budget increases, that money has to come from somewhere. And unfortunately, it's coming from our taxpayers. We cannot stay on the same path. We have to make the state more affordable. We have to entice businesses to come here into Connecticut. We have to help people self-sufficient without relying on the government. Over a third of our residents here in me/rp 179 Connecticut rely on some sort of assistance, and we need to get them to a path of independence because we keep losing people in the State of Connecticut moving out. We keep losing our businesses. And I think if I talk to most of my colleagues here, I think we all want the same thing, but we may disagree on how to get there. And I've had this conversation with many of my colleagues. This budget is not nearly going to achieve any of that. It just the same. Doesn't increase taxes, provides a little extra funding for your towns, which is great. What's going to happen next year? There's going to be a disaster. It's going to be a big fall. We're going to have to make up a lot of that revenue. And the bottom line is that it's increasing spending because when you increase spending, someone has to pay for it. We don't print money in the basement here, as I've heard Again, Mr. Speaker, those are my objections to the budget I will not be supporting today. And I hope going forward that this body can work together to make Connecticut more affordable because surely this budget doesn't do it. It is not today, and I hope things will change in the future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. me/rp 180
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended for the second time? Representative Nuccio, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I just rise for a point of clarification. A few speakers ago, Representative Poulos asked about the intent of the supplemental money that is in this budget. And I just wanted to clarify, in Section 178 of the budget, I'd like to read it so it's very clear. It says, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12-142 in the general statutes, Title 7 or 10 of the general statutes, Chapter 170 and 204 of the general statutes, any special act, any municipal charter, or any home rule ordinance, if a municipality or regional board of education has adopted a budget or levied taxes for the fiscal year ending June 30th, 2027 prior to the adoption of the state budget, which is what we're doing right now, for the said fiscal year, such municipality or regional board of education pursuant me/rp 181 to the adoption of state budget an amount of state aid more than the amount projected in the municipality's or regional board of education's adopted budget, such municipality may -- first, municipality may vote by its legislative body or a municipality where the legislative body is a town meeting by vote of the board of selectmen or two regional board of education and may amend its budget and not later than July 1st, 2026, adjust the tax levy in the amount of any remaining installments of such taxes. The amendment to such budget shall be in amount not to exceed the increase in state aid to the municipality or regional board of education. So this supplemental money does not have to go to the board of ed. If your budget is already passed, your budget is passed. This does not say, like, if you have to increase your board of ed budget. What this says is you have the ability to adjust your mill rate as long as you do so no later than July 1st, 2026, because your budget is already passed. At that point, you can go in and adjust your mill rate down with this additional revenue. So it does not have to immediately go to the board of ed, especially if your budget is already passed. If your town has not passed a budget and decides it me/rp 182 wants to use this money for your board of ed, it can. But if it is already passed, it can go to lower the mill rate. So I just wanted to make sure that that part was clear. And in regard to the ongoing piece from how it's been explained to me from the ECS portion, the money that we're putting in right now, up until the 2% increase for people who did not get an education bump, through the formula, that money will be ongoing, but the additional 2% is not. So it is partially ongoing, partially not. So, I just wanted to make sure that that was entered onto the record, and clarified so everybody fully understood Section 178 of this budget bill, which allows a town to lower its mill rate and have actual property tax relief, which was the intent of -- that was one of the things that we specifically looked for and asked for in this budget. So just clarifying, make sure everybody understands that, sir. Thank you. Oh, and I'm sorry. The Mashantucket Pequot money, that $100 million of the increase in Mashantucket Pequot money is also one-time and can be used that can to lower your budget, period. It is property tax relief because that's extra revenue that's coming in. So this section here in 178 will me/rp 183 account for both of those numbers being able to lower your mill rate. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative O'Dea.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I've been listening to the debate all night. I just wanted my good colleague, the chair of Banking, had made a comment about how we may need to raise taxes on the wealthy. And I am not one of the wealthy, although my district is usually pointed to. I joke I live on the other side of the tracks, if you will, in New Canaan. There's 1.7 million taxpayers in the state, personal income taxpayers. And so 1% of those people, about 17,000, pay roughly one-third of the taxes, state taxes. One third are paid by 1% or 17,000 people. I did have a colleague in New Canaan, a friend of mine moved to Florida a number of years ago, and he alone accounted me/rp 184 for large percentage of the probate court expenses. Now he could afford to pay it, but he chose not to. And his quote to me was, you're making it too hard for me to stay. It would just be stupid for me. I can move and save so much money that I can buy a house, and the tax savings that I would have by moving to Florida. And you saw the governor of New York begging the high taxpayers to come back. So, while I truly respect my good friend Chair Banking, the answer is not going to be having our higher taxpayers pay more in taxes. They are most able to leave. It's never been easier to leave the state you're in to a less taxed place. The top 5% taxpayers, or roughly 85,000, pay roughly 50% of our personal income taxes received. So if we chase out those 85,000 people, we lose 50% of our personal income tax receipts. That logic makes no sense to me. So please, before we start saying let's raise taxes to fix our budget problem that we see in the out years, which is going to be a disaster, and that's why I'm leaning towards a no. And I understand why there's going to be a number of yeses on this side. I am petrified of what's going to happen me/rp 185 I was part of the process here in 2017, where we passed the Republican budget that became the bipartisan budget that put the fiscal guardrails in place. We have eroded the volatility cap. We've paid down roughly 12 billion in our ultimate debt, but we've added 10 to it in our raises that we've given. So I'm really afraid of what's going to happen in the out years of this budget adjustment. And I'm begging my colleagues, don't look to tax those that are already paying 50% of the taxes, personal income taxes, because they can leave. And I told this story, I know we're at the end of the night, but the story I've told many years in this chamber, bunch of guys go to a bar, college friends, and every year they meet. And one guy did really well, another woman did really well, and the other guys didn't do so well, but every year the bar bill would come, and the two top earners would say, hey, guys, don't worry. The 10 people will pay it. And then, like, a third year, the bar owner said, you know what, guys? You're here every year. I'm going to pay it. Here's your money back. And there's 10 of them. So the $100 bill, two of the people paid the whole bill. So the bartender gave a $100 back, said thank you for coming here. me/rp 186 And so the other eight people said, well, let's split it equally. Let's all take $10 back. That's a $100. And the top two pairs, the woman and the guy, say, wait a minute. We've been paying the bill for the last three years. Why don't we get the money? You're getting $10. You didn't pay anything. Oh, it's only fair. So the next year, they all gather for the gathering, the group, the fund, the bar, the party. And the two top payers didn't show up because they're like, I should've gotten that money. I'm not going to show. So the bar bill comes, it's $80. And the other people look at each other when the bar comes. I didn't pay last year. Why do I have to pay this year? Well, because Tim and Mary aren't here, and they paid the last couple years, and they're gone. So they're going to have to reach out of your pocket. You get the drift? If we chase around the people who are paying and they leave, then we're all going to be paying more. So, in any event, I see my story didn't get a laugh or smile from too many people. Let's not chase out the taxpayers who are paying our bar bill. Thank you very much, Mr. me/rp 187
Representative O'Dea, this time, I'm going to turn to my left, and you've the floor, Representative Candelora of the 86th, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, you have the floor, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good evening. Mr. Speaker, I rise with some concerns with this current budget adjustment, and I want to make a few points. Last year, when we did a two-year budget, this side of the aisle had universally voted no. And I think largely because we were concerned with the adjustment that we saw with the volatility cap, the use of the $300 million surplus, for early childhood and relying on that as an endowment, concerned that that revenue wouldn't be there in the next year for our Early Childhood program. And we offered an alternative way to fund Early Childhood. And unfortunately, what we are seeing today is that that surplus wasn't realized, and so now we have to use volatile income to fulfill that promise that we made to Early Childhood. me/rp 188 And I think there's two stories here. I think what we hear about is affordability and sustainability. And I think everybody in this chamber is worried about both. We hear from our constituents, insurance costs, food costs, electric costs, gas prices, everything is rising. And so I think there's an attempt here to respond to that, and in particular to our cities and towns, where there is funding that is in this budget to provide for our communities, not necessarily just to increase spending, but to offset some potential increases because we are seeing budgets failing because people are saying we can't afford our property taxes. So I know there are people on our side of the aisle that would support the budget, and there are people that won't. But I think fundamentally, we need to go back to last year and remember why it was a universal no. And in listening to the debate tonight, I get concerned about the conversation about adjusting the fiscal guardrails. And I know we had universally voted for them all to renew them, and I know there's going to be a conversation to make that adjustment into the future. But I have to remind everybody, me/rp 189 we've already made those adjustments. We've already changed the volatile income structure. And in fact, by doing that, what we are seeing for the first time since 2017, we now have a fiscal note that is showing out-year deficits. I shudder at that thought. When I got elected in '06, it was soon after in 2008, the bottom dropped out, and we saw deficits after deficits after deficits. I remember every budget we passed, we took a sigh of relief that it was in balance. And then we went home, and about two weeks later, it was out of balance. And then we tracked that deficit all the way through. We had to do mitigation plans. We had to come back in. The governor was doing rescissions. There were civil wars all over the place. That's what these fiscal guardrails have stopped. But I think we're cutting too deep, we're playing with them too much, and we've taken them for granted. So when I hear people say, the money's there, let's spend it, we have to look at these out years because it's not insignificant. It's almost a billion dollars in the next biennium that we're looking at. I did take a sigh of relief when me/rp 190 the revenue numbers came out showing a $300 million increase for this year. And so I think that this vote today is not going to create any short-term deficits for the State of Connecticut. I think it's going to give some short-term relief for our communities. The amendments that we ran today wasn't to get you on a vote. It's to set the line in the sand, just like with the budget that we proposed. We need to have a conversation about those issues next year. We need to have a conversation about our real property tax structure, which I think is what makes us most uncompetitive in the country. We do need to have a conversation about social security taxes to keep our residents retiring in the State of Connecticut. But I think we also need to pay attention to where we're going. And I think that individuals on this side of the aisle who are voting yes are saying, thank you for the money that you're providing my towns that are in dire condition and need that money. And I think those people that are voting no are saying, we need to look at these out years, and we need to correct the structural damage that we are doing. me/rp 191 So with that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the conversation on this budget. And I just hope that I will be wrong, just like I was wrong with the sliding revenues in April, and that next year we will come back to better numbers. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. It's been a pleasure to have those conversations with you. Mr. Majority Leader, the floor is yours, sir.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to acknowledge the good minority leader’s closing comments. And I was talking with somebody earlier, and I just wanted to note kind of the air of optimism that we started this day with, and then I think that has been expressed in the course of this debate. Certainly, thanking the ranking members for their comments and questions, and certainly the chairs of Appropriations and Finance for all of their work. And obviously, everybody in this room who serves on either approps or finance or one of the other me/rp 192 committees this past legislative session. But I think it's important to acknowledge that optimism. It's been a tough week for all of us. Personally, and each of us being here for long hours and not being home and not getting the sleep, perhaps we're accustomed to. There were a couple of moments where things felt less than good, yet we responded. We responded in a very different way. We had a difficult Thursday evening and came back yesterday and worked in a way that I think we all expect ourselves to work, and certainly worked in a way that our constituents expect us to work. And I want to acknowledge that because I think it's important. I've been talking a lot about this past week in our press conferences about trying to ensure that we restore the faith of the people we represent and some of the most important institutions in our state. And one of them is this room that we're sitting in. And I think sometimes when we're here every day, I don't want to say we take it for granted, but we get used to being me/rp 193 here, and we often have to remind ourselves how much it matters to people outside this building about what we do here, knowing that they're not watching all the time. I want to believe everybody's watching us on C-TN. It's mostly just our spouses and children wondering where we're going to get home. But it's about what we do here and how we conduct ourselves. And I often say when I bring a tour group through here, when I speak to a group, the minority leader and I last year voted with each other 78% of the time. I think that number actually probably be a little bit higher this year. And often when people hear that there's a disbelief that that's actually how we conduct ourselves because the outside world and the messages that our constituents received are often one that makes them believe that we're just constantly at each other's throats, that we can't possibly agree on anything, that there isn't bipartisanship. And I'm saying all that because I don't want to forecast how this budget is going to be. I suspect they'll be bipartisan votes for this budgets. And I think we should all be proud of that. I acknowledge that there's concern about the long-term fiscal health of the state is this kind of revenue generation me/rp 194 that we've been seeing over the last couple years going to continue into the future, making changes to the guardrails or guardrails that were done on a bipartisan basis and have really moved Connecticut to a very different place than it was when I got here 18 years ago. And so we're going to have those bumps, we're going to have those disagreements, but we have a budget that is going to meet the needs of our communities, who have been screaming out for help all session. We're going to have a budget that invests in perhaps our most important resource, important future, thing that we have, which is our children, in K-12 education. We're putting that $300 million into that childcare endowment, right, so that we can support families and allow them to get back to work, to ensure that women who continue to primarily bear the burden of child rearing can get back to the workforce and feel good about where they're leaving their children during the day. There's no doubt that the future, there's always concern about it. Right? We're always worried about what that's going to look like. And it's right to do that. But in this moment, we have an opportunity to invest in our children, in our families, me/rp 195 in our communities, in our workforce, in healthcare, in our state. And that's an awesome opportunity that we all have here together as Republicans and Democrats to do something right in that regard. And I'm confident that we're about to do that. And I encourage everybody to support this budget, and let's do this together. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Majority Leader. Just before we vote, I would note that in accordance to Section 2-33 subsection A of declaration of the Governor will require 91 votes or three- fifths votes by the House chamber. Okay? So I have to have that number to pass that. With that, staff and guests, please come to the well of the House. Members, take their seats, machine will be open.
me/rp 196 The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.
Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? I think we're good. We're good on both sides. All the members have voted. The machine will be locked. And will the Clerk please take and announce the tally?
the Senate: Total Number Voting 148 Necessary for Passage by 3/5ths 91 Those voting Yea 127 Those voting Nay 21 Those absent and not voting 3
Last I checked, 127 is more than 3/5ths. The bill passes as amended in concurrence with the Senate. (gavel) Have a good me/rp 197 night. Drive safe. We'll see you Monday. The time is 11 o'clock on Monday. Eleven o'clock. (The House of Representatives adjourned at 9:51 o’clock p.m., subject to the call of the Chair.) me/rp 198 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the preceding 197 pages is a complete and accurate transcription of a digital sound recording of the House Proceedings on Saturday, May 2, 2026. I further certify that this digital sound recording was transcribed by the word processing department employees of Datagain, under my direction. Kanchan Mutreja Datagain 1 Creekside Court Secaucus, NJ 07094