JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE HEARINGS
APPROPRIATIONS PART 21 6993 - 7303
2009 006993
C-/4&7
Post Office Box 1329 To: Appropriations CommMee^, New Haven, CT 06505 Telephone 203 865 1957 From: Sandra KoorejianvJ ^ Facsimile 203 562.9450 Date: 2/23/09 Hotline 203 789 8104 Re: Funding for Legal Services TTY 203 773 0192 endabuse@dvsgnh org htlpV/www dvsgnh org New Haven Legal Assistance Association (LAA) provides support to many victims of domestic violence that they won't receive anywhere else. For over ten years, LAA and Domestic Violence Services of Greater New Haven (DVS) have been in a partnership that has provided civil legal assistance to victims; joint advocacy by attorneys and our advocates; and cross-training to enhance each others' skills. Their work with victims with language barriers and immigrants has been exceptional. Our low income clients desperately need them because there is no one else to provide legal services that keep them and their children safe at home. Our services complement each other.
LAA has worked with hundreds of our clients over the years. LAA attorneys not only possess the most up to date knowledge regarding victims' legal rights, they are also sensitive to victims' issues. They are clear about what the courts can and can't do in resolving matters and make good use of community resources. Their prompt availability gives our clients the encouragement they need to deal with the often confusing and intimidating court process. Communication between our offices has been fluid.
The following case illustrates how our close collaboration helped a woman become and stay safe. "Claudine," (not her real name) called our hotline because she was being stalked by her former boyfriend, "Brad" (not his real name). Brad had been physically abusive and controlled her finances. She recently terminated the relationship, but he refused to stay away from her. DVS staff helped her prepare the temporary restraining order application and we referred her to a LAA attorney to represent her at the court hearings. In the meantime, DVS helped her change her phone number to an unlisted number and arranged to change the locks to her apartment for additional security. We explained to her that she would need to call the police if Brad attempted to contact her or came to her apartment. Brad didn't violate the order. He did sue her in small claims court, and LAA represented her in this matter as well. He lost. In the beginning, Claudine was very fearful of Brad, but as a result of the collaborative safety planning we did, and her involvement in a support group where she learned that she wasn't alone with this problem, she grew to trust the system and her confidence in her freedom grew. She was diligent about attending all hearings and stayed in touch with us about her situation. We helped her renew the restraining order at the end of six months. DVS and LAA worked together on Claudine's behalf for about eight months, during which time Brad did not
Supported by CT Coalition Against Domestic Violence • CT Department of Social Services • Title Ill-Older Americans Act, Agency on Aging • United Way • icy Food and Shelter Program • Community Development Block Grants • Guilford Community Fund • Office of Victim Services, State of Connecticut Judicial Branch 006994
contact her. We encouraged her to call us if she needed us. She was appreciative of our help, and stated that she was looking ahead. We have not heard from her.
LAA is unique and especially necessary during these difficult economic times as more and more victims find themselves out of work and unable to manage. They possess a blend of legal and social work skills that helps them engage clients quickly and serve them competently. Without LAA, there will be a huge gap in services for this very vulnerable population. 006995
_IIII sui^y 30 Bank Street J^r"^ ^^^ PO Box 350 MConnecticutX New Britain'CT 0605°-0350 . ... m 06051 for 30 Bank Street
Bar Association * (860M Testimony of Livia DeFilippis Barndollar fax (860)223jM88 President of the Connecticut Bar Association House Bill 6365, An Act Concerning the State Budget for the Biennium Ending June 30,2011, and Making Appropriations Therefore Appropriation Committee February 23,2009
Senator Handley, Representative McCrory and members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Judicial and Corrections, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee to
comment on House Bill 6365, An Act Concerning the State Budget for the Bienmum Ending June
30, 2011, and Making Appropriations Therefore. My name is Livia DeFilippis Barndollar. I am
a Partner with the law firm Marvin, Ferro, Barndollar & Roberts LLC, in New Canaan. I am also
the current President of the Connecticut Bar Association, the preeminent voluntary association of
attorneys in Connecticut with over 9,000 members who practice in every, diverse area of the law
The CBA has a great interest in appropriate funding for the Judicial Branch in general
and for legal aid providers in particular The CBA urges the Appropriations Committee to
increase funding for legal aid providers in the biennium budget ending June 30, 2011 over the SI
million that has been appropriated in the last two fiscal years.
The State's legal aid programs are facing their worst fiscal crisis in decades. I will leave it
to others to testify about the specifics of that crisis. In summary, IOLTA, which has been the
source of about 60% of legal aid funding in this State, is being hit by both the reduction in interest
rates and economic activity. The 2007 the IOLTA program generated over $20 million but this
year it may be about $4 million or less. The consequences are staggering: Legal aid attorneys and
staff have already sacrificed by voluntarily accepting salary and benefits reductions Layoffs of
attorneys and support staff have been unavoidable and unless there is a solution, additional
terminations of attorneys and staff and reduction of salary and benefits to the surviving work
force are inevitable I will also leave it to others to describe more precisely to this Committee
how essential legal aid is to low income residents of Connecticut and to our state and society
more generally. Our very system of justice is at risk without a sustainable civil legal aid system
www.ctbar.org 006996
Delivery of legal services to the poor of this State at no fee should be a concern of each of us
as citizens of Connecticut. Members of the bar of the State and of the CBA in particular have
focused on ways to fill that need Every year hundreds of low income families receive free legal
services from CBA members. Lawyers and law firms in Connecticut contributed about $800,000
in 2008, an increase over previous years. Lawyers donate their time to service on the boards of
legal aid programs, to train legal aid lawyers, and to offer advice and assistance in areas outside the expertise of legal aid lawyers. The CBA has a standing Pro Bono Committee, chaired by the
Vice President of the voluntary leadership each year and composed of judges, attorneys, academics from our area law schools and officers of nonprofit organizations involved in the delivery of legal services to the needy. In the past 18 months, that Committee has spawned a foreclosure prevention assistance program and a veterans assistance program.
I wish that it were possible for me to identify for the Committee a concrete source of funding that could help solve this crisis. Unfortunately I cannot do so tonight. As CBA
President, I appointed in January a special committee to work with Connecticut legal aid programs to assist them in this crisis and to study and make recommendations to the CBA House of Delegates on any policy positions or rule changes that we might adopt or sponsor that would help Our House next meets on March 9 and I will certainly report to the Committee if we adopt positions that will aid this Committee in its work
We fully understand the harsh fiscal reality facmg the State of Connecticut, yet we still urge additional legal aid funding because it is such a critical need of the citizens of the State of
Connecticut and to the functioning of the judicial system. The legal aid network in Connecticut does much more than confirm our society's commitment to equal access to justice... as important as that principle is. The services provided by legal aid attorneys mean that families will not unfairly lose their housing, that children, the disabled and the elderly will receive the benefits that are intended for them, that poor consumers will not be taken advantage of and that women and children will be protected from domestic abuse. Even in hard times, it is essential that we as a
State guarantee these rights. 006997
TESTIMONY ATTORNEY PRISCILLA HAMMOND 'S ,
My name is Priscilla Hammond and I am an attorney specializing in Child Protection. My office is in East Lyme, CT.
Carolyn Signorelli, the Chief Child Protection Attorney (CCPA) has designed an innovative and leading edge program to provide quality legal representation to our most vulnerable and needy population - abused and neglected children.
I am a founding partner in a newly formed non profit law firm, Southeastern Connecticut Center for Juvenile Justice (SECCJJ). We are funded by the CCPA to implement Attorney Signorelli's vision of a multi-disciplinary approach to representing children.
Our clients range in age from newborn to eighteen years old. Our clients include a four month old baby with cranial fractures, a two year old with unexplained bruising all over his body, a twelve year old psychiatrically hospitalized due to post traumatic stress disorder and aggression. Another example includes a ten year old child whose parent's rights have been terminated, but she cannot find an adoptive family due to aggressive behaviors and enuresis. We believe we are effective advocates for all our clients and routinely obtain favorable outcomes for them.
Our law firm provides legal representation utilizing a team approach. Each child client has a lawyer and a social services professional assigned to him or her. Together we advocate for our child client's legal rights in Juvenile Court and with the Department of Children and Families (DCF).
At SECCJJ we have a sense of urgency about every client's legal rights. We are in Juvenile Court almost every day of the week advocating for better services for our clients and their families. Specifically, we assess where children are placed after removal from their homes. We advocate for placement with relatives, regular parent and sibling visitation, effective mental health treatment, and speedy resolutions. When our clients are living with parents, we work to prevent removal by encouraging parents to quickly engage in services that will help maintain family integrity.
SECCJJ is a fast paced, high volume, high energy and cost effective law firm. The hundreds of children we represent are well served.
We believe that our efforts can and will result in significant cost savings to the State of Connecticut by reducing children's time spent in foster care and encouraging DCF to work quickly and to end intervention earlier in the process.
We respectfully request that the CCPA's budget be approved so that we can continue this incredibly important work.
Attorney Priscilla F. Hammond Southeastern Connecticut Center for Juvenile Justice P.O. Box 898 132 Boston Post Road East Lyme, CT 06333 Phone: (860) 739-8887 Fax:(860) 739-6987 006998
(JJUJL ^
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS PUBLIC HEARING, FEBRUARY 23, 2009 LEGISLATIVE TESTIMONY: CONCERNING THE COMMISSION ON CHILD PROTECTION "
Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the proposed budged of the Connecticut Commission on Child Protection, (CCPA).
My name is Valeria Caldwell-Gaines and I am a private attorney who currently holds a contract with Commission on Child Protection. Under that contract, I provide legal services to an average of 75-100 indigent parents and/or children a year. Four years prior to the establishment of the Commission, I provided these same services pursuant to an annual written agreement with the Judicial Branch.
I have long held an interest in working with families and children. I have during my professional career served as Deputy Director for the community-based programs for the Connecticut Junior Republic, Deputy Director for Spike Johnson House, and Clinical Social Worker for Gray Lodge Shelter for Girls. I digressed for a brief period and prior to entering private practice, served as Deputy Director for the State Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. But I am back doing the work that I truly enjoy doing.
I am here today to testify in strong support of the continued funding for the Commission on Child Protection at a level that will enable it to continue to "raise the bar" for existing contract attorneys and, to attract more experienced private attorneys to the field. During my seven years of practice in this area, if there is one thing that I am struck and motivated by the most, it is the parent who can't afford a private attorney and is of the genuine belief that I, as his/her "court appointed" attorney will not fight as hard for her.
While most of us have always worked hard to dissuade that belief, having a well funded independent agency that can assist us in obtaining some of the resources and tools we need to be evenly matched with the state has been of great value. Just the mere existence of the agency is a plus in that it has brought about uniformity, mandated a standard of practice which, if followed, will quickly dispel any notion, by clients, adversaries and judges alike~that contract attorneys are not adequately prepared the task at hand.
The Commission on Child Protection has also leveled the playing field for contract attorneys by facilitating and encouraging the use of experts, subpoenas as needed, independent evaluations, extensive and varied training. Prior to the establishment of the CCPA, training opportunities were limited and quite frankly unaffordable at the rates we were being paid.
Lastly, a real plus for many of us dedicated to working in the area is work by the Chief Child Protection Attorney to ensure that child welfare practice will be recognized as a legal specialty in our state. Through her efforts, the National Association of Counsel for Children certification program is now in Connecticut. Indeed, one month from this Saturday, a significant number of contract attorneys, me included, will be sitting for a national exam in hopes of obtaining board certification, hence becoming specialist in "the 006999
2 of 2
Practice of law representing children, parents or the government in all child protection proceedings including emergency, temporary, custody, adjudication, disposition, foster care, permanency planning, termination, guardianship and adoption..." Connecticut should be proud to have an agency committed to fostering this level of practice to such an important area.
I thank the Committee for recognizing through its appropriations that providing indigent parents and children with the highest level of representation possible is one of the most important things you can do to protect children and preserve family integrity.
Respectfully submitted,
Valeria Caldwell-Gaines 007000
Pot COMMITTE ON APPROPRIATIONS I X PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 23, 2009 UAxju ®
TESTIMONY OF DOUGLAS J. MONAGHAN, ESQ. IN SUPPORT BUDGET REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION ON CHILD PROTECTION
I am a solo practitioner with an office in Groton, Connecticut, in the practice of law for 28 years. I concentrate my practice in juvenile matters, primarily child protection cases. I serve as the secretary of the board of directors of the Juvenile Matters Trial Lawyers Association, with members who practice in every Superior Court for Juvenile Matters (SCJM) across the state. I am also a member of the Connecticut Bar Association, a member of its Committee on Children and the Law and a member of the New London County Bar Association.
I am here to support the budget request of the Chief Child Protection Attorney (hereinafter "CCPA"), Carolyn Signorelli. In this period of time when everyone is scrutinizing and slashing budgets, when the pressure is on you to find ways to allocate scarce taxpayer dollars, to cut programs that are not essential or are not working, I am here to emphasize the importance of the work of this Commission, and, in my opinion, the outstanding performance of the Commission through the work of the CCPA and her staff.
In my previous testimony before this and other legislative committees, I have stated repeatedly my belief that the most important work day in and day out in the courts of this state occurs in the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters. This is because the litigation that occurs in these courts is dynamic; the lives of children and families are affected daily by what goes on, or does not go on, in these courtrooms. Many times the decisions that occur on a daily basis have life-long, life altering effects. This court deals with the future of children and families in a way that most other courts do not. And these issues involve the most fundamental civil right we exercise: the right to family integrity.
You already recognize the importance of these issues because you give the Department of Children and Families (DCF) nearly one billion dollars to administer to the needs of the state's children and families. This year the legislature continues to wonder how to "fix" DCF and has already held hearings on DCF's organization, the problems and the many voices calling for reform. We who work in the trenches of child protection law believe that our advocacy for our clients, be they children or parents or guardians, constitute the front line of defense in holding DCF accountable for providing the services our clients are entitled to and the dignity and 007001
respect they deserve. The competent and zealous advocacy on behalf of children and parents by the attorneys hired and administered by the CCPA is a very important check on the actions and policies of the behemoth DCF.
As one who has been a vocal critic of the previous system of attorney appointments and compensation for juvenile court work, I am pleased to report that since taking office in 2006, Attorney Signorelli has measurably improved the representation of our clients. The CCPA has done this by issuing standards of practice, by reducing heavy caseloads, by conducting or arranging for pre- service or continuing legal education, by investigating and, for reasonable cause, terminating or not renewing the contracts of incompetent attorneys. The CCPA has provided substantive support to contract attorneys, providing guidance or directing attorneys to mentors, by facilitating the hiring of experts for assistance in defending cases and funding the issuance of subpoenas, and by providing direct liaison with DCF administrators and legal staff to work on systemic problems affecting our clients.
CCPA Signorelli also played a major part in establishing a certification program by which experienced child protection lawyers, after being subjected to peer review and passing a certification exam, can be certified as Child Welfare Law Specialists. Connecticut can be proud of the improvements being made to raise the level of advocacy on behalf of children and parents, and joins California, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Tennessee and Utah as the only jurisdictions offering this certification.
Your inclination will be to reduce the CCPA's budget request, because that is what everyone expects in this time of budget crisis. The lawyers who work in this field have been ridiculously under compensated for years, and every time I appear before your committees, you always acknowledge this. The current hourly rate paid to attorneys who do this most important work is forty ($40.00) per hour. The State of Connecticut is getting quality legal representation for Wal-Mart prices. It is an unbelievable value. Please approve CCPA Signorelli's budget request.
-P-rO. Box 7369 Groton, CT 06340-7369 860-445-8550 007002
Testimony of Owen Murphy regarding the Commission on Child Protection
I am a contract attorney for the CCPA representing indigent parents and children in Supenor Court Juvenile Matters at New Haven.
The committee may not be aware of it but parents and children are entitled by law in Connecticut to legal representation at all stages of a neglect and/or termination of parental nghts case In the termination cases the right to counsel comes from court decisions that can not be overturned by a state legislature
The importance of having an independent and better funded agency performing this necessary and important public task cannot be over emphasized. Before this was done lawyers were appointed through the Judicial Branch This resulted in blatant conflicts' of interest in that the main goal of Judicial is to efficiently dispose of cases This goal often conflicts with the constitutional right of a parent or child to have a full hearing on their matter
During Judical's reign there was NO training for new attorneys I and others were supposed to learn by doing. Attorneys who demanded too many hearings or made too many motions could be targeted by not having their contracts renewed.
The current regime under the CCPA has allowed more training to take place, both of new attorneys and veterans The useful information has improved both the level of practice, the knowledge of the judges, and the quality of the cases bought forward by the Attorney General's office in behalf of their true client, DCF (not the child as they would have you believe).
Children are no longer removed from their homes because a DCF worker or supervisor has some "concerns" that are never articulated. Children now are only subject to the drastic and expensive remedy of removal to foster home on a showing of imminent nsk of harm. This is because DCF faces the burden of proving their allegation in front of a better trained child protection bar The better training is a direct result of the involvement of the CCPA
DCF and the Attorney General's office can no longer push through family unfriendly rules of court without the interests of the parents and child being at least given a hearing through the CCPA
People are entitled a fair and balanced hearing before their fundamental right to raise their family as they chose is interfered with by the state. The CCPA helps the lawyers in the trenches in courts throughout this state do just this. Attorneys can hire real experts to help with their cases if they need to
DCF workers and the lawyers from the Attorney Generals office often have the. best of intentions But DCF as an organization often has interests that are not in accord with either someone's constitutional right to be secure in their family or the best interests of a child.
These are difficult cases for an attorney to litigate. This work often psychologically and spiritually draining Connecticut is fortunate to have an experienced cadre of lawyers doing this important work. It is particularly important for the parents, in that even if they have a meritorious defense, have little sympathy from the public. Even non-profit organizations in this field who should know better usually focus their funds on time on the children and entirely overlook the parents
Each year that I have done this work attorneys are forced to leave due to poor pay for their efforts. No one expects to get rich doing these cases but given the time and money expended to develop expertise justice would demand that the pay be greater than one could get working at your local gas station or a Wal-Mart.
The fact is the vast majority of people who enter the Juvenile system through a petition alleging neglect of their children either get their children back or never have them removed from the home at all. This is as it should and this is what the CCPA does everyday
In my experience poverty, not bad character, is the main reason parents get involved in this system.
If there are lawyers involved reunification and the closing of the case happens much quicker because their attorney's push for it. This results in a significant savings in that foster care and adoption are very expensive propositions. Reunification and treatment in the home is much less expensive.
That is all I have to say and I hope this committee listens to me.
Sincerely Owen Murphy 007003
CHILD AND YOUTH ADVOCACY PROJECT NEW HAVEN LEGAL ASSISTANCE ASSOCIATION, INC- 926 STATE STREET NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510-2018 TELEPHONE: (203) 776-3838 FAX: (203) 776-0606
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 23,2009
TESTIMONY OF MILDRED DOODY REGARDING THE COMMISSION ON CHILD PROTECTION
Honorable Members of the Committee on Appropriations:
My name is Mildred Doody. I am an attorney with 20 years' experience in child protection cases. I am currently the supervising attorney of the Child and Youth Advocacy Project of New Haven Legal Assistance, which provides representation to young people who are the subjects of abuse and neglect petitions filed by DCF. I am expressing my support for full funding for the Commission on Child Protection.
In Connecticut, children who are the subjects of abuse or neglect petitions are entitled to court-appointed counsel. Our law recognizes that children have interests that are distinct from those of their parents and are also distinct from the interests of DCF. For too many years, however, the system of appointment and compensation of these court-appointed counsel operated to discourage vigorous, well-informed advocacy.
With the establishment of the Commission on Child Protection, Connecticut began the process of strengthening the quality of advocacy in child protection cases as well as improving accountability. In March, 2006, the Chief Child Protection Attorney began her work. In the three years since, we have seen a number of extremely important reforms:
• A comprehensive, in-depth training program that is required for new juvenile contract attorneys • In-service training requirements for experienced attorneys • A mentoring program for new juvenile contract attorneys • Improved monitoring of case activities • The ability to investigate complaints
My agency, New Haven Legal Assistance, was selected as one of the two pilot projects for the Model Child Welfare Law Office, which uses a multi-disciplinary team approach to representing abused and neglected children. Our team structure, which 007004
2 includes social workers as well as attorneys and paralegals, allows us to participate fully in the substantial out-of-court activity that is required to address children's needs and to inform our in-court advocacy. Through this creative approach, which was fostered by the vision of the Commission on Child Protection, we are showing that children can receive vigorous, well-prepared advocacy in a cost-effective manner.
The Commission on Child Protection ensures that our most vulnerable population receives effective legal advocacy. The current economic crisis is increasing the strain on poor families, and on parents who have medical or mental health issues. It is likely that there will be more and more State intervention in the lives of families, making it even more important that the Commission be enabled to carry out its mission with adequate resources.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide my comments to the committee. Please feel free to contact me at (203) 776-3838, ext. 103.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mildred Doody, Esq. 007005
tuCu. I Public Hearing February 23,2009 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS TESTIMONY REGARDING THE COMMISSION ON CHILD PROTECTION
Michael D. Perez, Esq. P.O. Box 260007 Hartford, CT 06126 (860) 882-0248
Dear Members of the Appropriations Committee:
The following testimony is in support of the proposed budget appropriation for the Commission on Child Protection, as specified by the Chief Child Protection Attorney, Carolyn Signorelli. I contracted, for the past two years, with the Commission on Child Protection to provide legal representation to children and indigent parents in Juvenile Court cases initiated by the Department of Children and Families (DCF). The Commission on Child Protection, since its inception in July, 2006, has managed state contracts with private attorneys in Juvenile Court child protection cases and Family Court contempt matters with a fraction of the staff that was previously dedicated to these tasks by the Judicial Branch. I want to emphasize the importance of another crucial aspect of the Commission's mission, which is being thoroughly and deliberately executed - the implementation of litigation support systems and continually updated training seminars for the contract attorneys. The quality of legal representation provided by myself and my colleagues has been increasingly augmented by this support and ongoing education. Child welfare law is a complex field covering many other specialized professional spheres including child and family psychology, educational advocacy, and treatment of substance abuse, mental health issues, and domestic violence. The Commission works diligently to ensure that the new contract attorneys are acquiring a competent understanding of these areas, as well as providing tools for attorneys to maintain a working knowledge of all legal developments in child welfare law. Without this free support and training, it would not be possible for private attorneys, such as myself, to continue to provide the same quality of legal services to children and parents at the current contract rate of $40 per hour. The litigation expenses, consulting costs, and training fees would prevent us from performing our jobs in accordance with the minimally acceptable standards of representation.
The Commission on Child Protection currently facilitates a 3-day mandatory training program for all new attorneys that are appointed child protection contracts. Frequent seminars are also facilitated to keep the attorneys up to speed on the myriad of constantly developing issues and 007006
disciplines which comprise child welfare law. This is important work which ideally calls for a corp of attorneys who specialize in this field. We represent children who are being removed from their families, sometimes for innsufficient reasons. We represent children in foster care, some of whom have languished in the system for far too long and are not recieving a full array of necessary services. The adversarial nature of child protection litigation ensures that DCF's position is advocated for by the Attorney General's Office. Feelings of resentment and disenchantment with the foster care system are less likely to be felt by children and teenagers who are confident that their voices are being zealously and competently advocated for in the courtroom. When DCF is held accountable, appropriate treatment plans and specific steps are followed and courts are able to have access to all pertinent information about a family, as opposed simply to DCF's version of events. When the appropriate treatment is offered to children and parents in a timely manner, then families are put back together, and the state saves money in the long-run.
In many of my cases, the tools and training provided by the Commission on Child Protection have allowed me to fight for and achieve better outcomes for the children and parents that I have represented. In one instance, the Chief Child Protection Attorney approved the hiring of an independent psychiatric evaluator whose opinion was ultimately adopted by DCF and the Court, allowing my child-client to be raised by an out-of-state relative instead of being bounced around multiple foster placements as she had been in the past. On another occassion, the Commission permitted me to hire a medical doctor who testified that a specific medical treatment, sought by a 16- year in foster care, would have been more beneficial than the course of treatment chosen by DCF. Unfortunately, this poor teenager died weeks later, before a final decision was reached. But at least this teenager's voice was heard and she had hope that her opinion would not be silenced. In another case, knowledge that I acquired at a training session allowed me to move quickly to take steps necessary to ensure that a young pregnant rape victim could not be deported due to her alien status.
The Commission on Child Protection provides many other indispensible services, such as advocating for a higher rate of pay to attorneys who become nationally certified as child welfare law specialists and collaborating with other agencies to improve our child protection system. I have seen fisrthand how the Commission has improved the lives of children and families through more competent legal representation. Therefore, I urge this Committee to support the proposed budget appropriation recommended by the Chief Child Protection Attorney.
Sincerely, Michael D. Perez 007007
TESTIMONY OF THE CENTER FOR CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY IN SUPPORT OF FUNDING FOR THE COMMISSION ON CHILD PROTECTION
February 23,2009
This testimony is submitted on behalf of the Center for Children's Advocacy. The Center is a nonprofit organization based at the University of Connecticut School of Law that provides holistic legal services for poor children in Connecticut's communities through individual representation and systemic advocacy. Through our Child Abuse Project, the Center represents children in child abuse and neglect cases and provides training and technical support to attorneys who represent both children and parents in these proceedings.
We urge you to maintain funding for the Commission on Child Protection. The Commission's primary mission is to ensure that indigent children and families involved with Juvenile Court child protection proceedings have competent and thorough legal representation to assist them. Abused and neglected children need and deserve lawyers who have the time, training, and ability to give voice to their needs.
In Connecticut, we have been able to boast for many years that every child has a lawyer. But the sad truth was that this guarantee of legal representation was not a guarantee of quality and historically many children received representation that was woefully inadequate.
The Commission on Child Protection is the most critical tool to address the problem of inadequate representation. Prior to the creation of the Commission, attorneys were not required to receive training or demonstrate expertise. There were no practice standards and no caseload standards. There was little oversight and no effective system of accountability.
More importantly, it was not uncommon to hear that children who had been abused or neglected by their parents had never met their attorneys. When their DCF workers failed to get the mental health counseling they needed, didn't bring them to visit their parents, or placed them in inadequate foster' homes, they couldn't call their lawyers because they didn't know who they were. Their complaints were never heard by their lawyers and, consequently, never heard by the courts.
The Commission has made tremendous progress in tackling these problems. The Commission provides accountability and ensures competent representation by mandating that attorneys meet regularly with their clients, ensuring that attorneys have appropriate training, creating standards of practice and enforcing caseload standards.
The Commission has achieved numerous accomplishments over the past couple of years, all of which serve to improve legal advocacy for vulnerable children.
> Certification Program: The Commission spearheaded bringing Child Welfare Law as a Legal Specialty to Connecticut and provided 45 attorneys the means to become certified by the National Association of Counsel for Children. 007008
> Pilot Project for Multi-Disciplinary Child Welfare Law Office: The Commission issued an RFP for a Multi-Disciplinary Child Welfare Law Office to represent children in child protection proceedings. Two proposals were accepted and implemented. The South Eastern Connecticut Center for Juvenile Justice in Waterford and New Haven Legal Assistance each commenced executing a multi-disciplinary, holistic model of representation for approximately 1000 children on September 1,2008.
> Caseload Standards. The Commission reduced maximum caseloads for majority of attorneys to 100 or less. Prior to the creation of the Commission there were no case load standards for attorneys practicing in Juvenile Court.
> Attorney Assessment/Application Review. The Commission continues to conduct attorney observations throughout the state's Juvenile Courts. Additionally, the Commission reviews all of the renewal applications submitted by the contract attorneys; the Commission conducts reference checks, random case and billing audits, and in some cases interviews.
> Mentor Cabinet. In collaboration with the Center for Children's Advocacy, the Commission established a Mentor Cabinet with attorney representatives from each Juvenile Court to facilitate dissemination of critical information for effective legal representation in child protection matters.
We urge you maintain adequate funding for the Commission on Child Protection and to reinforce the message that Connecticut's abused and neglected children matter and that they deserve to have a voice.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Sarah Healy Eagan Director of the Child Abuse Project Center for Children's Advocacy 007009
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 23, 2009
TESTIMONY OF ATTORNEY ELISABETH BORRINO REGARDING THE COMMISSION ON CHILD PROTECTION
Connecticut's children who have already been subjected to either abuse or neglect at the instance of their parents and guardians, require an Attorney to protect them and advocate for them as they navigate through the web of the system of child protection. In order to have that protection and advocacy, the Attorney needs to be well-trained, independent, and have support. Since the creation of the Commission on Child Protection as implemented by the Chief Child Protection Attorney ("CCPA"), the protection and advocacy of these children has improved and continues to improve.
As a Child Protection Attorney for years, both prior to and after the creation of the CCPA, I can attest that the training and support received has significantly improved the system. These improvements include, but are certainly not limited to:
1. Ongoing training and education, including conferences, continuing legal education, and email notification of important changes and proposals as regards the courts and the law;
2. Availability of the CCPA, and her staff, to review and critique legal briefs and arguments, which is very important since the majority of the contract attorneys are sole practitioners who are afforded little opportunity for this peer review;
3. Ability to contact the CCPA - seemingly twenty-four hours a day - and have impressively prompt responses to important issues that arise, including simple collaboration, advice, and recommendations regarding actual pending cases;
4. Intervention by the CCPA with DCF and establishment of communication systems to ensure that Attorneys have access to their clients as well as notification of important meetings at DCF regarding such cases;
5. Providing individual copies of important books and online publication of legal resources and information for easy and quick reference, at no cost to the Attorney; 007010
6. Advising Attorneys of training opportunities and educational materials that otherwise may not have been available or known;
7. Establishing a "mentoring" system whereby the experienced Attorneys would "mentor" new Attorneys;
8. Paying the membership fee for Attorneys to be part of the National Association of Counsel for Children ("NACC") - a National Organization - which also provides educational information, training, and certification for Child Welfare Law Specialization;
9. Advising and encouraging Attorneys to become Child Welfare Law Specialists by, among other things, providing financial support and incentive;
10. Unparalleled support, assistance, and compassion to Attorneys who just need to "vent" and "brainstorm" when dealing with the types of cases that most people don't want to hear about and would like to believe do not exist.
Child Protection Attorneys are still not receiving financial compensation comparable to that of other practitioners. In the past, they had to balance the lower financial compensation with the cost of training and publications. That is no longer the case. The Attorneys actively participate in the trainings and services provided by CCPA. At every training, the room is filled to capacity. A significant number of Attorneys, including myself, successfully applied and are scheduled to take the NACC examination next month in order to be Certified Child Welfare Law Specialists.
Connecticut's children have no voice without effective and zealous representation. These children are in the system because they have been subjected to unspeakable trauma, in many instances. When they are teenagers, foster parents do not tolerate the behavior that biological parents do, and they often disrupt such placements and languish for months and years in residential treatment and group homes""- in Connecticut and out of state - including mental health facilities simply because opportunities were lost along the way. The instance of foster children languishing in mental health facilities - many as young as nine years old - is alarming. These children grow up and become society's burden. Effective intervention and representation makes a difference.
I am very proud of the work I have done, which includes forever changing the lives of many children, and the work I hope to continue to do.
Having well-trained, highly-qualified and dedicated Attorneys who feel supported, educated, prepared, and appreciated to represent Connecticut's children is imperative.
My own personal experience is that the CCPA provides all of this support thereby 007011
enabling Attorneys like me to continue and new ones to begin.
Respectfully Submitted,
Attorney Elisabeth Borrino. 007012
CONNECTICUT JUVENILE JUSTICE ALLIANCE TESTIMONY OF THE CONNECTICUT JUVENILE JUSTICE ALLIANCE
FOR THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE HEARING ON THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED JUDICIAL BRANCH BUDGET
FEBRUARY 23,2008
This testimony is submitted by Abby Anderson, Executive Director of the Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance (Alliance). The Alliance is a statewide, non-profit organization that works to reduce the number of children and youth entering the juvenile and criminal justice system, and advocates a safe, effective and fair system for those involved.
The Alliance is very disappointed that Governor Rell proposes a delay in Raise the Age, which would end Connecticut's practice of putting non-violent minors in adult prisons. This testimony outlines why we strongly believe this would be a mistake - for public safety, for the economy, for re-balancing budgets, and for our youth.
Secondly, the Alliance is sorry to see the lack of funds allocated to fulfill the state's mandated responsibility to provide the services of a Family Support Center to every child in the state. The new Families With Service Needs (FWSN) system is successfully working to divert young people from the juvenile justice system and should be supported. Referrals to the FWSN system are down 38%, creating vacancies in programs and services throughout the juvenile system, vacancies that can now be utilized by the 16 and 17 year-olds arriving with Raise the Age on January 1.
Referrals into the juvenile justice system as a whole are also down by significant percentages (11% as of November 2008). Detention facilities are experiencing very low census numbers with more than 100 open beds on a regular basis. Returning 16 and 17 year olds to these programs would actually improve the cost effectiveness of them, and would not require additional staff or facilities.
Together, the Raise the Age and FWSN reforms offer significant long-term, systemic financial savings, as described below.
First, the Alliance strongly opposes the Governor's proposal to cut programs and services in the Judicial Branch and Court Support Services Division budget that are needed to ensure the effective and efficient on-time implementation of Raise the Age - January 1, 2010. These programs and services include courthouse closings and position eliminations (including probation officers, judges and support staff), rescissions, elimination or deferral of some leases, and cuts to planned services for 16 and 17 year olds returning to the juvenile justice system. 007013
Secondly, the Alliance requests that the Appropriations Committee fully fund the Family With Service Needs policies and practices, implementation of which began in 2007. Specifically, the system still needs (A) concerted efforts to reduce truancy, especially in school districts with the highest truancy rates, (B) six additional Family Support Centers so that every Connecticut community is served (FWSN adjudications are down 94% overall, with the adjudications that are occurring coming from communities without a Family Support Center), and (C) requirements for strong, meaningful collaboration between state agencies with responsibilities for children.
Why Delaying Raise the Age Would Be a Costly Mistake
During the 2007 legislative session, with the passage of PA 07-4, Connecticut's legislature raised the age of adult jurisdiction from 16 to 18, effective January 1,2010. Aside from serious and violent offenders, minors will be under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system. This is an important and historic change as Connecticut has been one of only three states to try all 16 and 17 year olds as adults — no matter how minor their crime.
Delaying Raise the Age would balance no budgets. In fact, it would encourage many short-sighted spending practices, and it would be harmful to public safety and to the state's most vulnerable children:
Youth would suffer. Kids sent to adult prisons are more likely to reoffend and to escalate into serious crime than peers in the juvenile system. The governor herself raised the issue of moving these teens to juvenile jurisdiction after a 17-year-old committed suicide in an adult Connecticut prison. Last year, another boy killed himself in the same prison. Youth in adult prisons are also at greater risk of serious assault by adult inmates.
Delay would encourage inefficiency and waste. Connecticut wisely made a shift toward community-based early intervention in recent years. The success of these programs has created many vacancies in DCF and Court Support Services Division programs - the very programs that would receive many of the 16- and 17-year-olds affected by the law. These programs could serve more children at little cost and ease overcrowding in adult prisons at considerable savings.
The state has spent millions in preparation for Raise the Age, money that would be wasted if we don't proceed. The legislatively mandated Juvenile Jurisdiction Planning and Oversight Coordinating Council (JJPOCC) has been meeting regularly to ensure timely and appropriate implementation of policy and practice shifts so that a smooth transition will occur in January of 2010.
Raise the Age is not an unfunded mandate. Lobbyists armed with misinformation have painted Raise the Age as burdensome to municipalities. In fact, no police department will have to change its physical space in response to the law, which includes new provisions that spare local departments the job of holding teens. Eighty one percent of Connecticut municipalities only arrest one child in this age group per week. 007014
Raise the Age contributes to economic growth. An adult record cuts off opportunities for education, jobs, militaiy service and myriad other avenues to productive citizenship. Every year thousands of Connecticut teens have their economic potential stunted by an adult arrest for a minor charge. Furthermore, Raise the Age will create hundreds of jobs - for probation officers, counselors and social workers.
Raising the Age is not a luxury. Raise the Age is already law, a commitment made by our governor and legislators. The state would not be deferring a program that would be "nice to have;" delaying would be a broken promise.
Why Supporting FWSN is Important
Status offenses are not crimes but problem behaviors like truancy, running away, out-of- control behavior and "immoral conduct." Connecticut legislation calls status offenders "Families with Service Needs (FWSN)" and sees 3,600 to 4,000 of these cases each year. Historically, more than half of FWSN youth ended up in the juvenile justice system as delinquents. After recent reforms, these numbers are decreasing. In short, the new system is working, and is creating vacancies in programs and services that 16 and 17 year-olds can utilize after the implementation of Raise the Age on January 1 without additional cost.
FWSN children need support. Reforms implemented in 2007 moved the system toward family engagement and community-based services. Connecticut is working to identify high need youth and families earlier, and provide a wider array of programs and services to address their needs and improve their behaviors before they lead to delinquency referrals.
Two ways that would make that early identification and intervention more effective:
1. Implement efforts to reduce truancy, the cause of 50% of FWSN referrals. Schools need the tools to quickly determine the cause of the child's absenteeism and work with the family to ensure regular attendance. Although recommended last year, there has been no state funding to address truancy.
2. Ensure equal access to services for all Connecticut families. The law calls for families to be given information about programs already available (e.g., YSBs, Boys & Girls Clubs, faith-based initiatives, etc.). Families with high, immediate needs are entitled to assistance at a Family Support Center, which help the family access services like family mediation, educational advocacy, mentoring, crisis intervention, and intensive, in-home therapies. The Family Support Center can also refer to respite beds in the state.
Though state law requires that every family in Connecticut has access to a Family Support Center, there are currently only 4 across the state-leaving out youth and families in 130 of Connecticut's 169 communities. 007015
CSSD needs only $1.1 million to open the 6 additional needed Family Support Centers next year, and then $2.2 million to annualize operations of all 10 Family Support Centers.
The Country is Applauding and Watching
Connecticut is winning national praise for its recent juvenile justice reform. The state is being showcased by national organizations and legislative groups, including:
• National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL): Representative Toni Walker spoke about Connecticut at the NCSL Spring Forum in Washington, DC and is featured in NCSL's State Legislatures magazine;
• Center for Policy Alternatives (CPA): At CPA's Summit on the States in December in Washington, DC, representatives of the Connecticut General Assembly and CTJJA presented on Connecticut's reform;
• National Black Caucus of State Legislatures (NBCSL): Connecticut representatives presented at their national conference in Little Rock in December;
• National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ): The Hon. Barbara M. Quinn spoke at NCJFCJ's national conference in St. Louis in March, and an article authored by the Hon. William Lavery was featured in NCJFCJ's publication Juvenile and Family Justice Today,
• American Correctional Association (ACA): ACA featured a piece by Senator Ed Meyer in Corrections Today. Department of Juvenile Services Director Leo Arnone was a featured speaker at ACA's annual meeting in New Orleans;
• Coalition for Juvenile Justice (CJJ): Connecticut was featured prominently in a roundtable discussion at CJJ's spring conference where the audience included state officials and members of state advisory groups from all over the country;
• 2008 Kids Count Juvenile Justice Essay: Each year, Kids Count focuses an essay on one topic and in 2008 they focused on juvenile justice. The essay highlights Connecticut's legislative success in raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction and marks it as a critical reform model that other states and jurisdictions should follow.
In conclusion, it is critical that Connecticut stay on track with its two-pronged approach to reform: (1) on-time implementation of Raise the Age on January 1,2010 and (B) full implementation of the FWSN system. The Alliance understands the road will be bumpy without ideal levels of funding; but that is not a reason to delay. The effectiveness of the FWSN reforms, along with programs working on the detention side of juvenile court have created vacancies in the current system, offering an opportunity for new efficiencies of scale with Raise the Age. The reforms are working; juvenile referrals are steadily 007016
declining. Now is not the time to stop. Raising the Age is good for the state's economy, for our communities, for public safety, and for our youth and their future.
Thank you for your time and attention to this most important matter; please do not hesitate to let me know if I can provide additional information.
2470 Fairfield Avenue, Bridgeport CT 06605 203-579-2727 www.ctjja.org 007017
~• cCT'u ! ...to serve, strengthen 5 ,:,]!,iM and support Connecticut's of NONPROFITS nonprofit community.
Testimony before the Appropriations Committee Re:
H.B. No. 6365: AN ACT CONCERNING THE STATE BUDGET FOR THE BIENNIUM ENDING JUNE 30,2011 AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS THEREFOR
Julia Wilcox, Policy Specialist, Connecticut Association of Nonprofits (CT Nonprofits)
Public Hearing Date: February 23,2009
Good afternoon, Senator Handley, Representative McCrory and distinguished members of the Appropriations Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today. My name is Julia Wilcox, Policy Specialist for the Connecticut Association of Nonprofits (CT Nonprofits.) CT Nonprofits is a membership organization that represents more than 525 nonprofit agencies. Approximately 300 of our member agencies contract with State government for a variety of human and social services. This afternoon, I am proud to represent the Community Justice and Juvenile Justice Divisions of providers who contract with DOC & Judicial / CSSD.
As you are no doubt aware, the Governor's Biennial Budget does not include any cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) funding for FY10 or FY11. While we gready appreciate that so many of you have been supportive of the efforts and value of the nonprofit community provider network, we never the less, find ourselves in a situation which becomes more desperate with each new plan or proposal. As the Governor releases yet a third mitigation plan, state agencies and their partners in the non-profit community, struggle to understand the full ramifications of the first two! All the while - the need for services continues to increase, as the resources for provision continue to decrease.
For years, nonprofit providers have come before you and testified in favor of expanding treatment programs and alternatives to incarceration. In these fiscally challenging times, this strategy is not only best for the populations directly served through the criminal justice system, but for the state of Connecticut - as an extensive cost savings measure, which not only increases public safety, but strengthens the very fabric of our communities. As you continue your efforts to address the state budget crisis, it is essential to view the support of community-based, re-entry services (as provided by the nonprofit provider network) not as an 'expense,' but rather - an 'investment' in human capitol and the welfare of our state.
On behalf of the nonprofit provider community, I respectfully submit commentary on the following, specific areas of the Governor's Budget Recommendations, related to the DOC and CSSD Budgets as follows:
=> NO COST OF LIVING INCREASE (COLA) FOR THE NONPROFIT PROVIDER COMMUNITY: (Oppose) While we appreciate that the Governor's Budget did not include 'across the board' cuts to human services as •provided by the nonprofit network, it is essential to note that even level funding, equates to a 'cut,' given the years of chronic under-funding, and ever-rising costs of providing services. As previously stated, it is essential to view the support of community-based, re-entry services (as provided by the nonprofit provider network) not as an 'expense,' but rather - an 'investment' in human capitol and the welfare of our state.
=> DELAY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RAISE THE AGE INITIATIVE: (Oppose) The Juvenile Jurisdiction change was scheduled to go into effect January 1, 2010. This important initiative will significantly alter the existing juvenile courts by potentially doubling the number of juveniles that these courts currently handle. In light of the state's economic condition and the continuing effort to finalize the implementation plan, the Governor is proposing that this initiative be delayed for two years with a new effect date of January 1, 2012.
We would implore the Legislature to do everything in your power, to assure that the critical progress and
90 Brainard Road • Hartford, CT 06114 • Tel: 860.525 5080 • Fax: 860.525.5088 • www.ctnonprofits.org 007018
CT Nonprofits Testimony Appropriations DOC & CSSD 2 23 09 J Wilcox Page 2 oj\3
momentum that has been made in this area, is not lost due to short-sighted 'cost savings.' In reality, delay in the implementation of the RTA Initiative, will end up costing the state dearly - in both the dollars that will be necessary to address the increase in unmet needs of the juvenile population, and the 'loss' in terms of delayed progress for the individual youth and families involved.
=> REINSTATEMENT OF RE-ENTRY FURLOUGHS: (Support) Legislation is proposed to reinstate and expand the Commissioner of Correction's authority to place inmates on re-entry furlough for up to 45 days. The re-entry furlough will provide accountability, support and aftercare services to offenders being released from correctional facilities for a period of approved community supervision. Offenders must have an approved community sponsor, demonstrated responsible behavior while incarcerated and an assessed need for transitional services. This program had a successful completion rate of 97% in the past and was the most successful discretionary program available to the incarcerated population. Evidence based research clearly demonstrates that a period of community supervision and targeted interventions lowers the risk of recidivism. We strongly recommend the support of this initiative, as a critical part of the re-entry process, with proven results. => COMMUNITY-BASED BEDS / RE-ENTRY SERVICES: (Support) Finally, we would implore the Legislature to fully fund, and utilize the willingness, capacity and quality afforded to the state by the nonprofit community which partners with the state on a daily basis.
Most offenders who enter prison will eventually return to a community. In Connecticut, more than 95% of prison inmates leave the prison system and re-enter society. Statistics universally support the significant correlation between supervised, community re-entry services, and a reduction in recidivism. Most recently, according to the State of Connecticut 2009 Annual Recidivism Study: "Offenders that were discharged after completing community supervision programs, like parole or transitional supervision (TS), had the lowest recidivism rates among all groups of offenders in the study. While 36.7% of all offenders were re-incarcerated for new offenses within 3 years of release, 27.4% of TS completers and 23.4% of parole completers were returned to prison for new offenses."
The significance and value of community-based services becomes even more clearly defined, when the cost savings to the state are factored in as follows:
=> Average annual cost per inmate - DOC/Prison Facilities =$31,000-564,000 => Average annual cost per offender - community residential treatment programs = $20,000 - $22,000.
These statistics illustrate only the 'functional' cost savings. They do not begin to reflect the savings in terms of 'human capitol,' or the effect that the reduction in recidivism has upon the families and communities of our state.
To this end, it is critical for the communities of Connecticut to understand that supervised re-entry into their communities - and NOT a system of extended incarceration, is critical to increasing public safety, by ending the cycle of recidivism and strengthening and healing these families in crisis.
We would ask that
=> Support sentencing that supports the re-entry process. => Important to look at programs from a standpoint of the effect on 'End of Sentence' outcomes, and not simply reducing prison capacity. => Utilization of full capacity available within the communities of CT
In closing, I would encourage you to contact providers within your local communities. The ability of the state of CT to adequately meet the needs of its residents is greatly dependent upon the ability of the Private Provider Community to sustain a vibrant network, which will continue to serve as the ultimate safety net for Connecticut's citizens at risk.
I thank you for your time and consideration of these critically important issues. I would be pleased to answer any questions at this time.
90 Brainard Road • Hartford, CT 06114 • Tel: 860.525.5080 • Fax: 860.525.5088 • www.ctnonprofits.org 007019
CT Nonprofits Testimony Appropriations DOC & CSSD 2 23 09 J Wilcox Page 3 of 3
Related Information of Interest:
=> For information related to DOC funded programs of the private provider network available within your communities, please refer to the following:
Directory of Contracted Community Programs: Connecticut Department of Correction - Parole and Community Services, Theresa C. Lantz, Commissioner, Randy Braren, Director of Parole and Community Services, Lawrence P. Mayer, Director of Programs and Services (July 2008) http://www.ct.gov/doc/lib/doc/pdfycontractedcommprogdirectory.pdf
=> State of Connecticut 2009 Recidivism Study: Annual report published in response to the statutory requirements outlined in Public Act 05-249. The legislation created the Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division (CJPPD) within the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) and tasked the Division with issuing an annual report on the recidivism of offenders released from the custody of the Department of Correction (DOC) and from probation. (February 2009) http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/cippd/ciresearch/recidivismstudv/20090215 recidivismstudv.pdf
=> 2008 Annual Report: 1968 -2008. Connecticut Department of Correction http://www.ct.gov/doc/lib/doc/PDF/PDFReport/annualreport2008.pdf
=:> Juvenile Jurisdiction Policy and Operations Coordinating Council: http://www.housedems.ct.gov/iipocc/index.asp
For additional information, Please do not hesitate to contact:
Julia Wilcox, Policy Specialist, CT Nonprofits: rwilcox(aS.ctnonDrofits.ore or 860.525.5080 ext.25
90 Brainard Road • Hartford, CT 06114 • Tel: 860.525.5080 • Fax: 860.525.5088 • www.ctnonprofits.org 007020
CT ...to serve, strengthen and support Connecticut's NONPROFITS nonprofit community.
When Connecticut needs us most, this is what we need to be there for Connecticut.
It's no secret that nonprofits have been struggling for years. With no COLA for FY09, it brings the 20 year average cost-of-living-adjustment for nonprofits to an abysmal 1.1%. It has come to be expected that we will do more with less. And while we have often lived up to that expectation, it simply cannot last forever. As energy and healthcare costs continue to skyrocket, it is growing increasingly difficult to provide the level of service that the state has become accustomed to and that the residents deserve. Now, with a grave downturn in the economy, more Connecticut residents are showing up on doorsteps asking for assistance and we are unsure of how we will be able to help.
How nonprofits across the state are coping with pervasive under-funding*:
• Turnover: This continues to be a problem within the nonprofit sector. Quality employees are consistently lost to higher paying jobs either with the state (where they can earn approximately 50% more to perform comparable work) or outside of the field altogether. In 2008, the average turnover in our member agencies among full-time employees was 19%; among part-time employees it was 28%. • Consolidating Responsibilities: Instead of filling vacancies created by turnover or layoffs, agencies are consolidating those job responsibilities among existing staff, creating more work with no additional compensation possible. 48% of member agencies have already begun consolidating in the current fiscal year. • Waiting Lists: Without funding for additional staff many agencies simply do not have the capacity to meet increased demands for service, resulting in 45% of member agencies creating waiting lists in the current fiscal year. • Eliminating Programs: In some cases, programs must be eliminated altogether. Currently, 27% of our member agencies have begun eliminating programs.
What we need:
• Meaningful Cost Increases: 1.1% over 20 years simply won't do. Nonprofits that contract with the state to provide health and human services on its behalf are often the foundation of their communities. The services they provide help to prevent larger, more costly problems for taxpayers. • Long-term Solutions: The year-in-year-out cycle of wondering whether or not nonprofits will receive a cost-of-living increase is a rollercoaster that no one enjoys. It takes up significant amounts of time of both advocates and government officials. A meaningful, long-term solution that ensures nonprofits receive annual, adequate increases equal to the cost of providing services is urgently needed. • Healthcare Reform: One of the largest costs that nonprofits face is health insurance. Many agencies continue to see percentage increases in the double digits, often having to pass some of that increase onto their employees, only worsening the problem of under-compensation. Despite the hardship, few nonprofits are willing to eliminate this benefit and jeopardize the health and safety of their employees.
* Results of CT Nonprofits' Impact Survey; Sept. 2008; n=44
90 Brainard Road • Hartford, CT 06114 • Tel: 860.525.5080 • Fax: 860.525.5088 • www.ctnonprofits.org 007021 ci-f^2eZJrOJL^s
Testimony for the Hearing of the CT Legislature Appropriations Committee on February 23,2009 t/AJ&r^ Given by Family ReEntry's Executive Director, Steve Lanza
Good evening and thank you to all the members Appropriations Committee. We appreciate the significant challenges you face and appreciate your time, attention, and hard work.
I am Steve Lanza, Executive Director of Family ReEntry. Family ReEntry operates effective research-based reentry program under contract with the DOC and a number of critical cost- effective community justice programs under contract with CSSD. We support the work of other nonprofits and stakeholders through collaborative efforts like the Bridgeport Reentry Collaborative and the Connecticut Association of Nonprofits.
I am here to urge your support for retaining funding, and in selected cases increasing funding, for DOC and CSSD community programs that reduce recidivism, increase public safety and save tax dollars.
As an example of just one such program, I would like to share with you the inspiring results of work Family ReEntry is doing with its Fresh Start Community Reentry Programs as evidence of the importance of adequately funding community programs.
Yale research has observed a significant reduction in recidivism in our Fresh Start Reentry programs. A program description, research summary, and letter from Yale are attached for your review.
The key features of the Fresh Start program include: • Emphasis on Early Engagement Prerelease • Ex-Offenders Mentoring and Building Social Capital • Involvement of the Ex-Offender's Family and the Community • Creative Employment Solutions with Entrepreneurial Business operated by Fresh Start Enterprises
One of the most powerful predictors of success is sustainable, livable-wage employment. Providing funding for the training and employment for thousands of ex-offenders returning to their communities each year will have a multiplier effect in that people have jobs, are paying taxes and child support and child support arrearages, and public safety is increased while the costs of public safety are held constant or decreased.
Effective reentry and community justice programs have great long-term potential to dramatically reduce costs of incarceration, help individuals and their families, reduce risks for children, and improve at-risk neighborhoods all at the same time.
The success of all these efforts is best illustrated by the experience of Mr. James Ghant, now a full-time employee of Family ReEntry, who has joined me here today to share his story.
Respectfully, Steve Lanza Executive Director, Family ReEntry, Inc. 007022
Testimony for the Hearing of the CT Legislature Appropriations Committee on February 23,2009 Given by Family ReEntry's Crew Chief, James Ghant
My name is James Ghant. I joined the Fresh Start program about 3 years ago while I was still at Webster Correctional Institution. I am now a member of the Family ReEntry staff as a crew supervisor leading other men towards a successful life. As a Fresh Start member, I played an instrumental role in starting up the Fresh Start entrepreneurial business, partnering with staff and other Fresh Start members. I am very proud of the business success that Fresh Start has become.
My experience has been extremely rewarding for me, without it I would never have been as successful as I am now. Working with the staff, in a family atmosphere, has helped tremendously in pointing me in the directions I needed to head toward. I would like to highlight some of the things I think are most powerful about Fresh Start:
1. Becoming a mentor to the other men coming out of prison has been without a doubt extremely powerful. I get to see the changes in the men: I see hope where there was none, I see fathers where there weren't any, I see the importance of employment, not only to make a living, but to help them believe in themselves. I have seen these men give back to the community in which they live. Their own giving back empowers them to take control of their own lives.
2. The dedication and true concern that the staff takes in the lives of men coming home, truly does give them a fresh start at life. It has been my experience that guys coming home from doing time, really do better in a family atmosphere. I know that Family ReEntry really does care about the lives of all these men. It helps them to recover, to recoup because it is really tough to succeed without it when you've got a record. Family ReEntry is that bridge in these men's lives to inspire hope, change and success.
3. Combining this solid home base with working is a winning combination. Plus, it is very powerful to see these men connecting with their families, becoming fathers again, brothers again, husbands again and contributors to their whole communities.
4. I am very proud of the success of the business we have started and are running together. In a little over a year we have generated over S160,000 in revenue, 34 men have gone through the program, and are earning salaries, paying taxes and child support. We are looking forward to expanding the business and our training and job development. I know there are many men who would love to have this experience.
I would be very pleased to answer any questions you might have. Thank you for your time.
James Ghant, Family ReEntry 007023
Communities - Not Prisons1
Integrated Programs that increase public safety, reduce cost, improve quality of life in our communities, and address the collateral damage and unintended consequences of high rates of incarceration on the children and families - thus stemming the intergenerational cycle of crime, violence, and abuse. Reducing recidivism by 41%!
1. Fresh Start Enterprise House "Suiting Cowx/mity" Fresh Start Enterprise House is an innovative demonstration project designed to create sustainable community-based opportunities for successful reentry. Success is achieved by combining entrepreneurial employment and training, providing supportive services, interagency collaboration, and creating a community driven to succeed. The program has adopted the core values of the very successful Delancey Street Foundation model. Enterprise House creates an environment with high expectations for success and standards of behavior coupled with meaningful supports from role models, mentors, and the community. Enterprise House is a peer driven, professionally supported, positive pro-social environment. Enterprise House along with the Fresh Start Community Reentry Program, and Fresh Start Enterprises Entrepreneurial Employment and Training shifts the formerly incarcerated person from "incarceration dependence to community integration and self- sufficiency. The community of successful ex-offenders is viewed as a sustainable resource and social capital that will create a web of supportive, role-model, mentoring relationships that will ensure successful reentry and help stem-the-tide of youth entering the criminal justice system.
2. Fresh Start Enterprises: Pom/- of u/off Fresh Start Enterprises creates employment opportunities that go well beyond a paycheck. Fresh Start Enterprises uses work as a powerful medium for initiating and sustaining positive change. We create the work environment (the "work crew"), that are positive support systems where men can leam necessary work skills, gain valuable work experience, create supportive peer relationships, leam and practice social skills, build self-confidence and self-esteem, and begin to mentor each other through encouragement of positive behavior, challenging negative attitudes, and celebrating personal and business success. Men become productive citizens, responsible providers, and role models and leaders in their communities. Fresh Start Enterprises provides opportunities to continue as crew chiefs and supervisors, launch entrepreneurial businesses, or enter a new career with solid work experience and positive work attitudes. In these ways "the power of work" is realized in the many benefits to the ex-offenders, their families, and their communities.
3. Fresh Start: connmnniu mmm Program "{?om}*0 Mow for good" Family ReEntry's FreSli Start program in Bridgeport is the implementation of some of the best thinking and latest research in the field of prisoner reentry. Fresh Start begins identifying and assessing inmates three to six months prior to release and provides targeted services in-prison while paving-the-way in the community for their successful transition. During the first 90 days post-release, the time of greatest risk of re-offending, the program offers intensive services that adjust over time to the needs of the clients. The program is designed to comprehensively address the unique profile of each ex-offender. FlVSh Start will work with approximately 300 Bridgeport bound male clients this year alone with the goal of expanding to scale. About 150 are part of a comprehensive longitudinal Yale University research study. The most recent Yale University research observed a 41% reduction in the rate of recidivism for the men in Fresh Start after 12 months or more, in the community, compared to state data.
1 Quote from CT-DOC Commissioner Theresa Lantz 2 Quote inspired by CT DOC Commissioner Theresa Lantz 007024
Yale University School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry The Consultation Center/ Division of Prevention & Community Research 389 Whitney Avenue New Haven, CT 06511 Telephone: 203 789-7645 Fax: 203 562-6355
Fresh Start Community Reentry Program
Evaluation Executive Summary
February 2009
Program Description
The Fresh Start Community Reentry Initiative is a pilot program designed to facilitate the transition of men from the Connecticut correctional system to the Greater Bridgeport community by establishing continuity between pre-release and post-release support services that are comprehensive and integrated.
The goals of the program are: 1) to reduce the recidivism by supporting the ex-offenders in the areas of employment, substance use/abuse supports/treatment, mental health supports/treatment, formal supports (case management, entitlements, housing, health care), and community supports; and 2) to create a replicable community-based reentry program model that can influence changes in Connecticut's reentry policies and practices.
Demographics
As of December 31st, 2008 a total of 153 participants were enrolled in the Fresh Start . program. Of the enrolled participants, 117 have been released into the community. Of the 153 participants taking the pre-release assessment 108 (70.6%) were African American and 41 (26.8%) were Hispanic or Latino. The average age was 32 years old, with a range of 19 to 62 years. -On average, the men in this program indicated that they had 2 children with a range of 0 to 8. One hundred and fourteen (74.5%) of the participants were fathers. The average length of incarceration was 24.2 months with a range of 1 to 228 months.
Education
More than half of the 153 clients (99, 64.7%) did not complete 12th grade. The mean level of education completed by the men was the 11th grade. Of the 99 clients who did not complete the 12th grade, 41 (41.4%) reported having a GED and the remaining 58 (58.6%) clients had not attained a GED by the time of pre-release assessment.
Employment
At intake, 105 (68.6%) clients reported being employed prior to incarceration. As of December 31, 2008 and based on information available for 67 of the 117 released
1 007025 clients, 45 (67.2%) of the 67 clients with data available obtained employment, 19 (28.35%) were unemployed, and 3 (4.5%) reported having a disability which impeded them from acquiring or retaining employment.
Relapse prevention services
At intake, 68 (44.4%) clients reported using alcohol or drugs at least one to five times per week prior to incarceration. At the end of December 2008, based on 3,773 service logs, case managers reported addressing substance use and mental health issues with 49 (32.0%) of the clients.
Financial Data
At intake, 101 (66.0%) clients reported significant debt, and at least 34 (22.2%) reported outstanding child support payments.
Recidivism Risk
Age at first incarceration, multiple arrests and/or incarcerations, history of violent offenses, and history of probation or parole violations are key recidivism risk factors (Hare, 1991; Webster, Eaves, Douglas, & Wintrup, 1995).
Of the 153 clients enrolled in the Fresh Start Initiative, nine (5.9%) clients did not endorse any risk factors. Sixteen (10.5%) clients endorsed at least one of the four risk factors, 47 (30.7%) clients endorsed at least two risk factors, 50 (32.7%) clients endorsed three of the four risk factors, and 31 (20.3%) clients endorsed all four risk factors.
Of the 60 clients released to the community who completed a release assessment, five (8.3%) did not endorse any of the four recidivism factors, six (10%) men endorsed at least one of the factors, 17 (28.3%) endorsed at least two risk factors, 17 (28.3%) endorsed three of the four risk factors, and 15 (25%) endorsed all four risk factors.
Among the 25 clients released to the community for three months or more who completed a three-month post-release assessment, one (4%) did not endorse any of the four recidivism factors, two (8%) men endorsed at least one of the factors, nine (36%) endorsed at least two risk factors, eight (32%) men endorsed three of the four risk factors, and five (20%) endorsed all four risk factors.
Outcome Data
Using cumulative counts, the following incarceration rates were observed for the men enrolled in the Fresh Start program: of the 117 released clients, 12 (10.3%) were re- arrested within a three-month exposure to the community, 12 (10.3%) were re- incarcerated; 19 (16.2%) were re-arrested within a six-month exposure to the community and 19 (16.2%) were re-incarcerated; and 35 (29.9%) clients were re- arrested within a twelve-month exposure to the community and 35 (29.9%) were re- incarcerated. At all three benchmarks (3 months, 6 months, and one year) a comparison group of inmates similar to the Fresh Start study cohort who were released from a DOC facility in 2004 shows higher rates of re-incarceration: 15.5%, 33.1%, and 54.7% respectively. 2 007026
60 0 54 7% 55 0 Comparison group 50 0 • Fresh Start 45 0 40.0
35 0 33 1 % 30 0 25 0 20 0 155A % 15.0 - 10 0 - 5 0 - 0.0 Three Six months One year months
The 2007 Program Investigation and Review Committee Report contends that reconviction for and/or resentencing of a new crime defines recidivism. Based on this definition, the state of Connecticut reports an overall recidivism rate of 39%. In contrast, at the end of December 31st, 2008,13 (11.1%) of 117 released Fresh Start participants had recidivated by being reconvicted of a new crime.
Entrepreneurship Training and Employment Pilot Initiative
During the fall of 2007, Fresh Start developed a pilot entrepreneurial training and employment component through the creation of Fresh Start Enterprises. This model is based in part on the concepts and practices cited in Venturing beyond the Gates: Facilitating Successful Reentry with Entrepreneurship, published by the Prisoner Reentry Institute of John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Throughout 2008 this venture trained and employed 34 participants. Expansion to scale is contingent on adequate funding for training costs.
Residential Services
In July 2008, Fresh Start started operating an eight bed housing facility. By December 31st, 2008,13 men had received housing services; 11 (84.6%) experienced employment during their residence at this residential facility; 5 (38.5%) were remanded; and 6 (46.2%) transitioned into independent living.
3 007027
Yale University Derrick M. Gordon, Ph D Assistant Clinical Professor Department of Psychiatry School of Medicine The Consultation Center 389 Whitney Avenue New Haven. Connecticut 06511
Telephone: (203) 789-7645 Fax:(203)562-6355
February 20,2009
Re: Letter of Supportfor Effective Community Programs such as Family ReEntry's Fresh Start Programs
In our capacity as evaluators for the Bridgeport Fresh Start Initiative we have worked closely with Family ReEntry in their efforts to address the needs of incarcerated men returning to the Bridgeport community. Family ReEntry has advanced the efforts to support the successful transition of men to the greater Bridgeport community. The collaboration between our work and Family ReEnry's efforts has been important in speaking to the value of State, community, and academic partnerships.
Yale University expects to continue its efforts in conducting both outcome and process evaluation research on Family ReEntiy's Fresh Start Reentry Programs. The evaluation research will continue to be completed in collaboration with Family ReEntry and the CT DOC. It is our view that this partnership will help to further improve the effectiveness and efficiency of reentry for the region and the state.
Under the direction of Principal Investigator, Derrick Gordon, Ph.D. Yale University School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry the evaluation efforts have been helpful in tracking Fresh Start's reentry activities across three highly successful and integrated programs: Fresh Start's Community Reentry Program - a nonresidential reentry program that has yielded significant reductions in recidivism when compared to DOC rates; Fresh Start's Enterprise House - an eight bed congregate supportive housing model based on the core principles of the nationally renowned Delancey Street Foundation Model; and Fresh Start Enterprises - an entrepreneurial training, employment, and business development program for formerly incarcerated men. The work of these integrated programs has grown out of national reentry data and recommendations. Collaboration in the development and implementation of these initiatives with the CT DOC has been a critical element of the success of these programs.
It is clear that Family ReEntry's program which has a comprehensive and holistic approach shows tremendous promise as a model for reentry. Data'collected as of December 31st, 2008 suggests a 29.9% one-year post-release recidivism rate. This demonstrates progress when compared to the State of Connecticut's research study on 4,000 inmates where the one-year re- conviction rate was 40% and the three-year recidivism rate was 70% (Legislative Program Review & Investigations Committee, 2001). We also observed a 54.7% one-year post-release rate of a similar group of CT inmates released in 2004. Building on this success, Family ReEntry has also expressed their intent to continue to develop effective and cost-efficient reentry services 007028
that have the potential to help thousands of ex-offenders. In our opinion, Family ReEntry is an excellent organization dedicated to high quality programs and, in working with the CT DOC and other stakeholders, is poised to increase public safety and reduce costs. The integrated and comprehensive nature of Family ReEntry's efforts is fundamental to its success, especially the integration of reentry services with the Fresh Start Enterprises, a program that provides entrepreneurial training, employment, and business development to program participants.
Sincerely,
Derrick Gordon, Ph.D. Principal Investigator Director, Research, Policy & Program on Male Development The Consultation Center
M. Arturo Perez-Cabello Senior Research Assistant Connecticut Pardon Team, Inc ^^ Providing Information and Tools to Help Change Lives Phone 860-823-1571 Fax 860-425-0656 umnu.connecticutpardonteam.com
Testimony of Jacqueline Caron Founder and CEO of The Connecticut Pardon Team, Inc Norwich, Connecticut February 23, 2009 Before the Appropriations Committee
Good afternoon. Chairman and members of the Appropriation Committeelt's a pleasure to be able to testify before you today on the efforts of the Connecticut Pardon Team, Inc and the importance of why we are here on behalf of the many people in the state of Connecticut who continue to work with The Connecticut Pardon Team to move forward in their lives.
As we work with individuals and families on the daily basis, the question from many who have served their time and reintegrated back into their communities and given back and have become productive tax paying members of society who may have gone back to school or started their own business, but because of a mistake they made and paid for continues to eliminate any opportunities to successfully rebuild their lives to the fullest is How Long Is Long Enough?
For any man or woman convicted of a crime, successfully completing their sentence, along with any assigned parole or probation, is just the beginning. After their release from confinement, they are faced with re-integrating themselves back into their community - often in the same area and with the same influences that provided them opportunity to break the law in the first place.
Their search for employment is often stonewalled by the fact that th,ey now have a conviction on their record. Employers performing a rauline^- search find the negative information, and unless they are part of a;,vl progressive federal or state program, or willing to give the appl|cantV" second chance, the applicant is put at the bottom of the list of candidates - if they remain on the list at all. ^ ' ;
The goal of improving their own economic status and fighting^he^g^j* impulse to return to their former ways is complicated further by tfte*', fact that even advanced education - like a master's i
307 Main Street, Second Floor Norwich, Connecticut 06360 007030
Connecticut Pardon Team, Inc Providing Information and Tools to Help Change Lives
not enough to convince a potential employer to give them another chance. Apartment leases, home mortgages, opening a bank account or a credit card, and many other processes that non-offenders take for granted are often closed to these individuals. This situation continues for as long as the conviction stays on their record, and with the advent of computers, the information is even easier to find.
How long is long enough for a person convicted of a crime, who has successfully completed their parole and / or probation, to continue to pay for that crime? The Connecticut Pardon Team was founded in 2004 to provide tools and information for individuals convicted of a crime who are interested in clearing their record through the Expungement/Provisional Pardon within our state through our Expungement/Provisional Pardon Assistance Program.
The Connecticut pardon Team is a non-profit organization that has provided many people an avenue to a better quality of life. Many of our clients have gone on to successfully live the "American Dream." Without the Pardon Team, many of them would have been unable to attain their success.
Most people are unaware that the pardon process is available or how it works. From my personal experience, almost everyone that attempts the process needs help with the paperwork and coaching to follow through to the completion. Our program concentrates on the individual and devotes time, energy and resources from the start of the pardon process to the end. Our team members are personally involved in each step of the process. We perform these services at no cost to the client. All time, information and resources are provided free of charge. We maintain a website to educate and advocate the pardon process. The website lists all information relative to the,.. Connecticut Pardon Team and provides updated links to resources relating to the pardon process.
We have been in existence in our home base of Norwich for and have continued to grow. In 2008 we served 1385 - participants in the State of CT.
307 Main Street, Second Floor Norwich, Connecticut 06360 007031
Connecticut Pardon Team, Inc Providing Information and Tools to Help Change Lives
Phone 860-823-1571 Fax 860-425-0656wu7wconnecticutpardonteam.com
These numbers do not reflect the true numbers of who benefits from our services such as the wife, Husband, children, mother, father and the family as a whole who ultimately benefits when a loved one can have all the advantages of obtaining employment or housing or education without the barrier of having a conviction on their record. Community groups and others throughout the State have requested that we stage "informationals" in their towns. Our reputation of excellence is based on our commitment to aid the individuals who need us.
Legislators have seen the value of our program and have introduced legislation last year and this year to provide funding to support the work of the Connecticut Pardon Team by continuing to provide Information and tools to help change lives.
As Founder of the Pardon Team, and its first client, I can tell you how important this program is. Most of our clients would have no access to this life changing information without this program. Please visit our website for a more detailed look at what we do. If you would like any further information, please don't hesitate to call or email me. I thank you for your consideration and continued support of this life changing program.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jacqueline Caron, Founder/CEO Connecticut Pardon Team, Inc
307 Main Street, Second Floor Norwich, Connecticut 06360 007032
* indicates no information forum has be done in the county
Fair Field County -227 Participants
Hartford County- -422 Participants
New Haven County- -312 Participants
New London County- -209 Participants
Windham County- -69 Participants
Middlesex County- -59 Participants
*Litchfield County- -58 Participants
Tolland County 27 participants 00703B
yp/o
IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED HOUSE BILL NO. 5284 AN ACT APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE CONNECTICUT PARDON TEAM
Testimony of Richard Caron Sr. Executive Director of The Connecticut Pardon Team, Inc.
Connecticut General Assembly Appropriations Committee Public Hearing February 23, 2009
Thank you, members of the committee, for allowing me to speak to you today on this important bill. My Name is Richard Caron Executive Director of The Connecticut Pardon Team. I'm speaking in favor of the proposed house bill #5284 an act appropriating funds for the Connecticut Pardon Team. Our Non-Profit program, The Connecticut Pardon Team, is dedicated to helping individuals move forward with their lives. The process for applying for a Pardon can be emotionally demanding for most of the applicants. Our program is designed to take out the anxiety of the process for applying for the Expungement/Provisional Pardon Petition.
The state and many municipalities fund numerous reentry programs like housing, homeless shelters, education, job training, and facility programs, which are all vital to the individual reestablishing back into the community and I am strongly in favor of helping with the success of these programs. However, the one process that seems to be overlooked is the need for a successfully completed application for the Expungement Pardon. With the financial burden of these times we need to work together to help relieve the state of the financial cost of these programs. One way to accomplish this is for individuals to complete the ultimate reentry program a successful Expungement Pardon Petition.
The applicants that seek are assistance have successfully completed many of the current reentry programs and still without the ultimate results of a pardon, they cannot move forward. These individuals need to have the hope of finding a 007034
better way of life. They need to have the mistakes that they have made in the past to be put behind them. These mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, community workers, teachers, lawyers, doctors, nurses are individuals who have criminal records but wish to move on and become the upstanding citizens within their communities. The successful Expungement/Provisional Pardon not only meets the needs of these people with legal history but it also empowers their families to remove the oppression that has been suffered throughout the stigma of past conviction.
With the essential funding that this bill could provide The Connecticut Pardon Team would be able to continue to enhance the ability to help individuals throughout the state, to receive the ultimate goal of becoming a self sustaining citizen without the burden of needing the financial assistance from the State of Connecticut. In 2008 we have worked with over 1,300 individuals, through informationals, phone calls, e-mails, our internet website, and the numerous networking with other agencies. We have worked with every county in Connecticut and have even helped people that no longer live in this state. The pardon and parole board's estimated statistics show that this number will only increase in the upcoming years as so many people reenter back into the community. This proves that our program The Connecticut Pardon Team needs to continue to reach out to the State of Connecticut for continuous funding to keep the combined goals of creating a productive, healthy, happy and self-sustaining citizen. 007035
Oct 2007 through January 01, 2009 Connecticut Pardon Team, Inc. has served
* indicates no information forum has be done in the county
Fair Field County -Til Participants
Hartford County 422 Participants
New Haven County 312 Participants
New London County 209 Participants
Windham County — 69 Participants
Middlesex County- 59 Participants
*Litchfield County -58 Participants
Tolland County— -27 participants 0070B6
Oct 2007 through January 01, 2009 Connecticut Pardon Team, Inc. has served Out of State
All participants have records in Connecticut
California 2 Participants
Florida 7 Participants
Kansas 1 Participant
North Carolina 4 Participants
Illinois 1 Participant
Washington 1 Participants
Georgia 4 Participants
Maine 1 Participant
New York 4 Participants
Missouri 1 Participant
Massachusetts 1 Participant
New Hampshire 1 Participant
Rhode Island 5 Participants
Nebraska r 1 Participant
Virginia 1 Participant
South Carolina 4 Participants 007037
z/st&r/c
TESTIMONY OF ATTORNEY ELIZABETH COLLINS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE RE: STATE MARSHAL COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23,2009
The Governor's recommended budget proposes the elimination of the State Marshal Commission and all of its funding. This raises issues from constitutional rights, to separation of powers problems to destabilization and added costs.
State marshals' powers include the power to trespass, arrest, evict, seize money and property and to serve process. Based on 2007 figures, service of process results in approximately 21 million dollars in gross receipts. Additionally, state marshals collect and distribute about 28 million dollars of other people's money through client fund accounts, including about 10 million collected for towns and cities on delinquent tax warrants. They also handle hundreds of thousands, if not more, of documents every year related to civil disputes. They exercise considerable power of the state. As the state regulates attorneys, the state must also regulate the service of process and executions.
Under the Connecticut Constitution, Article 1 Section 10, individuals have a constitutional right to open access to courts and remedies for injuries after due administration of justice. All three branches of government are charged with protecting this right. The State Marshal Commission members are appointed by all three branches of government, which is appropriate.
State marshals are public officers under an oath to uphold the constitution. They are appointed to ensure individuals have access to the courts through proper service of process to commence a suit and maintain an action, as well as to give notice to defendants, and to ensure the execution of court orders, including judgments for money damages. State marshals assist citizens in countless areas from civil and family court matters, housing court and probate court matters and numerous other legal and administrative procedures. Also under the direction of the State Marshal Commission the state marshals cover the service of restraining orders every day, in every courthouse.
The State Marshal Commission oversees, appoints, regulates, audits and trains state marshals, and responds to probably thousands of inquires a year from the courts, government agencies, state marshals and the public on information about the system as well as how to utilize it. Given the scope of toe area the State Marshal Commission is extremely cost effective. 007038
In my opinion, every day in our state, the judicial system, with state marshals, runs smoothly, in conjunction with the oversight by the State Marshal Commission. Centralized regulation under the Commission, which represents the three branches of government, is critical to the viability of a system that is clearly working and working well given its scope.
I believe that eliminating the Commission and all funding for regulation would destabilize the system, adversely impact the judicial branch and undermine a critical, constitutional, core government function. Cost savings from elimination would quickly evaporate as the system would need immediate re-stabilization. If any major disruption occurred, I believe the state might also face possible law suits between the branches and by citizens over the destabilization, or interference with effective, accountable access to courts and to the execution of remedies as provided in the constitution.
The Director of Operations of the State Marshal Commission, James Neil, has presented information to the Appropriations Committee on the State Marshal Commission, along with recommendations on budget cutting, and possible revenue sources.
I ask you to vote to maintain the State Marshal Commission with reasonable funding for its operation. Testimony of Attv. Amy Eppler-Epstein New Haven Legal Assistance Association In Support of Funding for Legal Services February 23, 2009
My name is Amy Eppler-Epstein, and I have been an attorney at New Haven Legal Assistance since graduating from law school in 1986. My work has been primarily in the area of housing law, representing tenants. I want to tell you about some of the work we've been doing in an area that you have been hearing a lot about these days: foreclosures. Although a lot of the news has focused on the high rate of homeowners losing their homes to foreclosure, legal sen/ices advocates in CT have been focusing on another problem: the effiect of foreclosures qn tenants. I want you to hear what kind of advocacy work will be lost if legal aid programs are forced to lay off staff as a result of the economy's impact on IOLTA.
Back in 2003,1 had a client, Stephanie Tappin, come to me with a marshal's notice saying he was coming to put her and her 5 children out on the street in 9 days, because her landlord had lost the house to foreclosure and the bank wanted her out This was the first she knew of the foreclosure case; she had never been named in the case, and never had the chance to go to court. It took a victorious appeal to the CT Supreme Court to make clear that banks could not simply put out tenants when the landlord goes into foreclosure: they have to give the tenants their own day in court, either by naming them in the foreclosure case, or bringing an eviction action against them once the foreclosure is finalized.
Now, in 2008 and 2009, we have been fighting another battle: throughout the state, banks are foreclosing on the landlords of multi-family properties, and then automatically evictingj the tenants, leaving properties boarded up and vacant, targets for vandalism and crime; causing neighborhood destabilization and blight; and dislocating hundreds of families who are forced to uproot their families and move despite following all the rules and paying their rent Legal services advocates throughout the state have combined our efforts to tackle this problem, and are achieving results: in December, after threatening suit under a provision buried in the federal bank bailout law, we were able to get Fannie Mae, and more recently Freddie Mac, to institute a nationwide moratorium on evictions. They agreed to stop evicting tenants after foreclosure, and develop programs to offer such tenants month to month leases while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac market the properties for sale. Just last week, we were here testifying before the Housing Committee on a bill that we proposed to require) other lenders to do the same. Under the bill, lenders who have foreclosed on ^landlord can only evict the tenants for good cause (such as non-payment of rent1 or damage to the property), or if the lender has a contract to sell the property that requires the property to be vacant I am attaching some newspaper articles that describe in greater detail this important advocacy work. 007040
One thing that these stories show is that writing a good law is often not enough; you need to have good advocates to make sure that the law is enforced. In the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it took legal services advocates first to find the tenant protections in the federal law, and then to threaten suit, in order to get it enforced. Similarly, the Tappin case required a Supreme Court appeal to clarify what protections the law provided for tenants. Just last week, I had to fight with a bank's attorney in housing court, to force him and his client to abide by the provisions of the recent tenant protections enacted by the Connecticut legislature during the special session in November. This is why it is so important to provide enough legal aid lawyers to be able to operate in courtrooms throughout all parts of the state, and make sure that these laws are enforced throughout Connecticut.
Further, these stories show that in protecting the rights of the poorest and most vulnerable in society, legal services advocates at the same time protect the rights of us all. When we make sure that banks cannot put low income tenants on the street with no opportunity for them to be heard in court, those same protections apply to all tenants. When we ensure that Fannie Mae offers leases instead of eviction cases to tenants whose landlords have lost the property to foreclosure, that protection applies just as much to a middle class renter, as to a poor one. Similarly, the systemic protections for victims of domestic-violence, or for children, that are the subject of the work of some of my colleagues, benefit more than just the neediest population.
I have been before this legislature at various times in my 22 years with legal services, urging your support for various pieces of legislation to help my clients. This is the first time that I have ever come here to ask for your support to help legal services; because never before have we faced such a dire funding situation.
My colleagues and I at legal services are very committed to the work that we do. We see it as our mission to help low income people, who are so often marginalized and voiceless, get a fair shake from our legal system. Our salaries are far blow those of our peers who take jobs in the private bar; and in the past few months, they have been even lower, as the lawyers at NHLAA have taken a 20% pay cut in response to this funding crisis.
I urge you to do whatever you can to help us fill the funding gap caused by the collapse of IOLTA funding, so that we can continue to do this important work throughout the state, to help our clients. 007041
-v? - Lenders say theycahputyouonthe street ifyourldhdlord didn't pay themdftgage: . - " - - • _ .- "r - - .-,/,- - By Carole Bass .;•- - __ . v -1-'-f-V. Iv J>'A tephanie T^pin~and:GenCTa King Ix\"c in " '"son being Hckcdout is a tenant, and die lende'namerd asa. party in court-The exception: A n several places. Homecomingj Finanaal's rwo -different, houses rin.'two'diffoenr: names htm or her as a fo rmal party CO di-"transfereee fbre- ^ who knew-or should have known _brie f appeals to Veer from the truth, the whole ^AJPtdwni* Biic'lli^ lMtfrm^^rfir'saMWs-T^'dasaie case. That.way, the tenantnxeives althal 'i thepropaty was under^faterWire.' Secause truth and nothing bur: Some examplesr ^J.* ' = take: renringfrom landiards.who didn't pay die - available initrrrnatio nand geis a chance to'th speae It"*"k - - ^ a lis pcnder&r-a notice on thIe •Helenderqubm legislative testimonyto Virortgagjii;', " ,"st~"-lVr*"'* irJr'- rupiocoutc'w C = towns land records. ' - r ^ ^ support its intopretanon of the J984.amend- "^''"'Iappin'and Ki^p^-d^'n^ Bun&m^'^'But here's'"wfaat Homecomings^Finanrial r^The statute doesnWflrfinr "nanjfrree.* Tap-men" t Fpp^ i > 'pflint^ outthat ten* _ thry signed their leases, the housesthey.-Iive.in Network did to Stephanie Tappin, and pins lawyer; Amy Eppler-Epstein of the Newmon y cited was on a previous version.of_the - '-wue alreadym foiedosure-f^elandkirdx^did.-ingron Mutual did to Geneva KingrTHey go' HiwalcgJ'AmManfKAt ^ w juoDytiia a law amendmeru, whichdia"hot pass. The'relevant ,. cbother to .tell j1"^ ^ inV™;™' fer--dictionary and other OinnrrTinrr piupaL)1 laws-languag - e war dropped befbre it omc to ajvott., ~'gage co mpanies'that werrfuredosing. ' J-.', ijiTMiifflf'^-iviw^ny^w eviction notice—-wittho >ar^u e tliat it means someone who acquires -- - Instead. eaA lender .sent a.state marshal to--_ the landlord's name, on it. Thin th^'gor'asace*"ownership'o: r mlrlp other words,someone who to'reopen the fbredosmejudgmen^.Not'tnie, [modioli the dooc. Ea&TnatshalJjorc a court ir'maishal to serve'the noticc on the: tenants.-buy. Vs o.r is given the piupeily—not a1"1 jnr Epplex-Epstcin says: Nobody oiaJlengesHoine- rnriW'rfiaf i1wli?r>grfl' lum* 'ritr IwiarilV iwinii-W.'^BwIi Witfw am ffjinitfiitwj Ky'ilif'Hartfiw' ^I n "faa , Epplex-Epstrm aipinTdie'lfgislaniir i^mip^iT yr^Kf £q the propcrry. * ^ ^ - onii/. _*: -__r --- -v';^5*fimofHimcLeibert: Chesterficjacobson,arncndol.Section 49^22 specifically .to stop ® Honwo^i * i ip accuses Huppin or tiyiwo ^ " They1 gave.Tappin and-her kids—-frve-of'~-' .' y. '. V1 "v create "a second set of appeal ngbis urmorr* - diem, plus aL-year-old granddanghrrr-T-nine KATHLEEN CEI'PHOTO fbredosure acooo^ lappins coniplunt is 'days to fcrrfmr"FFJ^rlmTrfm r '' that she never had a first opportmury to chal1 * 7' ' When the marshal came to Kings house in • lengcha^ • -r . New Haven,, her daughter-wasinlabor. Thar, - .Ifthe court_ sides wiih lappm, Hoiucosh • inc wamsT"a Imdrr m no fto insulate* was 11a1 Thursday. He said he'd bc backo n MonJ ^ day put tlwwi out * • ~' - ." it$elf ag^'wyy Tfiryr fj^ accept to stoTn p issuinftf g ' Thai "was last year, but the families haven't loans in urban ^t nmffi«fi "y ^ nrr moved yen Their evictions' are-stalled while and other rental properties may orisc.? In other their legd aid lawyer rhallrngr: them in court.7* words Protect these tenans, andweH befbrced " The " }«• .imp. ... • '- to - _ have to leave. They know thc7 do. In" 6a, boc have negonatcd wiib the Icsdns-^vfucfa tephanie Tappin is leaving die house in- BOW own dig houses—giving*them w™ aud••-.i . •^-•na-'r- •• - r HamdexL, lier ifrnr* monqr 'xtimovt out ^ ^' ^^^ - S 0 The qucsnon b whether Con nfftrricuc lawfak-^ v bedroom place in New "Haven, which lows leiulea m do wha t they tried to do to lap-' • '•'••"A theyHl rent to her when they're done firing ^ id King: tsc die fercdoant process ID puc^ up. She has promised Homecoming shell be icu-raing t^iTnra on die street with just ^om by Mini'3.^ -' - /. of that agreemenc. Homecomings Edays nonce, and with no chancccb ap-'" J pear in COUR to plead their case. That's the asked the sate Supreme Courtjojledar e the question die state Supreme Court will mnsMrr l(lThelendff alsodtedaburaofo^r pio> . in a case h_heard this week. For hundreds or i ;'uceduial ^ ootau* thousands of Connection families, the courts I sider Thppui on hs merits.* - — answer could mean the (iifference between a rcl- j But E^ler-Epstem wants the oourt to dWf arivcly smooth flight to a new home and a cash I up die laWi A housing lawyer for poor people* landing in an emergency shdret ^ she's seeing quia a few of these casts, die says. Tossed one Stephanielappin (rear) and her £unilywere given jnst a far days to "I would thousands" of pfffplr could rdinarily, a landlord who wants to evict a lltwr fljwTtmwifaliwi til* hitiMwigiwi fiiwrfiwwl nn. be in the same situation as Tropin and King, tenant cvtn a tenant who doesn't pay the die says. Hunr Lesbot "is not the only bw firm rent, rrashrs the place and keeps the neigh- I've encountered it wich. I have spoken with Obors up all night partying—has oo go throi^whici h handles thousands'of f"*"«infi"r''*llr fete-lenders from doing what they did to Tappinothe r lenders' attorneys who teQ me they nm- a legal procedure kiun ra as summary process.'dasures . They insist there's nothing wrong withan' d King, *.--.- tindy" qect tenants without n?ming rfr?1" in TTiat law gives tenants .certain prorrrrions.wha t they did. . _ - " - Eppler-Epsfrin contends'the.amendment feredosuies. - — They receive a formal evicnon notice, known Homecomings Financial "did. all it was re, -was flMijinwl1 0 keep owncxs fiom transferring Most of those tenants don't get lawyers. as a notice raquiL. They have the right to go tquireo d or do," wrote the lenders bwyo; Geoftide- in a sneaky, last-minute attempt to staveThey'r e stuck with whatever time the manhal oouri^Some eidedy and disabled peopL^ as w
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. Monday, Decenibef IS, SQ08 &5
BY KELLY EVANS • ven LegWAssi^tisnce s«iid that. jrie^t'D^cked mortgage-giwts in ahy one. pool,* Mr.-Mpyer ,peJr ..family' r6q about' ' despite -the piedgej'Faijiife represents just, a slice of the. Said. . ." • • «. • .'$2• >SO0'rmeatilng a'tbtat'$10 Fannie Mae is finalizing a Mae was prpde6}in^ • with majrKetand .excludes majjy , it might fal) to the local set- nUlHoh'ioss of v/eiith, "Mf; national policy that Will Alloy ----7T-rii»« ptolia^aWithrisk- .yicers of,themqrtgpgeSito da- RbthSteiji Said. tenants to Remain/in their lion^es.in^oMWflc^Wctes.laCoMfe£flc#lFhaa tftr^Wans thaVate.nw fdllng to lialt evictions, he. ' 'tThe^odaj «|nd economic' homes even if tiielr'landloj'd adypptfcy^grouRS.dfd.iMcy'groto&.did.-tfiMlf' tK.esicc ,»®iftt«yosUie"Ea^^.JiIafe/idde(j, j}ecause-tn6y are re- pidn'pf^victlortha's made th6 goes .into forecioiute'-ti Jandr. •^d;^ddle—^ever/ar:MWhoM?er, are'e • ' tfo'o^bWfpmeps•tfROBSltyefpt-stepsjsucha suchas shtf >^ - subject a regional cause^qbfe mark decision for .teiianfc. ••' ra fittUwmSiyefc'tbireS-^ttUctmsaeaft'tbiM- udv&rsjruct^ uiii The Connecticut General Assembly Joint Committee on Appropriations Sen. Toni Nathaniel Harp Rep. John C. Geragosian Co-Chairperson Co-Chairperson Appropriations Committee PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA Friday, March 20, 2009 1:00 PM in Room 2C of the LOB COMMITTEE BILLS FOR REVIEW 1. S.B. No. 246 (COMM) AN ACT CONCERNING A COMMISSION ON FEDERAL STIMULUS DISTRIBUTION. (APP) 2. Proposed S.B. No. 1 AN ACT CONCERNING ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR CONNECTICUT FAMILIES. 3. Proposed S.B. No. 43 AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE UNITED MUNICIPAL ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM. 4. Proposed S.B. No. 49 AN ACT CONCERNING AN ANNUAL SUMMARY OF THE LONG-TERM FISCAL CONDITION OF THE STATE. 5. Proposed S.B. No. 156 AN ACT DEFINING TERMS RELATED TO THE SPENDING CAP. 6. Proposed S.B. No. 157 AN ACT CONCERNING THE BUDGET SURPLUS. 7. Proposed S.B. No. 172 AN ACT REDEFINING TERMS CONCERNING THE SPENDING CAP. 8. Proposed H.B. No. 5096 AN ACT CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE XXVIII OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION CONCERNING THE LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURES AUTHORIZED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 9. Proposed H.B. No. 5098 AN ACT REDEFINING TERMS CONCERNING THE SPENDING CAP. 10. Proposed H.B. No. 5143 AN ACT CONCERNING THE DATE FOR ADOPTION OF THE MUNICIPAL AID PORTION OF THE STATE BUDGET. 0070UU 11 .Proposed H.B. No. 5303 AN ACT CONCERNING DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE PROVIDER CONTRACTS WITH THE STATE. 12. Proposed H.B. No. 5305 AN ACT CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE XXVIII OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT CONCERNING THE LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURES AUTHORIZED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 13. Proposed H.B. No. 5309 AN ACT CONCERNING FEDERAL FUNDS UNDER THE SPENDING CAP. 14. Proposed H.B. No. 5909 AN ACT CONCERNING THE LINE ITEM IN THE BUDGET ENTITLED "DEBT SERVICE". 15.S.B. No. 1123 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNTS. 16.S.B. No.-1124 (RAISED) AN ACT INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS DEPOSITED IN THE BUDGET RESERVE FUND. 17. H.B. No. 6679 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ACCOUNT TO FUND THE TWENTY-SEVENTH STATE PAYROLL PERIOD 0070U5 The Connecticut General Assembly Joint Committee on Appropriations Sen. Toni Nathaniel Harp Rep. John C. Geragosian Co-Chairperson Co-Chairperson I009 ATTENDANCE. 5ME.E.T CHECK ONE, TUBUC HEARING. date.. Sfaojrri COMMITTE.E. MLLT1NG. TIME.. Ul -^^Harp Rep^Cjenga Rep Geragosian .Sen (jomes jRep. Bartlctt Rep h amm _J/Rcp l~~jcinrich Rep. Rold an — 54 ^en Debicella - VyReP- R^an . Rep- M'ner -^^tp. Santiago . Rep- E>acker —_^ep Sawder (Zsligiuri Rep- Scliofield l/RRee p Qamillo cy Stripp cmons \/Rep- Lewis _V Rep Tercyalc ^Dillon Sen Maynard Duff R&p McCrory M.IL f^awcett S&p Peisclimann [5 en f^rantz Room 2700 • Legislative Office Building • Hartford, CT 06.06-159, . (860) 240-0390 . web sue http//www cga a gov/app/ 00701)6 Date: Time: / ' (H) Room: APPROPRIATIONS PUBLIC HEARING Lottery Siqn-Up # / Name Representing Subject ,1. 4 Sheila Amdur Self SB 246 5 Sheldon Toubman New Haven SB 246 1/• Legal Assistance V 6 David Thomas AARP SB 1 V 9 Mike Guarco Board of SB 156, SB 157 Finance, Granby 5. 15 Selena Welborn Advocacy / Unlimited '6. 17 Cheri Bragg Keep the SB 246 y Promise v/ 7. 19 Peggy Deschenes Sen. Fasono SB 49 n/ 8.. 23 Mark Welch Oak Park SB 1 9. 41 Ginnie Gerena Advocacy Unlimited f 10. 57 Jim Horan CAHS SB 1, SB 246 / 11. 58 Alicia Woodsby NAMI-CT Sb 246 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 00701*7 CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS, STATE AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES, CHIEF ELECTED OFFICIALS AND LEGISLATORS CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKER REGISTRATION COMMITTEE: ROOM NO.: 3d. DATE: S/IOM TIME: I: PLEASE PRINT NAME SPEAKER REGISTERED BY REPRESENTING BILL #/SUBJECT McImm bji &nt -D ^ r^ ^WilC" ,u , . M. . '"]I-TT— -J\ o^ t/i , oh #£-<109 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.. 11.. 12.. 13.. 14.. 15.. 16.. 17.. 18.. 19. 20. 00701*8 PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKER REGISTRATION COMMITTEE: T^pp/Pp^l fXKon^ ROOM NO.: O^L DATE: TIME: l' °° PLEASE PRINT NAME SUBJECT OR NAME REPRESENTING BILL NUMBER n f^i'hWy : ^ WViui/v^n ee\{ tt aa^ VS. flau*> s£) 6. . 7. 8. 9. 10.. 11.. 12.. 13.. 14.. 15.. 16.. 17.. 18.. 19.. 20. 0070U9 1 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. CHAIRMEN: Senator Harp Representative Geragosian VICE CHAIRMEN: Representative Bartlett Representative Heinrich MEMBERS PRESENT: SENATORS: Debicella, Duff, Frantz, Gomes, Kane, Prague REPRESENTATIVES Camillo, Candelaria, Clemons, Duff, Esty, Fawcett, Hamm, Hovey, Hwang, Lewis, Kirkley- Bey, Miller, Nafia, O'Neill, Orange, Rebimbas, Reynolds, Ryan, Santiago, Sawyer, Scofield, Stripp, Tercyak, Thompson, Urban, Villano, Walker, Winfield, Wood SENATOR HARP: for review as well as other sundries. And with that, I'm going to call upon our list of Constitutional Officers, State Agency Representative, Chief Elected Officials and legislatures. And our first speaker is our Controller, our state Controller, Nancy Wyman. Welcome and good ,af ternoon NANCY WYMAN: Good afternoon Senator Harp, Senator Debicella, I thought I saw him, Mary Gow and HftfeM the distinguished and very distinguished members of the Appropriations Committee. For the record I am State Controller, Nancy Wyman, and I'm here to testify on a few proposals. The unprecedented budget crisis Connecticut now facing has spotlighted the vital i 59 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. importance of planning for economic downturn that are both typical and inevitable. The three proposals I'm about to address are intended to equipment government with conservative, long-term fiscal policies that will lessen the impact of temporary revenue shortfalls on state programs and our tax payers. The first bill is Senate Bill 1124, and Act Increasing the Amount of the Unappropriated Surplus Deposited in the Budget Reserve Fund. To me the most important tool that the state has to prepare for the economics is our savings account, the Budget Reserve Fund, or better known as the Rainy Day Fund. It is clear that the current $1.4 billion in the fund will play a major role in dealing with this year's billion dollar deficit and the $8 billion deficit estimated in the next biennium. That is why I believe now is the time to prepare for the next inevitable down turn by raising the cap on the fund from its current 10 percent to the 15 percent of its appropriations. Economic experts have, for years, asserted that the state should strive to have 18 to 2 0 percent of the General Fund Budget in reserve in order to deal with a typical three-year down turn. The 15 percent fund, under Connecticut's current budget, would have created a balance of $2.6 billion. While that would not be enough to cover our current projected shortfalls, those funds would have been a strong buffer against potential tax increases and current and cuts to safety net programs. And while I credit you, the legislature, for building the fund to this level, I believe we can do better. 007051 3 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. Between 1992 and 2008, the state appropriated about $5.7 billion in excess revenues that otherwise could have been deposited into the Rainy Day Fund. Clearly setting aside a more substantial portion of the windfall would have lessened the fiscal pain that we are all experiencing, both in 2002 and what you're facing now is a crisis. I believe that now is the time to commit to making the fund an even higher priority as we create a road map for Connecticut's economic recovery and long-term fiscal stability. I'm requesting that you amend Senate Bill 1124 with the language attached to my written testimony to permit incremental funding of the Rainy Day Fund during the fiscal year rather than after the books close. The Governor is now required to submit a deficit mitigation plan whenever the projected general fund deficit exceeds one percent of appropriations. Under the current budget, that one percent is about $176,000,000. This new language would allow the transfer of projected surplus revenues to the fund on a monthly basis whenever projected surplus exceeds one percent of the appropriation. These funds would be available to mitigate a shortfall if the projected surplus becomes a projected deficit as the year progresses. Ensuring that the excess revenues directed to the Rainy Day Fund, and raising the funds cap by 15 percent, would be firm steps to strengthening fiscal protections for both government and tax payers during the next economic slow down. House Bill 6679, An Act Concerning the Establishment of an Account to Fund the 4 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. Twenty-Seventh State Payroll Period. As you know, every 11 years the state incurs an additional twenty-seventh payroll. The next extra payroll will occur in fiscal 2012, and is estimated at $120,000,000. I am asking for appropriation of $12,000,000 annually, starting in 2013 until the next disbursement occurs. Doing so will have no immediate fiscal impact, but will bring the state closer to GAPP accounting and provide the tools to plan this obligation in the future. Creating this fund would also improve the state's standing in the bond market because it would demonstrate proactive fiscal management of known liabilities. Lastly, I'd like to just speak about Senate Bill 1123, An Act Concerning the Flexible Spending Accounts. This legislation will clarify the mechanism for funding a flexible spending account program for state employees, similar to those that have become popular in the private sector. It would allow employees to put away pre-tax dollars to pay for health expenses not covered, or not covered fully, by the plan, such as hearing aids, eye glasses, and for those of you that are much younger, orthodontia for you kids. You can tell which one I thought of first. The funding mechanism is (INAUDIBLE) of forfeitures from the flexible savings account and savings from the state not having to pay Social Security on the pre-tax dollars. This proposal is basically revenue-neutra1. I'd like to thank you for the time and I'd be glad to answer any questions that you might have at this time. SENATOR HARP: Thank you very much. Are there 007053 5 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. questions? Yes, Representative Bartlett. REP. BARTLETT: Thank you Madam Chair. Good afternoon. NANCY WYMAN: Good afternoon. REP. BARTLETT: If we went with the monthly proposal that you're saying, could you tell me, in terms of putting it into the Rainy Day Fund, could you tell me -- Often times we pass legislation and we've been an appropriate legislation and the Governor resists implementing, or the administration resists implementing in order to fund the projects. I remember last year it took many, many, many months to allow, for example, Medicaid reimbursement rates to actually be paid to the doctors. If we went with your proposal, would this enable them in some ways not to spend money going forward for, you know, maybe legislative initiatives that a department may not agree with, and then it would be dumped into the Rainy Day Fund and then we'd lose those funds. So could you address that concern or what kinds of safe guards, or is that just totally not... NANCY WYMAN: I don't believe that will stop anything from going on that you describe. Because you know that at least as of the way the budget is now, you'd still have $157,000,000 that would not be going into the fund. It's everything over that $157,000,000 that one percent that would be going to the fund. How the Governor and her agencies run their agencies would not have anything to do with this. It's the money that you all appropriate 6 63 March 20, 2009 bcc bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. to them that is supposed to be going straight to funding the programs. This is only on surplus monies not for on-going programs that you all have told the executive branch to spend the money on. REP. BARTLETT: I understand, but I'm just wondering in terms of, you know, I mean -- Everybody moves numbers around. It's one thing I've learned over time, and do you understand my concern that you know we appropriate and then it's not funded for whatever reasons, then all of a sudden it ends up being considered part of the stimulus by the administration. And it's put somewhere -- And then we're sitting there arguing with them that -- Hey, what happened to such and such and you know it wasn't spent. NANCY WYMAN: I agree and I understand your concerns regarding how the programs that you want administered are to be administered. These monies were, that you're talking about, are already voted on by all of you that's in the budget. This has nothing to do with anything that would have affected it. Basically, we'd be taking this money and would be able to invest it a lot earlier for, and hopefully when the interest rates are going up higher. But the fact is that all we'd be doing is not touching anything that you already have appropriated by any means. This is for nonappropriated funds. REP. BARTLETT: Okay. Thank you. NANCY WYMAN: Thank you. SENATOR HARP: Thank you very much Senator Debicella. SENATOR DEBICELLA: Thank you Madam Chairman and 7' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. Madam Comptroller for bringing these three bills forward. Questions on each of them. So on 1124, I think it's a very good idea for us to raise the target on the Rainy Day Fund from 10 percent to 15 percent. I bet a lot of us wish we had that right about now. There's nothing in this bill that would create any mandates for us to fill it to that amount. It would be under the same process that we use today. If there is surplus at the end of the year, it would automatically be swept into the Rainy Day Fund. NANCY WYMAN: Right this is a cap. SENATOR DEBICELLA: It is a cap. But my other question on it is I want to try to understand a little better the benefits and costs of doing a monthly, rather than an annual sweep into the Rainy Day Fund. In actuality, it's an accounting measure, right. We're not actually - There's one big pool of cash that the treasurer manages. It's not like we have two separate funds that we're moving this between. What are the benefits that you see and any potential cost that you see of doing it on a monthly, rather than an annual basis? NANCY WYMAN: No, there is no cost to it. We believe that we'd be preserving more of the funds and be put away immediately. There is no cost to it. If anything, we're hoping that it will us build that Rainy Day Fund faster and because we're now taking money that has not been appropriated. SENATOR DEBICELLA: And my question on that is, at the end of the year, the end of the fiscal year, we're sitting on July 1st. Whether you 007056 8 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. do it on a monthly or an annual basis, the appropriations and the cash flows are what they are. So you're going to end up at the same point whether you do it on a month-by- month or an annual basis. Right? I mean we're not going to be able to save more by doing this monthly that we are annually are we? NANCY WYMAN: To be honest with you, I would hope we would. That because then we would not appropriate the money by the end of the year by taking it away and putting it away right away and leaving enough for flexibility - That it would be putting more into the savings account if we did it on a monthly basis. SENATOR DEBICELLA: It's a variage. It's actually a very interesting idea Madam Comptroller. Thank you for bringing it forward. On 6679, again I think it's a good idea for us to do to try to comply with GAPP and do it over time. The question I have is, do we need to do this year cause I know it's implementing it for four years from now. Is there a benefit, for us from a GAPP's standards prospective from us doing it now rather than waiting? NANCY WYMAN: Well, I think having the law in books will also help us in the bond market. They'll see that we are thinking ahead of time. We're not, of course, asking for any money now. You all have your - It is very strapped for all of you right now, but we think what it happens is it will start from the time that the first year of the 11 payments starts to accumulate. And this would be a good time to do it now. I really do believe that it will help us in the bond market. 007057 9' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. SENATOR DEBICELLA: Great. And last question on 1123 then is, just to make sure that I'm understanding it, so we're creating basically the equivalent of health savings accounts for our public employees. Is that correct? NANCY WYMAN: Basically, it is. Yeah, per se because we already have - This is basically to cover those things that we do not cover under a health care plan. It has been on the books. This is a mechanism how to fund it. The legislature already had voted on it. This is a mechanism that was not in the statutes and we needed to clarify how we were going to fund it. SENATOR DEBICELLA: So the funding for this then is coming from the employees themselves and the avoided Social Security tax that we would otherwise pay, so there's no fundings for us from off-budget or anything like that. It's the money we'd otherwise be paying the federal government quite honestly. NANCY WYMAN: And the forfeitures, because don't forget in these accounts if you don't spend it, you basically lose it and the members know that, as in the private sector. And whatever is forfeited stays in that fund. SENATOR DEBICELLA: Great. Thank you Madam Comptroller and thank you Madam Chairman. SENATOR HARP: Thank you very much. Representative Reynolds. REP. REYNOLDS: Thank you Madam Chairwoman. Welcome Madam Comptroller. Thank you for your testimony. I'm very impressed by the Budget Reserve Fund proposal that you've offered and had we 10' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. adopted your legislation back in the early 90's, we would have over $5 billion more in our Budget Reserve Fund and the current fiscal picture for Connecticut and the arbitrary cutting process we're now engaged in would be very different. And so I want to thank you for sounding the alarm for many years even though we didn't listen. You were the lone voice out there on this and I want to thank you for having that vision. Let me ask you one question. If this legislation is adopted, we have a series of flush years in which the one percent kicks in, the Budget Reserve Fund ultimately hits the new 15 percent cap. Is it feasible then that we could expand the legislation to say that that one percent then would apply to contributions to debt service and unfunded liabilities, in other words, max out on the BRF and then if surpluses continue, continue your monthly intercepts to address the other long-term obligations. Is that something you would support? NANCY WYMAN: Absolutely. I think that's a great idea. As you know that when we do max out on our Rainy Day Fund, as you said, when we do have surplus, we start paying; that goes down to debt reduction. So I would be glad to put that as an amendment onto my amendment to extend in excess of that one percent to reducing that at the time that we still have the Rainy Day Fund. It's a good suggestion. Thank you. REP. REYNOLDS: Thank you Madam Comptroller for your leadership. Thank you Madam Chairwoman. SENATOR HARP: Thank you very much. Are there any other questions? Yes, Representative Esty. 007059 11' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. REP. ESTY: Thank you very much Madam Chair. Good afternoon. I do think it's a great idea to increase that and I know locally we did that and it is, in fact, going to make a huge difference for our ability to weather the next two years. So I think it's important to get it in place now so that hopefully when things turn around and we do have surpluses, we can plan to moderate the ups and downs in the cycle. I just had a quick question on the flexible spending accounts. Would those be subject, I'm assuming, to the new federal rules that allow employees to go 60 days out, I think, into the next calendar year to take advantage before there's forfeiture? NANCY WYMAN: I think so. REP. ESTY: So assuming that those recent revisions, I think last year's revisions, would apply, to at least give employees the option to have the first two years the following calendar year to use their flexible spending. SENATOR HARP: Okay. Thank you very much. Are there further questions? Our next speaker is Senator McLauchlan. SENATOR MCLAUCHLAN: Thank you Senator Harp, Representative Geragosian, Senator Debicella and Representative Minor and all the Members of the Appropriations Committee. My name is Mike McLauchlan. I'm a Senator from the 24th District. i'm here today in support of Senate Bill 172, An Act Redefining Terms Concerning the Spending Cap. I'd like to thank you for considering this important bill as you 007060 12 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. deliberate the budget crisis we face in Connecticut government. And, many of you may recall, back on November 3, 1992 voters of Connecticut overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Connecticut creating a constitutional spending cap. And this amendment requires the General Assembly to fully implement the spending cap by defining the spending cap terms. These definitions must be enacted only by a three- fifths vote in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, 16 years, 4 months and 17 days have passed since the voters of Connecticut approved the spending cap and the legislature has not taken the next step. I introduce Senate Bill 172 hoping we can move forward with the will of the voters and I suggest that the amendment to the Connecticut General Statutes to redefine the increase in inflation, to mean the increase in the consumer price index for urban consumers during the preceding two-year period, using the US Bureau of Labor Statistics data. This bill also suggests redefining the General Budget Expenditures to mean expenditures from appropriated funds, authorized by the public or special act of the General Assembly. The General Budget Expenditures shall not include expenditures for payment of the principal of interest or bonds, notes or other indebtedness or expenditures. Now some would suggest that we effectively have a spending cap by state statute, and this is true. However, changing a statute is a relatively simple matter for the legislature; but changes to our constitution demands a far more inclusive process with the voters of Connecticut. And I submit to you that the 13 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. voters have spoken on this issue over 16 years ago, and I hope we can move forward with their request of this legislature that we fully implement Connecticut's constitutional spending cap. I thank you for your consideration. SENATOR HARP: Thank you very much. Are there questions? Senator Debicella. SENATOR DEBICELLA: Thank you Madam Chairman and thank you Senator McLauchlan for bringing this forward - a comment then a question. The comment is that it's actually very apropos that you bring this forward because your predecessor times two in the seat is actually the person who wrote our statutory spending cap, Senator Mark Nielson. So the question that I have to you in looking at this is, given the state that our finances are in right now - In previous years when we've discussed this, we've seen that, well this is actually going to have an impact on the current budget deliberations, because very often when we implement the constitutional language, it sets a different standard for the spending cap than what is in the statutory language. Given our finances this year, are we going to see any impact on our budget if we were to enact something on this? SENATOR MCLAUCHLAN: No, I believe otherwise, especially when we're looking realistically at deflation coming in this coming year, and so that the whole ramifications of implementation of the spending cap is a different dynamic. Quite frankly, it is now even more so exactly what the voters were looking for in that we in this type budget environment are now have tighter bumpers to keep going forward that 14' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. it's so important that we not get carried away with spending. And so the short answer is no. It does not have the same impact that was the concern in the past. Although I wasn't here in those deliberations, I w.atched from afar and I do believe that in this environment, in this economy, it does not have the same impact. SENATOR DEBICELLA: It's interesting because especially in the first of the two years, at least in Governor's proposed budget, spending is actually going down so obviously it wouldn't it then if we were to adopt that budget. In the second year, spending is going up but still significantly below>the cap. I actually think that if we are to implement this, which I'd be very supportive of, now seems to be the year to do it, because in other years obviously when we're talking about this, we're doing it jointly when we're debating - geese, are we pressing up against the cap, are we going to go over the cap? Doing this this year it actually is not going to impact our budget deliberations greatly because, quite honestly, this committee has been doing a lot of work where to cut spending. So I think it's an apropos time for you to bring this forward and thank you for it. SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Thank you. SENATOR HARP: Thank you very much. Are there further questions? Yes, Senator Frantz. SENATOR FRANTZ: Thank you Madam Chair and Senator McLachlan. I think it's a terrific idea. Any idea, any proposed bill that calls for more prudent financial management of the state's business is something I'm always going to be in favor of whether it's increasing the Budget 15' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. Reserve Fund by a certain amount per year or acting more responsibly in an fashion, which is basically what your calling for hear. And you're just simply reiterating what the people had asked for of Connecticut 16 years ago. My question for you is this. Have you had a chance to run the numbers on what the difference is between the intended spending cap over the 16 years and what, in fact, we as a state have spent? SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Run that by me again Senator, the comparison you're looking for. SENATOR FRANTZ: It would take a pretty good amount of time to figure this out, so I'm not expecting it an answer. But, what I am curious about is have you done a back-of-the- envelope analysis of what the difference between the intended spending cap and its specific language over the last 16 years and what we as a state have, in fact, spent. In other words, going above and beyond the original intent of the spending cap that was implemented 16 years ago. Do we have any of that data? SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Well, it has been suggested by some that without the statutory spending cap in place that is currently as we see it now, that spending could have grown as much $244 billion annually. Now those are - You know, how can you come up with a real number? It's just based upon previous proposals of budgets and what could possibly have happened. So that, you know, that isn't a real number. But spending growth in the six years prior to the establishment of the Connecticut Spending Cap, dating back to 1985 - 91 averaged 11.6 percent per year increases. So, the 16' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. constitutional spending cap, the vote of Connecticut residents to approve the Constitutional Spending Cap has kept a good check on the legislature in the way that they have deliberated budgets, but I'm not sure that we could answer your question specifically right now. SENATOR FRANTZ: Okay. Fair enough. If I understand the Constitutional Spending Cap correctly, it's a cap that is related to the rate of inflation and/or the rate of growth in personal income, which, according to the research I've done, is less than three percent, the maximum of either of those two figures and I know for a fact that we've spent more than that on a percentage basis for at least seven or eight years, I think as much as ten years. So thank you very much. Thank you Madam Chair. SENATOR HARP: Thank you. Representative Geragosian. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you. Good afternoon Senator. Just a question about the index. It's general CPI that you propose that we use? SENATOR MCLACHLAN: Well, yes, it is general CPI, urban consumers according to Bureau of Labor statistics. REP. GERAGOSIAN: And that's -- you know, government spends its money a little differently that the people at home and we have cost drivers. Within it health care comes to mind and things like corrections that don't necessarily lend themselves to private consumer spending. And that's kind of where -- are you aware of an index that more adequately represents the things that we do and how they relate to... 17' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. SENATOR MCLACHLAN: I can't claim to be an expert on such an index. I'm certainly not an economist, although I've had many years in banking. I will tell you that this is only a suggestion. Many different indexes have been discussed in past years as this issue of the Constitutional Spending Cap has been on the agenda of this legislature for 20 years. I put one out there as one that I think is tighter than most others, perhaps ends up being lower, as you've indicated. That is a good observation. It does tend to be lower than what our spending needs are in state government. But it is only one of several that could be considered. REP. GERAGOSIAN: There's always been hyperinflationary so it's a big driver in what we do and that's why I think that this particular index might not be the right one, but I think that we support the concept generally that something that more adequately reflects of what we do and the proportion of how we do it might make better sense because, quite frankly, in good times and in bad, we haven't adhered to the spending cap. And both parties have kind of agreed to that as we've moved along. SENATOR HARP: Thank you very much. Are there further questions? If not, thank you very much sir. Our next speaker is Representative Shawn T. Johnston. Is he here? Representative Johnston? If not, then I'm going to turn the public portion of this meeting over to my co-chair. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you Senator. The first person on our list is Sheila Amdur. Is Sheila here? We'll go to Barbara Albert. Is Barbara here? I want to make sure you turn the 18' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. microphone on. I think you'll see the light on. There you go. BARBARA ALBERT: Good afternoon Members of the Appropriation Committee, also everyone else. My name Barbara Albert, registered voter, renter in Hartford, human rights advocate and activist and multiply medically challenged. This is my testimony concerning S.B. 24 6, An Act Concerning a Commission on Federal Stimulus Distribution. I need for you to know well to low income age-disabled persons, single parents and their children and others who receive assistance for DSS, particularly people who are dual eligible on Medicare and Medicaid, if the $1.3 billion federal money meant to help Medicaid benefits end up elsewhere. If I lose Medicare Part D, Wraparound coverage, that means that helps pay for brand name medically necessary medications due to several allergic and messed over side affects from generic meds that I've been massively guinea pigged with. Just recently a generic med burned my genital area. I've had side effects from rashes, grand mall seizures to anaphylactic shock symptoms. I have to deal with the state pharmacy's prior approval and it's denial stamp all the time, not to mention that having to pay co-payments for uncountable medication trials and the doctors' appointments, transportation, premiums and I have to Medicare Part D and can't forget about the, can't find a qualified therapist, because most wont deal with Medicare or Medicaid people and other insurances now too. I receive approximately $10,000 a year due to several medical conditions, most of which are chronic. Almost two-thirds goes for rent, 19 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. then there's bills, etc. I also take vitamins; can't use food stamps to purchase those. There's also my ADA approved fur ball companion guardian angel who eats and is taken care of better than me. My grocery store is the food pantries I volunteer in. I've stopped taking all of my medications before, suffered withdrawal, refused to go to doctors, even stopped in the process of physical therapy. I currently have seven doctors, take ten prescribed medications from a slowed down thyroid to pre-cancerous condition. Why are mental illnesses so difficult to understand as other medical conditions? I've been surviving since before I popped out of the chute, so to speak. This is not quality life or living.- The $1.3 billion, federal dollars is meant for use for Medicaid benefits. If not, this will further increase obstacles, barriers, increase stigma and gentrification. Please do not cut our benefits. Please keep the promise. Thank you for listening and your patience. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee? Thank you for coming up. Sheldon Toubman. SHELDON TOUBMAN: Good afternoon Representative Geragosian, Senator Harp, other Members of the Committee. My name is Sheldon Toubman. I'm a staff attorney with New haven Legal Assistance Association. I'm here to testify also on S.B. 246, a bill creating a commission to address the distribution of the substantial funds coming to Connecticut under the federal stimulus. I'd specifically like to talk about the 007068 20 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. increased reimbursement under the Medicaid program and to urge you not to make any cut in the Medicaid program and the rest of the state's health insurance safety net for low income folks in light of the receipt of this $1.3 billion. While I support the concept of a commission, I think it is also important to set some basic guidelines at the outset about how this money is going to be spent. You know that we're going to get an increase, and it's going to amount to going from 50 cents on the dollar to about 60 cents on the dollar increased money. This is a very important additional money coming to Connecticut, but it's coming specifically through the Federal Medicaid Program and Governor Rell helped with working with our delegation to make sure this money would come to us. But at the same time we're getting all this money, the Governor who actively worked to get this money is now proposing drastic cuts to Connecticut's health care safety net. That's Medicaid, HUSKY, SAGA, Part D Wraparound, ConnPACE health care for recent low income legal immigrants. They'd lose all benefits except extreme emergencies. The cuts are many and they are harmful. Just to mention a few of my testimony in writing includes of it. But just a few of them: kids' dental; they can't get it without prior authorization; adults' dental; they can't get it at all, except in extreme emergency. Prior authorization for psychiatric meds, like we just heard about; non-citizens off all benefits except in an emergency; SAGA recipients cut off medical transportation and vision care; medical interpretation. One, I will talk about a little bit because I because saw, I may have read it wrong, but it 78' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. looks like the human services can be today produced and a substitute to the Governor's 843 which had all these cuts. And it looks like a lot of the cuts have been taken out, but one that's still in there is to completely eliminate the Wraparound under Part D. I think folks know the Part D plans have a lot of problems and a lot of drugs you cannot get on those plans. That's why this legislature acted proactively to have a good Wraparound so people would not walk out of the drug store without their medications, all kinds of medications rejected because the Part D plans don't have them. This has been a life saver and it works efficiently because the state pays for the drugs and then follows up, tells the doctor, why didn't you prescribe another drug that's on the formulary. Our folks can't possibly figure out what's on the formulary or not this month. This is a Wraparound that works well, saves lives and ultimately saves money. Yet, it's included in what was passed by the Human Services Committee apparently, just today. Now many of you have expressed grave concerns about one or more of the proposed cuts. What I'd like to say is that you really should not make any of them. Don't trade off kids against adults against people with mental illness. None of these cuts should be made. Technically, the stimulus only prohibits your cutting eligibility for Medicaid and you could cut benefits, but it's the wrong thing to do under the circumstances of receiving $1.3 billion. And, I'll end with a quote from our President. When he announced to the Governors' Association that he giving out some money, which for us is $1.3 billion, he said: This money is to "health insure that you don't need to make cuts to essential services 22 63 March 20, 2009 bcc bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. Americans rely on now more than ever." And he said this money is to "help you cover the costs of your Medicaid programs." In light of all this, I urge you to reject all of the Governor's cuts and to instead to at an honest, appropriate increase in revenue under the Better Choices agenda, which the Coalition of Advocates put together to finally fill a hole without making those cuts. Thank you very much. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you very much. Thank you Sheldon. Senator Debicella. SENATOR DEBICELLA: Thank you Mr. President and thank you for your testimony on the budget. I'd like to ask you a couple of questions on the bill itself, because this actually, the bill seems to set up a mechanism by which there would be a special commission appointed on the Federal Stimulus Distribution. And it seems like the bill itself says that -- it actually doesn't say this, but there are two parts to the stimulus funding. There's the part that you're referring to which is the part that's flowing to the general fund, which consists of increased Medicaid dollars and some dollars that are unrestricted. And then there's the money for shovel-ready projects. So what you're saying for this bill is that the work that this committee has done and continues to do on the budget, should be usurped by this committee that is going to be in place to decide, or make recommendations on, how the money used. Is that where... SHELDON TOUBMAN: What I'm suggesting is, I know the language of the bill. What I'm suggesting is that you could amend this bill to make 23' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. clear that in light of the receipt of the $1.3 billion that there will not be cuts made enlisting the basic health safety net for low income folks in Connecticut, the programs I mentioned. So, I don't see any reason why the bill couldn't be amended to make sure that -- we're going to get all this money and you don't have to spend it all on Medicaid. But the point is let's at least hold harmless folks under these existing programs and the bill could be amended to say that. SENATOR DEBICELLA: So do you support this bill or oppose it as it's written? SHELDON TOUBMAN: I don't oppose it. I think it would be better if it was amended to include that kind of language. SENATOR DEBICELLA: So you're saying that you'd be okay if we had a commission with people appointed by the Governor, by the Speaker of the House, President Pro Tem and not this committee making those decisions. SHELDON TOUBMAN: I would not be opposed to that, but again, I think it would be good before you get into that as I said at the beginning of my testimony, there should be guidelines and so that, subject to certain limitations, yes, there should be a commission that should do that. And one of those limitations is, while we're getting all this money, there should not be any cuts to these programs. SENATOR DEBICELLA: Well, it seems to me like the intention behind this bill, I originally thought, was to deal with the second pot of money, was to give a structure to how the shovel-ready projects were supposed to be 24' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. distributed. What you're saying is you would actually be okay with appointed people, not elected people, deciding what is to happen with these funds, the Medicaid funds, as long as they do what your saying and spend them. Is that right? SHELDON TOUBMAN: Considering how much money we're talking about, I think that it does raise questions about whether you want to have only unappointed people deciding how such money is spent. I read the bill to apply to all the money coming in. I mean maybe I'm wrong on that, but I read that it applies to all of it. To the extent it does and to the extent, it includes the increase federal Medicaid dollars. That's really all I'm here to talk about, that I'm saying that this bill should make it clear that we're going to hold harmless the safety net as we receive that money, before we get into the question of who's going to decide how the rest of the money is going to be spent. SENATOR DEBICELLA: I appreciate that and I think that there are a whole other host of issues cause there's already a process in place on the side of the stimulus package that is for shovel-ready projects and there is a process laid out in the federal bill that the Governor is actually following that this bill would usurp on that side. However on the side that you're talking about, I actually have very serious concerns about usurping this committee and the legislature as a whole right to decide where to dollars from the stimulus are going to go, even though the • people appointed here are appointed by the Governor and the Speaker and the President Pro Tem. I actually think this committee is doing 1 007073 25 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. a lot of work, some of which to address some of the concerns you've brought up. And, I would think that to amend this to say we have to spend all stimulus money and have this new committee decide how that's going to be done, I think that it's very dangerous for democracy. I think we've been working a very bipartisan way to try to make sure we come out with a fair and balanced budget. So I'd just be very, very cautious. I appreciate your impetus for coming here and your desire to see some of those cuts restored. I would just be very careful about saying about who is going to make that decision. Thank you Madam Chair. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you Senator. Representative Kirkley-Bey. REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: I would just like to make a comment relative to the Stimulus Package. I think many of us, when we heard that it was coming, felt that it was going to be a Bonanza and being able to say the programs that you're talking about, the ones I worry about - the problems that are being put on the backs of the poor to pay for problems that other .people created. Shovel-ready projects, to me, are just those that are going to be building buildings and stuff like that. They have nothing to do with the money that's coming in for the homeless, the Medicaid and other. That's a whole completely different category in my mind. Alright, because I know that the Department of Transportation, we're doing those and we're doing developers under the shovel-ready projects. But, what's happening here is the money that was set aside based on the things you read the President said is disproportionately being shifted the burden onto poor people to pay for it, as it always 26' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. has been. Every time we get into this dilemma, we cut every program that provides some kind of respect, courtesy and dignity to the people who are poor. They're like they are disposable individuals and I want to say that I concur with you and I wish that my colleague could understand it, that this is not a people who don't the best that the State of Connecticut has to offer. They are citizens of the richest state in the country. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you Representative. Representative Villano. REP. VILLANO: Thank you Mr. Chairman. As I recall, a discussion at the Medicaid Managed Care Council last week, the state is prohibited on the terms of the increased spending and Medicaid payments from 50 to roughly almost 60 percent from changing its benefits, its Medicaid plan from what was in place in August of last year. Am I right or wrong with that? SHELDON TOUBMAN: Well unfortunately it's a little more nuance than that. I don't want to misrepresent, so I have to be clear about what the limitations are that Congress technically imposed. The limitations are that the states, if they're going to receive the increase money, they may not limit eligibility to get onto Medicaid and they may not impose any new procedural barriers to getting onto Medicaid. But they can, and that's why we're here, they can cut benefits once your one. In other words, you could have a meaningless Medicaid program. Oh yes, you cannot cut eligibility to get on Medicaid. The question, what do you get once you're there? And what I'm trying to say, I'm really pleading with you and I'm saying, look, I recognize that under the law technically that the states can make these 27 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. cuts. I'm not suggesting they can't, with a couple of exceptions. For example, premiums per HUSKY aid, these completely unaffordable premiums that are proposed for HUSKY aid parents, that probably would be a violation because effectively it becomes an eligibility requirement. If you don't pay your premiums, you can't stay on, so it's a new eligibility requirement. That's probably prohibited. But most of all the other cuts, like ending dental for adults. That is permissible, but what I'm also saying is it's wrong. It's wrong to do it. I would agree with Representative Kirkley-Bey that you shouldn't be balancing on these programs of the budget on the backs of poor people, and you probably heard me say that in previous years. We shouldn't do that. But we're now getting $1.3 billion specifically to prevent it. It is not just me saying it. It's the President saying it. And under those circumstances, Representative Villano, even though we could cut benefits, we could end the Part D Wraparound, like it says in substitute Bill 843, it came out of human services today. We can do those things. We shouldn't do those things. REP. VILLANO: Thank you. Well are you submitting to the Committee some draft language that we could look at? SHELDON TOUBMAN: I'd be happy to if the Committee is interested in that. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Are there any further questions? Thank you Sheldon. Before we get onto the next speaker, we have a new member with us I want to introduce. Representative Rebimbas is here and I want to congratulate her on her election and welcome her to the Appropriations 28' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. Committee, probably the wrong year to be on this committee, but we look forward to working with you. Thank you. REP. REBINBAS: Thank you. REP. GERAGOSIAN: We'll go back to Sheila Amdur because I understand she's in the room. SHEILA AMDUR: I apologize for being late. I thought that you would be swamped today. My name is Sheila Amdur. I'm testifying on behalf of the National Alliance of Mental Illness of Connecticut. I also co-chair the Keep the Promise Coalition. I assume probably some of the detail that you have in my testimony, I won't repeat, but I do have to reiterate our very deep concern. I'm talking about the,246, the Act Concerning a Commission on Federal Stimulus Distribution, and this act, I'm assuming that the intent is to give you recommendations about the distribution of funds under the federal stimulus by June 1st before you have to actually complete a budget. I don't know if that's the intent, but it appeared to be. So I want to specifically talk about the $1.3 billion the state is receiving in the next two years for its Medicaid program and I was in front of public health and (CUT IN TAPE HERE), not just the $1.3 billion and maybe other previous speakers have talked about this. The state is also receiving about $187,000,000, it's actually in savings that it's each year, and this is after what the feds have taken back on the Medicare Part D. Remember Medicare Part D took over the Medicaid prescription cost for the dually eligibles and it also took over CONNPACE, what the state paid in CONNPACE prescription costs, 007077 29 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. so that was almost $160,000,000 in savings and plus another $28,000,000 that the state is given each year as a subsidy so that the state maintains prescription benefits for its retiree benefits. So in my mind, frankly, this looks like a double dipping, right? So we get $1.3 billion in federal stimulus. We're getting another $187,000,000 in annual savings that continue because the feds took over Medicare Part D and on the other hand, you have a budget in front of you that says that's not enough. We still have to take cuts that really drastically impact the viability of health care for those people who have the Wraparound protections under Medicare Part D, and I think most of you were here at the time that the agreement was that people should not have a lesser benefit as a Medicaid recipient or as a CONNPACE recipient than they previously had. We can give you additional studies that shows what happened. I think we've even passed some of those out already. When you limit the access of people with psychiatric disabilities, limit their access to medications, putting all those medications on the preferred drug list under Medicaid, we think is going to be very, very damaging. It's going to require what I call "fail first" policies. Fail first on one medication, another words, get psychotic, deteriorate before we give you another medication. The last thing is, we did give you also a position paper called, "saving money, saving lives." It's nothing new. It's something we've been giving you almost every year in different forms which says, these are areas under Medicaid that we are not realizing income. These are areas under Medicaid where 30 63 March 20, 2009 bcc bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. the state can realize more income. I don't know why we're doing it. It's been quoted to you that - The 4 5 states doing Medicare Wraparound D. Well, 4 9 states do do the payment under Medicaid for these mental health services and we gave you the documentation that came out of DSS's own report, and we gave you some other ideas about where you could maximize Medicaid, but we don't think that's happening now. So thank you very much. Again, I apologize that I was late. I don't envy you for what you have to dosthis year. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you Sheila. Are there any questions from the Members of the Committee? Seeing none, thank you very much. Janet Auster. SELENA WELBORN: Good morning. My name is Selena Welborn and I'm advocate/educator for Advocacy Unlimited. Janet Auster is one of our advocates. She submitted testimony to you. In the interest of time, I won't read it, but I did just want to recognize that have it in your possession and we can move on. Okay? REP. GERAGOSIAN: Let's go to David Thomas. DAVID THOMAS: Good afternoon Chairwoman Harp, Chairman Geragosian, Ranking Member Debicella, and Members of the Appropriations Committee. My name is David Thomas and I am the Volunteer Chair of AARP's Economic Security Team and also business owner. I am here today to state AARP support of Senate Bill 1, An Act Concerning Economic Security for Connecticut Families. A major priority for AARP is to improve 007079 31 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. access, coverage and adequacy of pensions and other retirement saving vehicles. Statistics show that employees who save through an employer-provided retirement plan generally fare better in retirement than those who have no such plan. State Assisted Savings is an innovative idea designed to make it easier for small, private- sector employers who do not now provide plans, to offer their employees a way to save for retirement via voluntary payroll deductions. The strategy harnesses the state's ability to pool the interest of private employers who choose take part in the program, thereby allowing economies of scale to lower costs. Last year when a similar bill passed through this committee and cleared the senate chamber, Connecticut became a national leader in attempting to expand opportunities for workplace retirement savings for the many employees in the private sector who do not currently have such an opportunity. One of the best features of the State Assisted Savings Proposal is the flexibility it offers. The state can determine how ambitious to be in establishing a retirement savings program for Connecticut employers. You have the flexibility to define the shape of its program, for example, the state might elect to begin with a modes payroll deduction IRA or SIMPLE plan, possibly expanding to a 401(K) plan in the future. Since the majority of middle earners in the U.S. do not set aside as much as the maximum amount allowed for an IRA, a payroll deduction IRA would help launch Connecticut citizens on a path to improve retirement income security. While the state would serve as an aggregator ) 001080 32 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. and facilitator for private employers and their workers, the system of voluntary accounts is essentially market led and not government run. The state assumes no legal liability for the performance of the plan. There's a clear distinction between these private accounts and the plans run by the state for its own employees. Above all, voluntary accounts are truly voluntary. There's no mandate, no matching requirement, no expectation that employers must participate or must contribute to participate once they've joined. Connecticut can also achieve "bragging rights" with employers by making voluntary accounts a part of the state's appeal to employers to locate or expand their operations within the state. Voluntary can be seen as part of the state's economic development initiatives. There is also a more crude, practical reason to support State Assisted Savings. Connecticut will ultimately bear much of the burden of caring for impoverished elderly who never had an opportunity to save at work for retirement. Individual savings, which this bill encourages, is a critical part of AARP's four-prong approach to economic security-- individual savings, pension plans, Social Security and a health care plan. S.B.I facilitates individual savings among a group of hard-working Connecticut residents who are not currently taking advantage of IRAs or 401(k)s because of the high administrative costs, costs that proven become much less because of economies of scale. I thank you for your support. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you Mr. Thomas. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee? 33' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. Thank you for coming out today. Our next person is Robbyn Sibley. ROBBYN SIBLEY: Good afternoon distinguished Chairs and Members of the Committee. My name is Robbyn Sibley and I'm from Oakdale. I'm here to talk about S.B. 24 6 and access to medications. Please use these federal dollars appropriately and do not cut vital benefits. I've been on psychiatric medications for the past eight years. It took at least four of those years to find a group of medications that work for me. I didn't have to worry about the Preferred Drug List (PDL) or prior authorization until this year. My drug formulary changed this year, and one of my medications suddenly found its way to the PDL and prior authorization lists. I now have to take a third rate generic brand of this medication. I don't qualify for extra help for any of my medications and at times have to make choices of which medications I'm going to get each month. Is it going to be all of my psychiatric medications and pick and chose which of my medical medications I can afford, or is it going to be the other way around? Some of these medications can cost as much as $1,000 a month. That is more than my rent. Which of you can afford to pay these kinds of prices each and every month if you were or are taking medications for any reason? I could not afford one of my inhalers this month because it cost $180 alone. I also have to take a lower brand of drug that doesn't work as well simply because I cannot afford it. Now tell me how this is fair. I have chronic bronchitis and need both my inhalers, but again, I have to make a choice. 34' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. This is why we need the stimulus package. Please do not let us be hurt by the Governor's proposed budget. People like me need the Medicare Wraparound and CONNPACE. Pleas do not cut these programs. Thank you. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you Robbyn. Representative Kirkey-Bey. REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to ask you a couple of questions Robbyn just so I can understand it. How many medications do you take on a daily basis? ROBBYN SIBLEY: Oh God. I take at least four psychiatric medications, no five psychiatric medications, I'm sorry. I have two inhalers and I've got about five or six medical medications, so that's quite a few medications that I take. REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: Okay. So with the medications that you take, are all of them being affected by this or just mostly the ones that deal with you psychiatric problem? ROBBYN SIBLEY: Most of the psychiatric ones and a couple of my medical ones too. They're very expensive, like one of my inhalers, a couple of my cholesterol medications and my psychiatric meds are very expensive. So that's why I have to pick and choose which I can afford, you know, each month. REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: If we don't do something to change this, and I'm not saying that we really won't; we'll look at it. How many of those meds do you think you'd have to give up? ROBBYN SIBLEY: I know like I had to give up one of my inhalers. I had to give up one of my 35' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. inhalers. I had to give up one of my cholesterol medications and one of my psychiatric... REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: Oh, you've already started to downsize. ROBBYN SIBLEY: Yeah. I've had to for the last two or three years. I've had to pick and choose. Then my doctor yells at me because my cholesterol is still high, my blood sugars are still high. Like, you know, I can't afford everything. What am I supposed to do? I don't know what to do. I don't have the money. I got rent to pay. I got a car payment. I got car insurance. I have health insurance. I got to pay through the nose. I got to pay Medicare A,B,C and D, plus everything else I have to pay. REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: I thank you, cause I was just trying to get a picture, cause I would say you might be like middle-of-the-road folks and I'm just trying to wonder how much medications we're dealing with and how many you would maybe have to relative to if we made this change. ROBBYN SIBLEY: See, I have chronic bronchitis, asthma, diabetes plus psychiatric, low thyroid. I have a lot of medical problems as well as psychiatric. REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: Well I thank you and thank you for coming. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Representative Ryan. REP. RYAN: Hi Robbyn. How are you doing? I just wanted to thank you for coming up today. I know I've heard your story in the past and I'm glad Representative Kirkley-Bey had a chance 36 63 March 20, 2009 bcc bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. to ask you a couple of questions. I know when you said that the doctor yells at you, knowing you, I think you probably yell back, don't you? But thank you for coming up here today. Take care. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Representative Walker. REP. WALKER: Thank you and thank you for your testimony. You said that now you have to get prior authorization for you psychiatric meds because they're on a preferred drug list? ROBBYN SIBLEY: Yes. One of them is. Yes. It's on the preferred drug list year, which I don't know why. It never has been before. REP. WALKER: But it's being proposed. ROBBYN SIBLEY: No it is already on the preferred..-- This year it's all of a sudden on the preferred drug list. I don't know why. I just did and my psychiatrist had to get me prior authorization too, which he was not to happy, cause he doesn't like to do paperwork. REP. WALKER: Do you have to do prior authorization for all of your meds. ROBBYN SIBLEY: No. Just that one right now. REP. WALKER: Just this one. ROBBYN SIBLEY: Yeah. But it's still one that's very important to me. My psychiatrist gave me a hard time about having to do the paperwork. REP. WALKER: And the medication that the pharmacist gave you under your pharmacy plan was a generic brand? ROBBYN SIBLEY: Yeah. It's a third rate generic 37' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. that I have to take. REP. WALKER: And you doctor wants you to have the other? ROBBYN SIBLEY: He wants me to but they won't give it to me unless I pay through the nose for it. REP. WALKER: That's interesting because we were told that if the doctor was emphatic about something that the patient would get the medication. ROBBYN SIBLEY: Oh no, I can get it, but I have to pay for it. REP. WALKER: No, that it would be covered. ROBBYN SIBLEY: No, not under my Medicare Part D plan. REP. WALKER: Okay. You're in Representative Ryan's district? ROBBYN SIBLEY: Yes. REP. WALKER: Oh good. Okay. Thank you. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Are there any further questions from Members of the Committee? Representative Thompson. REP. THOMPSON: Yes, as legislatures we occasionally get information from various organizations or companies that say something about providing prescribed drugs to recipients of assistance at a lower cost. For example, the federally qualified health centers apparently have access to prescribed drugs that at a different cost than an ordinary pharmacy. Have you ever tried anything like that? 38' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. ROBBYN SIBLEY: Oh yeah. After you spend so much money through your Medicare Part D program then you can go to the Pharmaceutical Assistance Programs. They're called PAP and you can apply that way. And I have done that and I've gotten, but that usually come June or July. Oh, okay I'm sorry. That comes more toward June or July after I've spent, usually when I'm in the donut hole, you know the coverage gap of Medicare Part D. I don't know if you're familiar with that. Once I'm into that gap, then I can apply for the Pharmaceutical Assistance Programs. But I still have to spend at least almost $3,000 to get there. So I don't know if you understand what I'm talking about. What the Medicare Part D program, alright -- In the beginning they start off covering a little bit more, but once you reach a certain amount, you go into what's called the donut hole and that's where you have to pay 100 percent of all your medication costs, until you reach another certain point which is close to $5,000. Then you get into this catastrophic coverage and that's where you pretty much afford all your medications. I fall into it pretty much -- I'll probably be into it by the end of next month to get coverage back. Then I'll have to pay 100 percent of medication costs until I reach the catastrophic coverage, which probably won't be until like September or October. Then I've got a couple of months where I will get coverage for my meds, and this happens just about every year. That's the way Medicare Part D works. REP. THOMPSON: So you have to spend so much money and you can't go around and go to some other program or anything else. 39' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. ROBBYN SIBLEY: No, I can't because I don't qualify. My income is just -- It's too much for the extra help, but it's a little bit over to get any.. I don't how to explain it. It's just a little bit too much get extra help. REP. THOMPSON: That's very interesting and thank you very much. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Senator Prague. SENATOR PRAGUE: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Nice to see you here. Do you have CONNPACE? ROBBYN SIBLEY: No. But I believe now they just raised the income limit. This year I'm getting the application sent to me, so I'm going to be applying for that. SENATOR PRAGUE: I think the income limit now for one person is like $25,000. ROBBYN SIBLEY: Right. See last year I missed it my $3 00, but I think I make it this year. SENATOR PRAGUE: Okay, cause if you do, you won't have that donut hole to contend with. The other issue that you said that baffles me is that you've been on a psychiatric drug for a long time. The same drug. ROBBYN SIBLEY: Yeah. Four, about four years now. SENATOR PRAGUE: And how long has that drug been on the preferred drug list and you need prior authorization? ROBBYN SIBLEY: Just this year it ended up on the preferred drug list. SENATOR PRAGUE: Who told you that? 40' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. ROBBYN SIBLEY: My Medicare Part D. It ended on the preferred drug list this year. Last year it wasn't on there. SENATOR PRAGUE: No, but who told you that. ROBBYN SIBLEY: It's in my formulary. You get a formulary every year of your drugs from your Medicare Part D and it's on there. Your drug is listed on there and then it says PDL and PA. Preferred Drug List is PDL and PA is Prior Authorization. SENATOR PRAGUE: You know it's interesting, but we over the years have made the effort to keep people who have been drugs for psychiatric reasons on the same drug without having to go on the Preferred Drug List so that you could continue to get the medication that you've been on for some time. ROBBYN SIBLEY: Talk to the Medicare Part D companies. SENATOR PRAGUE: Well you something; you need call Choices, and I'm going to give you their number. They have an 800 number and a Norwich office, and you need to tell them. And if you don't get that straightened out, you call Representative Ryan or me; we both represent..--..You're from Montville. ROBBYN SIBLEY: Yeah, Representative Ryan is... SENATOR PRAGUE: Okay. He's a good legislator. You call us and we'll help you get that straightened out. ROBBYN SIBLEY: Oh, okay. SENATOR PRAGUE: Cause I don't believe you should 41' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. be in that predicament. ROBBYN SIBLEY: Neither did I. SENATOR PRAGUE: So, when you're testifying, if you just come over here, I'll give you the number to call and see if they can straighten it out for you. If they can't, you call us and I'll give you that number and we'll help you get it straightened out. ROBBYN SIBLEY: Oh thank you very much; I appreciate that. . SENATOR PRAGUE: I mean, that's a huge issue for you. ROBBYN SIBLEY: Yeah, it is. I don't know how it jumped from non-PDL... SENATOR PRAGUE: You need to stay on that same drug so that you'll be okay. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you Senator Prague. Are there any further questions from the Members of the Committee? Seeing none, thank you very much. Mike Guarco. MIKE GUARCO: Good afternoon to Chairman, Vice- Chairs, the Ranking Members and Member of Appropriations. My name is Mike Guarco. I'm the Chairman of the Board of Finance. I chair the Finance Board in of Granby and I'm also a founding member of the Connecticut Municipal Consortium for Fiscal Responsibility, which is a broad alliance of some 2 00 boards and board chairs from about three quarters of the towns and cities across the state. Normally, often I testify at the Capitol with respect to mandate relief, but this afternoon I'm here to speak a number of bills that deal 007090 42 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. with providing long-term budget stability for the state which translates into similar stability in the income stream coming to the towns. And specifically I reference Senate Bill 156 and 157, also 172, 5096, 5098 and 5305 which all talk to implementing the state spending cap and use of surplus. I myself am here to support bills which would help flatten the cost curve going forward and help buffer against hard times by holding on the surplus money from good years to have available for use when fiscal crisis looms, like today. Surplus retention in good times, combined with debt pay down to preserve capital capacity are appropriate uses of one- time money, as opposed to building its use into the budget such that in essence, you create a structural deficit year after year. As we see, between the lack of fortitude in restraining spending and failing to hold onto surplus in good times to buffer severe or modest economic slowdowns, the net results translates into the fool's gold of raising taxes at this level which dampens economic activity, or cutting municipal aid which further acerbates the recession by inducing municipal layoffs and pushing the local property tax burden higher. Measures to reduce the rate of growth of government expenditures going forward are important in keep a semblance of balance in Connecticut and keeping us cost competitive so that we and New England don't become another rust belt. I would also advocate for the concept behind 5143, Having the State Adopt the Municipal Aid Portion of the budget earlier, in March, so the towns can plan. As we all struggle to hole the line on spending and taxes locally, we find ourselves simply guessing what will come out of this body, and in the worst 43 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. example of brinkmanship, find many unions unwilling to play ball with moderating cost growth locally, waiting to see if money from heaven appears to prevent layoffs and to fund the three and four percent contracts. What I see is an opportunity for labor to have themselves seen as part of the solution, instead of standing out as the proverbial pig at the public trough. If we all knew what was coming and its impact on holding or losing people and program, the clarity would induce compromise and resolution. The system is unbalanced and the fires are burning at home. Thank you for your consideration. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank'you Mr. Guarco. Any questions from Members of the Committee? Senator Debicella. SENTATOR DEBICELLA: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you MATTHEW ROW. Guarco for coming in and testifying today. I want to focus in on one thing that you said around the use of one-time revenue to fund on-going expenditures. Cause obviously the major reason why we're in the situation we're in today with our budget is the overall economy. But the secondary reason is we actually have a structural hole of several hundred millions of dollars that we have taken surplus in the past and spent it by increasing programs for on-going operations, and this year the check is coming home to roost because of the macro economy. And S.B. 157 that you testified on would require taking half of the surplus, any surplus we have and mandate putting it in the Rainy Day Fund or paying down debt with it. And hearing the Comptroller testify before; she testified that we wanted to increase the 007092 44 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. cap from 10 to 15 percent, yet we've never even come close to hitting the 10 percent cap because we just spend it quite honestly. I'm trying to match up your testimony with hers. Is that something that if we were able to implement, S.B. 157, would we be able to build up the surplus to a point that the Comptroller's bill becomes relevant, that we will have more than 10 percent and start pushing towards 15 percent of our budget in a Rainy Day Fund? MIKE GUARCO: Well, I'm not sure I know enough about your system here and what you could do, but it would be better for all of us at both levels, state as well as local, that you could build so that when you need it, you have it. As you said earlier and she had expressed and others, I think, were nodding their heads, the bigger the bank account right now could help get through these difficult times and the Rainy Day is here very simply. And putting it aside is important; paying down debt, so that you have more capacity. Our indebtedness in the state is an issue. We keep hearing that. And holding more reserves is important in maintaining the credit ratings for Connecticut, just as it is for the towns. One of the issues that we've come to hearings to talk about is protecting more of the general fund for the municipalities at arbitration, etc. We've had the pleasure, I think, Planning Development dealt with that two or three ago and those things are important. The credit rating folks look at it and I'm sure they look at it for the state so building it up to the 15 percent, as an example, we wish it was there now. I'm sure you folks do, giving the difficult choices you have. I know from the comments I've seen from 45 63 March 20, 2009 bcc bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. the representative chairman; I've seen comments in the press about the many cuts in municipal aid translate directly into property tax increase or loss of program and people -- Not the sort of things that we want to do but unfortunately the things that we're all facing whether it be the local or the state level. Unless there's some flattening of the cost curve, we can't do any of those things and can't hold to people, as well. SENATOR DEBICELLA: I think you're exactly right. I actually think that raising the cap on the Rainy Day Fund's a great idea, but like a bank account that you're increasing the upper limits of, you still got to fill it up and if we keep -- Obviously, we're not going to have a surplus this year, but you know again like the Comptroller said, passing laws for 2013, if we're not going to start setting aside surplus for a rainy day and if we're going to spend it, we can end up in situations like we are right now. And Representative Reynolds had mentioned before that if we had the 15 percent, we would have $5 billion. Well, we wouldn't have because we spent it all. If we actually took all the surpluses from the last five years, I still don't think it would be quite $5 billion, but we would have significantly more in our Rainy Day Fund now. So I think actually this bill that you're testifying on goes hand-in-hand with what the Comptroller's saying to make sure, to use you words, that we have the bank account necessary to smooth out the cost curve to make sure that we don't have to make cuts to municipalities or to other worthwhile programs. So thank you and thank you Mr. Chairman. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you. Are there any further questions? Mr. Guarco, we intend to have a budget out of this Committee early April and 46' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. hopefully out of the legislature in time for you to make a plan for whatever contingency we put in front of you. MIKE GUARCO: We go to public hearing on the 13th so if I had a week before, that would be great. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you for coming up. Maureen Kelly. MAUREEN KELLY: Okay. Thank you very much. Good afternoon distinguished Chairs and Committee Members. My name is Maureen Kelly and I'm from Norwich. I know a good many of you. I come before you today to testify about S.B. 246, as many of the previous testifiers have, and they've discussed this bill in better detail than my testimony probably does, especially Sheldon and Sheila, so my first two paragraphs have been pretty well discussed. I will only say that they PDL does cause a gridlock in doctors' offices all around the area. The limited access causes the physicians to have to do more paperwork than they have time for. The patients are frustrated. Those of us that deal with mental illness already have debilitating side effects and the frustration is just increased ten fold. And you've heard all this before for last 10 years. We've finally gotten the PDL to go away on a lot of our drugs and we really need it to stay away. I myself, as you can see, have a lot of drugs and so far all of my drugs have been affected. If I don't have the Wraparound, which I do right now, I have to pay for all of them and it's more than four or five. And there's also an inhaler that is there. My drugs, and I can give you actual numbers if you request it from bills, and they show the actual cost of the 007095 47 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. drug without insurance coverage and some of them are $500 to $600 a piece. There's no way on Social Security Disability right now, and I make a $1,000 a month and that only came in January and it took me since 1996 to get that, finally to get to a $1,000 a month and I started out 15 years ago, 1996, I started out at $618 a month and it took me that long to get there. So there's no way I can afford $500 to $600 a bottle. And I live in subsidized housing and so that would kill me financially. So the last point I'd like to make which hasn't been covered yet is that when provider consultations, along with patient history, have already shown that pills are the only pharmaceutical therapy that has shown promise for the patient, care should be taken by those of us who are not certified medical personal. It is time to put medicine back in the hands of the doctors, accounting back in the hands of the accountants, insurance, and nothing else, back in the hands of the insurers who are in the business of paying for people who are sick. Patients deserve better care than this, especially when there are alternatives to cutting care. For instance, if you cut other programs not tied to the basic needs of living like housing, shelter and food, you will have the funds needed to keep these measures from even being presented for consideration in the first place. The $1.3 billion over two years that we are destined to get from the federal government would allow Governor Rell the opportunity not to cut the funds tied to services destined for the departments of DMHAS and DSS. 48 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. The Universal Health Care Foundation's SustiNet Bill, S.B. 6600, is one alternative to the budget cuts we have heard discussed in hearing just like this over the last few months. Although this plan is not complete with regard to the scope of its coverage, since it doesn't actually the disabled, blind and elderly right now, I believe this plan is a better answer to our existing fiscal woes if only for its ability to keep our health and our care in our hands where it belongs. I believe no one knows my body and my mind better than I do. After all, I have lived with them all my life. Thank you for you time and effort regarding this issue. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you Maureen. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee? Senator Prague. SENATOR PRAGUE: Thank you Mr. Chairman. First of all thank you coming in. I want you to know that we're working on this. We realize it's a problem, so if that can put you mind at ease, not cause you any more stress; we just want you to know that we're working on this. MAUREEN KELLY: I believe you Senator. I know you especially have been an advocate for us and I appreciate that. You've helped me in the past personally and I respect all that you do. I respect all of you very much. I know that you have a lot of issues that are coming at you this year in particular. I do realize the fiscal woes that we face and I appreciate all that you try to do. I realize it's not easy; I live in the rea'l world even though I get help, it's never easy to do what you do, and if it weren't for people like you, we wouldn't have the help that we already have. 007097 49' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. SENATOR PRAGUE: Well thank you for saying that, but I want you to leave hear feeling reassured that the committee is working on this, that we're not ignoring it and we realize what a serious issue this really is. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Any further questions from Members of the Committee? Thank you very much. Selina Welborn. SELINA WELBORN: Good afternoon distinguished Chairs and Members of the Appropriations Committee. My name is Selina Welborn and, as I said earlier, I'm an Advocacy Unlimited advocate and educator. I am also from the town of Bloomfield and am also the founder and chapter leader of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance of Greater Hartford. Advocacy Unlimited is a statewide advocacy organization that offers education in self, systems and legislative advocacy skills for persons with, or in recovery from, psychiatric disabilities or co-occurring disorders. Since 1995, 371 advocates have graduated from 36 graduations across the state of Connecticut and in our program. AU and DSBSA Greater Hartford represent hundreds of Connecticut residents in recovery from psychiatric disabilities who have been impacted by the economic downturn and who rely on psychiatric medications to support them in the recovery from severe mental illnesses. I am here to ask you to use the $1.3 billion of the federal stimulus dollars the way they were intended for Medicaid. I'm here to ask you to reject the cuts to prescription drug coverage proposed by the Governor's budget. I ask you to not let Connecticut's older adults and people with disabilities be hurt by the proposed cuts: 107' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. Continue to cover drugs not on Medicare Part Disabilities formularies that are covered by CONNPACE and Medicaid. Continue to cover Part Disabilities co-pats for dually eligible Medicaid and Medicare participants, who are very low income adults and people with disabilities. Safeguard ConnPACE; do not unduly restrict access or limit the enrollment period. Do not impose new prior authorization requirements for Medicaid-covered drugs. I'm here to ask you to ensure that Connecticut's lower income adults and people with disabilities are not hurt by the Governor's proposal to cut the Part D Wraparound and ConnPACE. And while I am speaking as an advocate for all those, I know and have spoken to who will be detrimentally affected by the Governor's proposal to cut the Part D Wraparound and ConnPACE, I also have personal experience with both ConnPACE and Medicare Part D. You see, I am one of the more fortunate individuals in Connecticut because I have full-time employment. However, I was just hired in January and from December 20, 2 008 until January 14th of this year, I was between employments. If it were not for the samples of cholesterol medication I received from my endocrinologist and samples of my psych med I received from the Counseling Center, I would have gone without medication. Each medication was hundreds of dollars, my psyc med over $3 00, even with Medicare Part D. Needless to say, 007099 51 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. jobless, I cannot afford the medication necessary for my own recovery. Before December 20th, I worked as a VISTA member for three years so I had a health benefit from the Corporation of National and Community Service. My prescriptions during that period were free. As I said, I am one of the more fortunate in my recovery community. Because of my Social Security disability and living allowance, I wasn't eligible for ConnPACE, but thank God, I didn't have to use Medicare Part D. In fact, I haven't used Medicare Part D because I couldn't afford the premiums or the co-pays after rent, utilities, transportation and other necessities. Today I have private insurance and a job, so the co-pays are manageable, but I still have not been able to get one of my necessary cholesterol medications because I am awaiting prior authorization. Since the samples ran out, I've had to go without this medication for weeks. I tell you my story not to win sympathy, but rather your vote to insure that those less fortunate than me, the very lower income adults and people with disabilities and those like Robbyn, somewhere in between, will not have to choose between rent and utilities, food and transportation and food and medicines, especially the more expensive psych meds. Thank you for your time and consideration. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you Selina. Are there questions from Members of the Committee? Seeing none, thank you very much. Claude Holcomb. Thanks for coming Claude. 52' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. CLAUDE HOLCOMB: Hi, I'm Claude Holcomb. I live at 2 Park Place, Apartment 4-F in Hartford. I am here to talk about Senate Bill 246, An Act Concerning a Commission on the Federal Stimulus Distribution. Connecticut is going to get $1.3 billion in Medicaid money from the federal governing in the form of enhanced Medicaid matching funds. I am here to ask you to make sure that this money is used for Connecticut residents who obtain medical services through Medicaid. I know that Connecticut has budget problems now, but our poor citizens need the assurance that their medical needs will continue to be met. I understand that there have been suggestions to cut some services that are currently covered by Medicaid in Connecticut, like preventative eye care and dental care. This would be devastating to many people. I, for example, recently learned that I have glaucoma, a serious eye disorder that may lead to blindness if I don't get regular exams and care from the eye doctor. I have severe disabilities already and don't need to blind on top of it. And, if people don't have access to regular dental care, they will have pain and mouth infections that can lead to poor nutrition because they can't chew and jaw infections and heart disease from migration bacteria. This will lead to more medical expenses for Connecticut for doctor and hospital bills. These are only two examples of Medicaid programs that we need to preserve for our poor Connecticut citizens. Whenever cuts are proposed, the poor get injured the most. Please don't attack the health of the poor in Connecticut. Use all the money for our health 007101 53 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. care needs. Thank you. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you Claude. Other questions from Members of the Committee? Seeing none, Senator Prague. SENATOR PRAGUE: Claude, we want to thank you for coming in today. Your testimony would be, you know -- People respect the fact that you have made the effort to get here. And we will listen very carefully to what you had to say, so thank you. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Representative Walker. REP. WALKER: Thank you Claude and I just want everybody to know that Claude has been up here, I think every day this week testifying at other committees, cause he's been living in human services a little bit. So that you for your advocacy. And he told me that he's been a strong advocate for quite some time and he intends to continue. So thank you very much and we appreciate the fact that you take the time to come out and help advocate for everybody, especially people with disabilities. Thank you. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you Claude. Cheri Bragg. CHERI BRAGG: Good afternoon Senator Harp, Sfe 2*4(a. Representative Geragosian and the distinguished Members of the Appropriations Committee. My name is Cheri Bragg. I'm Coordinator of the statewide Keep the Promise Coalition. This Coalition was formed 10 years ago, for those of you who may not know, in response to a crisis in the community mental health services following the closure of two of our large state's psychiatric hospitals. It was promised, of course, that money would go into creating and sustaining a 007102 54 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. comprehensive community mental health system, and we feel that promise, in total, has not been kept. I'm here today to testify in regards to Senate Bill 246, An Act Concerning a Commission on Federal Stimulus Distribution. The stated purpose for this bill is to establish a mechanism for the prioritization and distribution of federal stimulus program grants to the state. Like other people who have testified before me, we know that about $1.3 billion in funds will go specifically for Medicaid and the federal government, I believe, is specifically allocating these dollars because they think it is important to support state Medicaid programs in the essence of recovery for our state and for our nation. And we just wanted to underline that we are in opposition to the Governor's cuts because we think, you know, what kind of message would Connecticut be sending by saying that it wants to cut the same programs that federal government is insisting that we preserve and protect. Some of those specific cuts you heard many people testify eloquently before me, but they do include that Medicare Part D Wraparound and restricting access to critically needed psyc medications. As you hear earlier, I mean sometimes it's even confusing for the folks that are using them. It's confusing to me to comprehend some of these complex programs, but we do know that that Wraparound really protects, especially some of those very low income folks. It may not be as perfect for some that have an extensive work history and maybe are in a little different level, but they definitely are lifesavers for many. And we just feel that doing the opposite of what the federal government is doing is not the 007103 55' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. intent and we hope that you will consider that We just urge you not to use that federal stimulus bill to cut the same benefits that the federal government supports. And I thank you for your time and attention to this critical matter. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Committee? Representative Kirkley-Bey. REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: Hi. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just wanted to ask you a question and you might not know the numbers off hand. But, about how many folks would you say in the state of Connecticut use the Medicare Part D? CHERI BRAGG: That's a good question. I don't have the exact numbers. I'm betting that maybe someone behind me hopefully will have those numbers, but I could look into it and get back to you on that. REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: And I'm looking at Representative Walker's budget; they say that piece by itself is only a $1,000,000? I was going to ask you. We don't have our numbers here. I'll let it go here. I don't want to keep people waiting cause there's other people wanting to share, but if you could get me the numbers of how many people use that and then by then, I probably have the right number. Thank you very much. CHERI BRAGG: You're welcome. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Any further questions? Thank you. Peggy Deschanes. PEGGY DESCHANES: Hello. My name is Peggy Sfe Deschanes and I'm here on behalf of Senator 007101) 56 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. Fasano to submit his testimony. Good afternoon Chairman Harp, Chairman Garegosian, Ranking Member Debicella, Ranking Member Miner and Members of the Appropriations Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of Senate Bill 49, An Act Concerning an Annual Summary of the Long- Term Fiscal Condition of the State. No one here needs reminding that the current fiscal crisis facing our state is the worst in recent memory. Our obligation now, as legislators, is to close current and projected budget gaps, but also to examine how we wound up in dire straits in an effort to keep this from happening again. Senate Bill 49 seeks to address this obligation by requiring an annual report on the state's financial climate. The report would include a long-term analysis of data regarding a number of critical factors like where state money is being spent, as well as an analysis of specific tax and economic trends statewide. While this date will be invaluable to future financial planning, one of the facets of this bill I am particularly happy with is that there is virtually no cost associated with its implementation. Because the bill tasks the Office of Fiscal Analysis to conduct and prepare the study, the work can be accomplish using existing staff and resources. Finding ways to examine and address our state's financial vitality within our means is so critical during these tough economic times when we have so little to spare. I believe Senate Bill 49 is a creative and effective approach to providing a clear picture of our state's economy, and I am proud to support this legislation. I would like to 57 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. thank you for the opportunity to voice my support of this important measure and I urge its passage. Thank you. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you Peggy. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee? Senator Debicella. SENATOR DEBICELLA: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just in thinking about this, you know, we are always talking about two years and what's happening the next two years. And our institutional memory, because we have very high turnover in legislature, doesn't tend to be long. It seems to me that this bill actually by having OFA pull together, which seems to be like existing information into a new form and a new way for us to look at this is going enable us to do a little more long- term planning. For example, you know we're talking about our two-year budget right now, but using the stimulus money and the Rainy Day Fund, we're creating a really big structural hole that the next legislature is going to have to deal with. It seems to me some of these long-term trends can actually help us in terms of thinking about some of these long-term issues in more than just the two-year way. So I think this is a very good idea for the state and thank you for your testimony. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you Senator. Anybody else? Thank you Peggy. Mark Welsh. MARK WELSH: Good afternoon Chairwoman Harp, Chairman Geragosian, Members Debicella and Miner and Members of the Appropriations Committee. My name is Mark Welsh. I'm owner of a small architectural firm in West Hartford, Connecticut, OakPark Architects. We 007106 58 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. offer a full range of architectural and planning services. In fact, I was going to mention to Senator Prague, she helped us out on a couple of projects that we just did recently in Lebanon. I'm here to support S.B. 1, An Act Concerning Economic Security for Connecticut Families. Fortunately my company, again a small architectural firm, has been able to offer a retirement program, retirement savings plan, for our employees. But this took a significant effort on my part over the last year doing the research, reviewing and implementing the plan, as well as paying the fees for the administration and insurance for the plan. So I know the obstacles that it takes for a small business trying to get a workable retirement plan for employees. Small employers considering adoption of a retirement plan face a number of decisions from how to plan and establish it, what investments to offer. You know again, I'm an architect; I'm not an investment person, so I can't talk to a lot of these types of investments and the way in which the plan is administered. In addition to the multitude of decisions to be made, employers face a variety of costs in establishing and maintaining the retirement plans. Up-front costs include researching the options and types of plans, finding a retirement planning service provider and setting up appropriate record keeping, withholding and the transmitting and processing of it, insurance and so forth. Many small businesses don't have the time commitment or up-front to be able -- It's prohibitive to do this for your employees. 007107 59 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. S.B. 1 offers a strategy that utilizes the financial leverage of the state to make a simple, low cost retirement plan available to small employers. According to Comptroller, Nancy Wyman, small employers participating in the plan could see as much as a 50 percent savings of the administrative fees they would otherwise face in the retirement plan. They would encourage the small business employers that would want offer a retirement plan and it would also benefit employees in helping them save in pre-tax dollars. Thank you very much for your time. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee? Thank you for coming up today sir. Ginnie Gerena? Jim Horan. JIM HORAN: Good afternoon Senator Harp, Representative Garegosian, Senator Debicella and Members of the Appropriations Committee. I'm Jim Horan, Executive Director of the Connecticut Association for Human Services, a statewide non-profit advocacy organization that works to reduce poverty and promote family economic security. I am here in support of two bills before you, Senate Bill, 246, An Act Concerning a Commission on Federal Stimulus Distribution and Senate Bill 1, An Act Concerning Economic Security for Connecticut Families. In the midst of this economic downturn, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides a tremendous opportunity to reinvigorate our economy. CAHS applauds the effort to create a bipartisan distribution commission. Since the federal stimulus act ensures a strong role for the Governor", the proposed commission is one way to help ensure 00711 60 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. that the General Assembly will be engaged in the distribution of funds. A commission can help ensure that new federal resources rebuild economic security for working families, and that the benefits of the economic recovery are shared broadly, particularly by those who are most in need. Attached to my testimony are Principles for State Implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The national Working Poor Families Project, which CAHS is a part of, developed these principles and they're endorsed by 2 0 national advocacy organizations. We urge legislators to follow these principles in using the funds, and to consider incorporating them into Senate Bill 246. There are two basic principles: Make investments that stabilize the economy, promote growth and benefit those hurt most by the recession. Assure that funds are spent in an open and accountable manner that maximizes benefits. And there are several other principles below those. CAHS is pleased that Governor Rell welcomes the stimulus funding, unlike some of her colleagues. Following these principles will help ensure that these resources truly do spark economic recovery, an opportunity for all Connecticut residents. Senate Bill 246 is before you at the same time as Senate Bill 1, Senator Williams' Act Concerning Economic Security for Connecticut Families. Given the economic downturn and state budget deficit, it is clear that one of the most effective things that the General 007109 61 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. Assembly and the Governor can do to promote economic security this year is to implement the federal stimulus resources effectively, transparently, and with accountability, as others have testified today. This fiscal crisis is hurting Connecticut families, and presents an opportunity to think boldly and make needed structural changes that invest in our economy and families. Also attached to, my testimony is CAHS' legislative agenda for 2009, which outlines all priorities for family economic security. Some key actions include creating a stable revenue system to sustain investments and the Better Choices for Connecticut Coalition has a whole paper on this that's been distributed to legislators. Second, to create a state earned income tax credit and to promote free tax preparation and access to the federal EITC, along with creating a health care system that's universal, accessible, affordable and sustainable like the SustiNet proposal that's been heard in other committees. Also, to strengthen work supports, including the access to and the quality of the Care4Kids child care subsidy program and increasing access to and delivery of public benefits. And there's a great model for that that you could look at, which is to create a one-stop financial resource center based on a model at Co-opportunity in Hartford that started last year. Finally, prepare people for good jobs, including aligning Connecticut's job creation efforts in health care, construction, manufacturing, and green technologies with training opportunities in our state colleges, 007110 62' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. community agencies and union halls. That's a lot for one bill, but we hope that the Appropriations Committee will fill in the blanks of Senate Bill 1 with real and sorely- needed policies and programs that build family economic security. Thanks very much for the opportunity to testify. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you Jim. Representative Kirkley-Bey. REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: Hi Jim, how are you? JIM HORAN: Hi, how are you doing? REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: I wanted to ask you a question. Sf2) QjiL You're talking about creating a commission here, and when is that commission in your mind to be constituted and when would they be giving a report out based on, and I'm assuming we are not going to touch - When are you going to put out that report? JIM HORAN: From my understanding of the bill, it says, it think, that the commission would be created eight days after it's passed by the General Assembly, so I think the idea is for the General Assembly to act quickly and get this going because the stimulus dollars are all ready beginning to flow. Right, so you want to get this going as quickly as possible and ensure.maximum engagement from the General Assembly and the other members of the commission into how that money is spent. So I'd say try to move as quickly as possible and get this bill through the full legislature. REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: That answers my question on the 0071 I I 63 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. creation of the commission and it would be effective upon passage I'm assuming based on what you're saying. But my question is, when you would report back to, and who do you report back to, saying that these are our recommendations? JIM HORAN: Yeah. I'm not really sure the logistics of how that would work, but what concerns us as advocates, is the idea that there's a huge amount of money coming in. It's coming in right away, it's supposed to be spent quickly and we want to make sure that it's spent in a way that's transparent and effective so that, especially from our prospective, that low-income people will really benefit as quickly as possible. REPRRP . GERAGOSIAN: Thank you. Are there any further questions from Members of the Committee? Thank you very much Jim. Alicia Woodsby. ALICIA WOODSBY: Good afternoon Senator Harp, Representative Geragosian and Members of the Appropriations Committee. My name is Alicia Woodsby and I'm the Public Policy Director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness in Connecticut. NAMI-CT is the largest member organization in the state of people with psychiatric disabilities arid their families. And I'm here today to testify on behalf of NAMI-CT 246, An Act Concerning a Commission on Federal Stimulus Distribution. This bill calls for a Federal Stimulus Distribution Commission to make recommendations to the legislature and administration regarding the use of available federal stimulus dollars by the state. The Governor's current budget proposal seeks to take the increased federal match of Medicaid fund, while at the same time avoiding the 007112 64 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. requirements and intentions of the entire stimulus program. Congress expressly intends for the states to maintain or increase Medicaid spending to "minimize and avoid reductions in essential services" and clearly states that a state is not eligible for an increase in its FMAP if procedures under its state plan are more restrictive than the procedures under such plan as in effect on July 1, 2008. The Governor has proposed several disturbing cuts that would greatly restrict access to medications and further limit access to health care services for people receiving Medicaid, and actually the Human Services Committee passed a bill, ,843f which terminates the Medicare Part D Wraparound—that's the Governor's substitute budget bill. These cuts also include restricting access to psychiatric medications and posing preauthorization on both brand names and generic, something that came up earlier today. And I know I've been before you several times this session, many of you already, to talk about how damaging these cuts will be for individuals who make $500 a month and can barely make ends meet at this point. To have co-pays of one to six dollars imposed, to go into a pharmacy and be told that you're drug is no longer on the formulary; you owe us $300, for someone at that level of income would just lead to people not getting their medications. The state has made a promise to hold these individuals harmless from changes in their drug coverage imposed by Part D. The state has, and continues to save substantial amounts of money from the cost shifts to Part D. We're saving $188 million a year from Medicare Part D. 00711 65 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. I know you asked about what we would be spending on putting psychiatric medications on the PDL. It's a little over $2 million. I think that we would cost the state and hospitalizations would take care of that. And it's also $24 million to stop coverage for the on formula drugs. That's the estimate from OPM, but I don't know how that was determined. But still, you could see the discrepancy between those numbers right there. I have you know (inaudible) here about studies that have been done about how people with mental illness are impacted by Medicare Part D without Wraparound coverage and I know you can read that, but, what I really want to say is that this is getting to a very desperate point and we are very concerned that the you're not going to continue to fight for these individuals. And, these are the people that now who really need you the most. I mean, this is my job I know, but these are also my friends and families that I work with and when I start to think about what actually will happen if you allow this to move forward, it's very frightening to me. People will become very sick, they will hospitalized, they will lose years of their lives that they have worked towards stability (inaudible) so that they work and be productive and they will take several steps backwards in that and we will pay for that as well. So I just hope that, you know, people who are age blind and disabled are not considered to be the only dispensable individuals in the state budget process and that you will continue to fight for them. I know that you all understand this. I just hope that you do not give up. And that's really what I wanted to say today. 66' March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you Alicia. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee? Representative Thompson. REP. THOMPSON: I just want to tell you a little anecdote. I was in a drugstore a few months ago picking up three prescriptions and when I was waiting, one of the pharmacists came out and said to this elderly gentleman, and he was elderly, said, "Mr. Johnson, that one prescription will cost you $179." He said forget it, I'll take the other one. While he was still standing the druggist came back and said, "Mr. Thompson, here's your three prescriptions; that will be $12." There's something wrong with that picture. So please think of the Human Services Committee's actions yesterday as a worle in progress. Not just a courtesy to the Governor, but there were some changes made to the Governor's proposal, but large respect, we were moving it on for further consideration. Thank you for your reminder. It's a good idea to remind us once and a while. Thank you. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you Representative Thompson. Any further questions? ALICIA WOODSBY: Can I ask, there was a question about how many people are duly eligible in the state earlier and it's about 65,000 was the last time that I had checked that number, people are duly eligible. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you Alicia. Ginnie Gerena. SELINA WELBORN: Okay again, I'm Selina Welborn. Ginnie Gerena is one of our advocates and her full name for the record is Virginia Genena. Her comments today are about SB 246, An Act Concerning a Commission on Federal Stimulus Distribution. 0071 IS 67 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. Good afternoon Appropriations Committee Members. My name is Ginnie Gerena. I'm an Advocacy Unlimited Graduate and I advocate for seniors and youth throughout Connecticut. I am here today to petition the rejection of the cuts proposed by Governor Rell. Please don't allow Connecticut's seniors and disabled individuals to be affected by these cuts. Please continue to cover drugs not on Medicare Part D formularies that are covered by ConnPACE and Medicaid. Continue to cover Medicare Part D co-pays for duly eligible people on Medicare and Medicaid members, low- income seniors and disabled persons. A good reason to continue the co-pays is that under federal law pharmacies can refuse to dispense prescription drugs to those who can't pay Medicare Part D or Medicaid co-payments. This will put seniors and disabled individuals at risk of going without necessary medications. Even with Medicaid's full low- income subsidy, dually eligible individuals with Medicaid and Medicare have a co-pay of up to $6 per prescription. These individuals already are living on a very low income level, and by instituting the co-pays, they would have to do without basic needs such as shelter, food, etc. Also on a final note, my own personal experience with Medicare Part D has not been easy. I was cut off Humanna then put on another plan, which comes out to be almost $254. With my student loan deducted from my monthly disability, I simply cannot afford it. I was cut off DSS, food stamps and basic needs because I lost my home. Fortunately, I am a Disabled Veteran and they will hopefully provide me with adequate housing and care. Please take this matter into careful 007116 68 March 20, 2009 bcc APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. consideration. Thank you for your attention and support. REP. GERAGOSIAN: Thank you Selina on behalf of Ginnie. Are there any questions from the Members of the Committee? Seeing none, thank " you. We've reached the end of the list. Is there anybody else that wants to testify before the committee? Seeing none, I'll hereby declare the Public Hearing closed. Thanks everybody. 0071 17 Walter Gualtieri Owner, Roma Tailors & Dry Cleaning Testimony in Support of S.B. 1 An Act Concerning Economic Security for Connecticut Families Good Afternoon. My name is Walter Gualtieri, I run a dry cleaning and tailoring business in Newington's town center and I am also the President of Newington's Downtown Business Association. As a small business owner, I want to express my support for S.B. 1, An Act Concerning Economic Security for Connecticut Families. S.B. 1 makes good business sense to me and many of my fellow small business owners. State Assisted Savings is a voluntaryprogram that would help small businesses that currently cannot afford to offer a retirement plan to their employees. Under the program—which is voluntary for both employers and employees—small business employees could enroll in an automatic payroll deduction savings plan such as an IRA or 401K at discounted rates negotiated by the State Comptroller through the state's bulk purchasing power. Expanding retirement saving coverage in this way can be done in a very low-cost, low-risk, non-coercive way that small business owners find appealing. In trying to go it alone we confront prohibitive fees to set up, operate, and monitor retirement accounts. Now more than ever, we have to plan for our retirement years, and we need to do everything we can to make it easier for our employees to do the same. Even small steps can help encourage retirement saving. The State Assisted Savings Program would be an easy thing that can make a real difference. And, since most small business owners, like myself, are also employees of that small business, it will help us save for our own retirement. My wife and I are both employees at our small business; we don't have access to a traditional defined pension plan so the burden is on us to find other ways to plan for retirement. We know we should be putting more money aside and maximizing our pre-tax savings, but often time that's easier said than done. State Assisted Savings will allow us to maximize our retirement savings in an easy, painless automatic deduction. Small employers also want to do the right thing by their employees. Unlike some large corporations, small businesses become small families. If the state made it easier and more cost-effective for us to set up retirement savings tools for employees, I would pursue it. But, right now the time and cost to set up a retirement savings program presents a significant barrier. Even before the financial system took a dive, the nation had no policy to help all Americans gain retirement security. Now, we are adrift without a plan to help those who have lost trillions in retirement assets, and without a plan to provide the millions of Americans who have inadequate or no savings a simple way to save for retirement at work S.B 1 would provide an easy step toward securing the retirement security for small business employees I en.courage the Appropriations Committee to support S.B.1, An Act Concerning Economic Security for Connecticut Families. 007118 Room 3300 860-240-8600 Legislative Office Building Williams@senatedems ct.gov Hartford, Connecticut 06106-1591 www senatedems.ct.gov 3tate of Connecticut SENATOR DONALD E. WILLIAMS, JR. Twenty-ninth District President Pro Tempore Testimony of Senator Donald £. Williams, Jr. Senate President Pro Tempore On SB 1, AAC Economic Security For Connecticut Families Appropriations Committee Friday, March 20,2009 Senator Harp, Representative Geragosian, and the Members of the Appropriations Committee: Thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of SB 1, AAC Economic Security For Connecticut Families. Financial security is on the minds of all Connecticut families, and we are mindful of that in everything weconsider this legislative session. This includes, of course, retirement security. The current economic crisis has focused the nation's attention on the precarious state of individuals' retirement savings accounts. Social Security will not be adequate to maintain a reasonable standard of living for most households during retirement. Further, most have not been able to save enough through private pensions or individual saving to fill in the hole left by Social Security, particularly as the availability of corporate defined benefit plans has declined rapidly. In this uncertain climate, people need all possible tools to provide for themselves in their retirement years. For this reason, I ask that you consider the attached language for SB 1. The proposed language would enable the Office of the State Comptroller to offer retirement plan options to small businesses employing fewer than 100 employees, employees of non-profit organizations, and self-employed individuals. If enacted, Connecticut would become the first and only state in the nation to offer affordable retirement savings options to the private sector. 0071 19 The vast majority of small businesses are currently unable to offer retirement savings options to their workers. Small businesses cannot achieve the economies of scale that would make retirement savings programs viable options for their employees. The result is that the majority of these employees don't have access to certain retirement savings options. The State Comptroller's office currently administers a 401(a) defined contribution plan, an IRC section 457 deferred compensation plan, and a 403(b) retirement savings plan for state employees. The private sector retirement options proposed in this bill would extend the Comptroller's authority to the administration of plans for non-government employees. The start up costs to the state would be minimal and gradually recouped through administrative fees in the same way that plans on the market are funded. The administrative fees could be repaid to the General-Fund over the course of the first few years. The net cost to the state would therefore be zero. You may hear testimony today that Connecticut workers should not have these retirement savings options because they could hurt business. To the contrary, our proposal would help Connecticut's small businesses by giving them a significant advantage in attracting and retaining skilled workers - making Connecticut a more attractive place to live, work and do business. What's more, the programs envisioned in this bill would primarily target individuals and families who are not currently participating in a plan; that is, this is an underserved population that needs - and deserves - affordable retirement options. I make these comments on behalf of the hard working people of Connecticut who are trying to make ends meet during the largest economic crisis this state has seen in decades. The cost of daily expenses is rising, while wages are remaining stagnant and increasing numbers of state residents are losing their jobs. Families don't have powerful lobbyists to protect their interests: instead they rely on us to fight for them by supporting bills like Senate Bill 1. I look forward to working with you to assure that the working people of Connecticut have the benefit of this important and innovative initiative. Thank you for your time. 007 I 20 AN ACT CONCERNING ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR CONNECTICUT FAMILIES. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened: Section 1. (NEW) (Effective from passage) (a) As used in this section, "small employer" means a business with one hundred or fewer employees. (b) The Comptroller shall establish a tax-qualified defined contribution retirement program to provide retirement investment plans, including, but not limited to, those created under Section 401 of the Internal Revenue Code, of 1986, or any subsequent corresponding internal revenue code of the United States, as from time to time amended to self-employed individuals, small employers and organizations qualifying as tax- exempt pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of said Internal Revenue Code. In administering such plan, the Comptroller shall seek to minimize costs by helping small employers and individuals purchase retirement savings plans, arrangements and investments through economies of scale, standardization and other measures. (c) In carrying out the provisions of this section, the Comptroller shall contract with a third-party administrator for the management of such plan or plans and shall recover from program assets expenses incurred to initiate, operate and administer the program established pursuant to subsection (a) of this section. 007121 C. Peter Chow, AIA . Mark A. Welch, AIA TH^^ LLC 312 Park Road • West Hartford • Connecticut . 06119 Mark Welch Principal, OakPark Architects, LLC Supporting S.B. 1, An Act Concerning Economic Security for Connecticut Families Good morning, Chairwoman Harp, Chairman Geragosian, Ranking Members Debicella and Miner, and members of the Appropriations Committee My name is Mark Welch. I own a small architecture firm in West Hartford, CT called OakPark Architects We offer a full range of architectural and planning services' including feasibility studies, architectural and interior design, construction document preparation and contract administration. I am here in support of S.B. 1,, An Act Concerning Economic Security for Connecticut Families. Fortunately, my company has been able to offer retirement savings plans for our employees, but this took a significant effort on my part over the last year to research, review and implement a plan as well as paymg the fees for its administration and insurance so I know the obstacles that small businesses face when trying to set up a workable retirement savings plan. Small employers considering adoption of a retirement plan face a number of decisions from the type of plan to establish, the investments to offer, and the way in which the plan will be administered. In addition to the multitude of decisions to be made, employers face a variety of costs in establishing and maintaining retirement plans The upfront costs of establishing a retirement plan include the costs involved in researching the options for types of plans, finding a retirement plan service provider, and setting up the appropriate recordkeeping, withholding, and contribution transmitting processes. For many small busmesses this time commitment and upfront expense can be prohibitive S.B. 1 offers a strategy that utilizes the financial leverage of the state to make a simple, low-cost retirement plan available to small employers. According to Comptroller Nancy Wyman, small employers participating in the program could see a savings of 50 percent of the administrative fees they would otherwise face with a retirement plan. This would encourage and support small employers that want to offer a retirement plan and it would also benefit employees by helping them save with pre-tax dollars. I also support the State Assisted Savings strategy is S.B. I because it can help promote economic development in Connecticut. Small businesses are the heart and sole of Connecticut's economy. Our state's ability to grow, add jobs, increase state personal income and total state employment depend on the new business created primarily from our small businesses. State Assisted Savings could add to the state's appeal to employers. The program would be attractive for small businesses looking to locate in Connecticut or expand their operations. It would also help small businesses retain the talented workforce they need to continue to grow their small busmess. The State Assisted Savings proposal in S.B. 1 is a win-win for small businesses, employees and the state. S.B. 1 provides a simple, straightforward strategy that will help small businesses in Connecticut. I ask this committee to please support S.B 1, An Act Concerning Economic Security for Connecticut Families. Thank you. voice: (860) 232-6664 . fax:(860)232-6121 email [email protected] 007122 2-C J/zo/oyffyV U*ei Testimony of AARP Connecticut (Of (£> In Support of S.B. 1 An Act Concerning Economic Security for Connecticut Families March 20, 2000 Good morning, Chairwoman Harp, Chairman Geragosian, Ranking Members Debicella and Miner, and members of the Appropriations Committee My name is David Thomas and lam the volunteer chair of AARP's Economic Security team and I am also a small business owner. I am here today as a representative for AARP's more than 628,000 members in Connecticut and for small business owners in our state to support S.B. 1, An Act Concerning Economic Security for Connecticut Families. A major priority for AARP is to improve access, coverage and adequacy of pensions and other retirement saving vehicles. The personal savings rates of Americans have been falling for the past two decades. Statistics show that employees who save through an employer-provided retirement plan generally fare better in retirement than those who have no such plan; yet only about 50 percent of workers have a retirement plan available at work, despite numerous efforts over the past thirty years to expand retirement plan coverage and participation. State Assisted Savings is an innovative idea designed to make it easier for small, private-sector employers ~ who do not now provide plans ~ to offer their employees a way to save for retirement via voluntary payroll deductions. The strategy harnesses the state's ability to pool the interests of private employers who choose to take part in the program, thereby allowing economies of scale to lower costs. This is an innovative and exciting idea that is just beginning to get attention in the states. And, last year when a similar bill passed through this committee and cleared the Senate chamber, Connecticut became a national leader in attempting to expand opportunities for workplace retirement savings for the many employees in the private sector who do not currently have such an opportunity. In light of an aging population, the disappearance of guaranteed pensions in the private sector, low or negative savings rates, and the drumbeat of negative news about the long- run solvency of the Social Security system, the time is right for something different. For the past three decades or more, numerous attempts have been made to expand pension coverage for workers in the private sector, but with almost no noticeable movement; we have been more or less stuck at about 50 percent of the workforce having some kind of retirement coverage The only area where pensions continue to be widely available—both traditional defined benefit plans that are disappearing in the private sector, and defined contribution plans such as 403(b)s and 401(k)s—is in the public sector 1 007123 These plans are exceedingly valuable to those who have them, but can be a source of friction when taxpayers who have no pension of their own perceive they are being taxed to help pay what they view as generous public employee and retiree benefits. The voluntary accounts program can help to defuse this "pension envy" while making use of the expertise, experience, arid leverage with providers that the state retirement system has established over many years. One of the best features of the State Assisted Savings Proposal is the flexibility it offers. The state can determine how ambitious to be in establishing a retirement savings program for Connecticut employers.' We have the flexibility to define the shape of its program. For example, a state might elect to begin with a modest payroll deduction IRA or SIMPLE plan, possibly expanding to a 401(k) plan in the future. Since the majority of middle-earners in the U.S. do not set aside as much as the maximum amount allowed for an IRA (currently $5000; S6000 for someone who is 50+ years old), a payroll deduction IRA would fill the bill quite nicely in launching Connecticut's citizens on a path to improved retirement income security. State Assisted Savings would allow the state to select the provider (or providers) and designate the entity to oversee the plans to achieve maximum outreach to eligible employers. While the state would serve as an aggregator and facilitator for private employers and their workers, the system of voluntary accounts is essentially market-led, not government-run. The state assumes no legal liability for the performance of the plan; there is a clear distinction between these private accounts and the plans run by the state for its own employees. Above all, from the employer perspective, voluntary accounts are truly voluntary; there is no mandate, no matching requirement, no expectation that employers must participate, or must continue to participate once they have joined. Connecticut can also achieve "bragging rights" with employers by making voluntary accounts a part of the state's appeal to employers to locate or expand'^their operations within the state. Voluntary accounts can be seen as part of the state's economic development initiatives. There is also a more crude practical reason to support State Assisted Savings—Connecticut will ultimately bear much of the burden of caring for the impoverished elderly who never had an opportunity to save at work for retirement. For the state, the cost of setting up, operating and monitoring the pooled retirement savings plans is minimal, whereas those costs for an individual or small-business owner could be prohibitive. Plan expenses will be covered by participants' fees. Interviews with employer group representatives in Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia find almost universal support for this concept. Even retirement plan administrators and state treasurers and budget officers are intrigued and inclined to give the idea a closer look. You may hear opposition to or skepticism about this idea from some in the business community or perhaps the public sector unions. Those who are investment brokers, agents and bankers may object that this would take away some of their business. We would counter that they are not now serving this population, so there is no business for them to lose But down the road, should these accounts take hold and workers build up IRA or 401(k) balances and want to roll them over when they change jobs, there will be opportunities for these brokers and agents to pick up the 2 007 IZU business. And of course, they may also compete to be the organizations selected by the state to administer the program. As to workers and retirees in the public sector, they may fear that universal voluntary accounts are the entering wedge to the elimination of their guaranteed pensions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Voluntary accounts are for pnvate sector workers; the state's retirement system would be involved only because it is the best choice for overseeing the defined contribution plans for people employed in the private sector. There is absolutely no connection with any anticipated changes to public plans. Indeed, AARP is committed to seeing that these traditional pension plans remain strong, and will actively advocate on their behalf. Amidst a worldwide economic crisis, families are scared. They are worried that they haven't saved enough or aren't prepared to retire. That worry has led many to temporarily increase their savings rate at precisely the time when the economy most needs consumer spending. By setting up a proactive approach to savings, where families save a little bit from each paycheck we could ensure that CT families are better protected against economic downturn and avoid rapid contraction in consumer spending during an economic downturn when families try to make up for historically low savings rates. Connecticut is well positioned to be a leader and a role model for improving retirement income security, please support.S.B. 1. 007 I 20 V^ u XV V iI ? I tutv VU11 1VUU V* I1M11U AAA wfW4 r lil^ AWA AWfcAAWAAAMAAV The New Britain Herald (newbritainherald.com), Serving New Bntain, Conn , and surrounding areas Opinion OUR VIEW: State can lend a hand in saving for retirement Wednesday, February 18, 2009 10:31 PM EST Many in the post-World War II generation are enjoying a perk their children will never see — the pension. That monthly check from a former employer won't be there for many in today's work force That's why it's important that we offer younger workers opportunities to save for retirement. No, we're not suggesting that, in the depths of this recession, they turn to hard-hit employers. But, says AARP, there is something the state Legislature can do to foster savings. A proposed bill, SB. 1 "An Act Concerning Economic Secunty for Connecticut Families," would expand opportunities for workplace retirement savings for the 75 percent of small employers and their workers who don't offer retirement savings plans. S.B. 1, or the State Assisted Savings bill, is a voluntary payroll savings deduction plan of either IRAs or 401 K's for small private employers that currently cannot afford to offer a retirement plan. Under the program — which would be voluntary for both employers and employees — the state comptroller would minimize costs by helping small employers and individuals purchase retirement savings plans, arrangement', and investments through economies of scale, standardization and other measures, says AARP. The program works because of the automatic deductions — money taken out of the paycheck before it ever reaches the employee; we are all better savers when the money doesn't reach our hands. Such a plan would benefit low- and moderate- income workers who most need help saving for retirement, according to AARP. The bill would allow up to 36 percent of the Connecticut work force, employed by a small employer with fewer than 100 workers, access to payroll deducted retirement savings accounts. There are approximately 500,000 employees of businesses with 100 or fewer employees that do not currently participate in a retirement plan in Connecticut. Yes, the state is in no shape to undertake expensive new programs nght now, but there are little or no start-up and operating costs for the state; ongoing fees are paid by account holders, as in any workplace retirement plan. "And," says AARP, "because Connecticut will ultimately be responsible for services for seniors who were not able to save for retirement, SAS will actually help lower state costs in the future" This is a win-win plan; small employers would give their employees a chance for a secure retirement without the business beanng the burden of pension contnbutions. The state would provide a chance to its citizens at no cost to the taxpayers. This is a bill worth considering. URL: http-//www newbritainherald.com/articles/2009/02/18/opinion/doc499cd293472a2993961093.prt © 2009 newbntainherald com, a Journal Register Property http://www.newbritainherald.com/articles/2009/02/18/opinion/doc499cd293472a29939610... 2/19/2009 007126 Date Thursday, February 19, 2009 Location BRISTOL, CT Wot Bristol $ xm Circulation (DMA) 18,457 (28) Type (Frequency) Newspaper (D) A4RP Page A12 Keyword AARP OUR VIEW State can lend a hand in saving for retirement Many in the post-World War — money taken out of the II generation are enjoying a perk paycheck before it ever reaches their children will never see the employee; we are all better — the pension. That monthly savers when the money doesn't check from a former employ- reach our hands. Such a plan er won't be there for many in would benefit low- and moder- today's work force. That's why ate-income workers who most it's important that we offer need help saving for retirement, younger workers opportunities according to AARP. The bill to save for retirement. would allow up to 36 percent No, we're not suggesting that, of the Connecticut work force, in the depths of this recession, employed by a small employer they turn to hard-hit employers. with fewer than 100 workers, But, says AARP. there is some- access to payroll deducted retire- thing the state Legislature can ment savings accounts. There are do to foster savings. approximately 500,000 employ- A proposed bill, S.B. 1 "An Act ees of businesses with 100 or Concerning Economic Security fewer employees that do not cur- for Connecticut Families," rently participate in a retirement would expand opportunities for plan in Connecticut. workplace retirement savings for Yes, the state is in no shape to the 75 percent of small employ- undertake expensive new pro- ers and their workers who don't grams right now, but there arc offer retirement savings plans. little or no start-up and operat- S.B.1, or the State Assisted ing costs for the state; ongoing Savings bill, is a voluntary pay- fees are paid by account hold- roll savings deduction plan of ers, as in any workplace retire- either IRAs or 40lK's for small ment plan. "And," says AARP, private employers that currently "because Connecticut will ulti- cannot afford to offer a retire- mately be responsible for servic- ment plan. Under the program es for seniors who were not able —which would be voluntary for to save for retirement, SAS will both employers and employees actually help lower state costs in — the state comptroller would the future." minimize costs by helping small This is a win-win plan; small employers and individuals pur- employers would give their chase retirement savings plans, employees a chance for a secure arrangements and investments retirement without the business through economies of scale, bearing the burden of pension standardization and other mea- contributions. The state would sures, says AARP. provide a chance to its citizens at The program works because no cost to the taxpayers.This is a of the automatic deductions bill worth considering. Printing imperfections present during scanning Page 1 of 1 C 2009 BRISTOL PRESS AJ1 Rjghb R curved Account 38410 (1074) CT 7 Fo> raprmb 01 nghb jrieasa contact 0>« pubUthcr 007127 BART RUSSELL TESTIMONY CONNECTICUT COUNCIL OF SMALL TOWNS (COST) BEFORE THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE MARCH 20,2009 RE: SB-43, AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE UNITED MUNICIPAL ASSISTANCE GRANTPROGRAM The Connecticut Council of Small Towns (COST) supports the overall thrust of SB-43, which would continue Connecticut's commitment to S30 million in funding for Town Aid Road Program and $30 million for the Local Capital Improvement Program (LOCIP), give towns discretion to allocate a portion of the funds to meet other municipal obligations, and provide incentives for multi-town cooperation. Although we recognize that the state is facing unprecedented fiscal problems, we are concerned that the Town Aid Road (TAR) program has been under-funded for years. Currently, the TAR program is funded at $30 million per year - not $12.5 million, as reflected in statute. $22 million was authorized in last year's budget in addition to $8 million from the surplus for a total allocation of $30 million per year. The Town Aid Road (TAR) program provides towns with an essential source of financial support, which is critical to improving the condition and safety of the thousands of road miles for which towns are responsible. Municipalities currently own and maintain an estimated 17,115 road miles, more than four times the road miles owned and maintained by the State of Connecticut Traffic congestion on state highways and increased use of the local road and bridge network has resulted in a greater need for improvement and repairs to local roads and bridges. Insufficient funding forces towns to defer making needed improvements and repairs to local roads. This deferred maintenance results in significantly higher repair costs. Unfortunately, TAR funding levels suffered drastic cuts in 2002 - from $35 million to $12.5 million. Although the legislature allocated $30 million to TAR for FY 08, it is still less than the $35 million allocated in FY 02. In fact, fiinding for TAR has not increased substantially since the program's inception in 1967, and taking into account inflation, this translates into severe reductions in TAR funding since 1967. Well-maintained local road networks are vital to the state's overall business climate and competitiveness. Maintaining roads and bridges is also a safety issue - roads and bridges that are allowed to fell into disrepair create potential hazards for Connecticut citizens. Connecticut has made a tremendous commitment to improving state highways and bridges. Now, it is time to take care of our local road network. Although we appreciate efforts to provide towns with more flexibility in meeting their fiscal obligations, it is our understanding that we already have the discretion to target such funds to other areas. We would be pleased to work with the committee to address these issues as you develop a proposed budget. 007128 CONNECTICUT 900 Chapel St., 9th Floor, Now Haven, Connecticut 06510-2807 CONFERENCE OF Phone (203) 498-3000 • Fax (203) 562-6314* www.ccm-ct.org MUNICIPALITIES TESTIMONY of the CONNECTICUT CONFERENCE OF MUNICIPALITIES to the APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE March 20, 2009 CCM is Connecticut's statewide association of towns and cities and the voice of local governments - your partners in governing Connecticut. Our members represent over 93% of Connecticut's population. We appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony to you on issues of concern to towns and cities. S.B. 43, "An Act Establishing The United Municipal Assistance Grant Program" This bill would (a) eliminate the present Town Aid Roads (TAR) and Local Capital Improvement Program (LoCIP) grants, (b) create a new United Municipal Assistance Grant Program funded at $42 million in each of the next two fiscal years. The new Municipal Assistance Grant Program would: (a) Allow for expenditures similar to the programs' present allowed expenditures, and provide $36 million for expenditures similar to TAR, and $36 million for expenditures similar to LoCIP for the next two fiscal years; (b) Provide that one-third of each grant to be used at the discretion of the chief executive official and the legislative body of the municipality for other expenditures; and, (c) Give an incentive for regional or multi-town cooperation. There is unquestionably a need at the local level for more infrastructure assistance - and this bill would provide $20 million more in funding for infrastructure than the amounts in the Governor's proposed budget ($22 million for TAR, $30 million for LoCIP). That's welcome, as is the proposal for greater local discretion - municipal officials are accountable to their voters and, especially in these difficult economic times, need flexibility to be able to meet the needs of their citizens. It is an appropriate step forward for the state-local partnership. ~ However, CCM urges the Committee to provide that the distribution formulas used in this new program are the same as in the present TAR and LoCIP programs - that is, no municipality should be in danger of receiving less, or a smaller proportion, than it presently receives from TAR and LoCIP. 007129 2 Background: Why More Assistance Is Needed Local governments are responsible for maintaining the majority of Connecticut's roads and bridges. Municipalities own and maintain 17,115 road miles, more than four times the 4,079 road miles owned and maintained by the State1. Yet in recent years, state aid has lagged behind the need. At present there are three major state grant programs to help municipalities pay for infrastructure projects. Town Aid Roads (TAR) The Town Aid Roads grant (TAR) helps fund the construction, improvement and maintenance of local roads and bridges. This money may also be used for a variety of programs related to roads, traffic, and parking. Local governments depend on TAR, so when TAR is cut or funding is stagnant, local road projects do not go forward, meaning cost of repair will be even higher when finally undertaken. Shortchanging TAR is pertnywise, pound-foolish. The present biennial budget provides $30 million for TAR each year. This amount, constant since 2006, is still less than the amount that was allocated in FY 01-02 ($35 million). Moreover, in 2003 the mid-year budget cuts slashed TAR funding to $16 million for that year and just $12 million for FY 2004. TAR funding has never recovered from the 2003 cuts. In the meantime the cost of repair and maintenance has continued to rise. That has meant increased pressure on local budgets and deferred maintenance. Deferring work on roads only increases the eventual cost of repair. So, while TAR grants fell behind, local costs rose. Alarmingly, in each of the past two years, $8 million of the TAR allocation was paid using surplus funds from previous years. But now that the state budget is in deficit those funds are no longer available. That means that without further action by the legislature TAR funding will automatically fall to $22 million next year - the amount proposed by Governor Rell in her budget. Town Aid Road Grant FY 02 FY 03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 • Portion of Town Aid Road Grant Financed with Ongoing Revenues • Portion of Town Aid Road Grant Fianced with FY 08 Surplus Revenue 1 ConnDOT i 007130 3 Local Capital Improvement Program (LoCIP) The Local Capital Improvement Program (LoCIP) is a state bond-funded program that distributes funds to municipalities to reimburse the cost of eligible local capital improvement projects such as road, bridge or public building construction activities. Statutes state specifically the type of projects for which LoCIP funds can be used. For example, LoCIP can be used to pay for such things as road, bridge or public building construction activities. LoCIP has been flat-funded at $30 million since its inception. While state aid for TAR has lagged, and LoCIP has stayed flat, the buying power of the dollar has weakened. A dollar no longer goes as far as it used to. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the value of the US dollar has declined 40% over the last 6 years.2 Local Bridge Program Beyond roads, Connecticut's municipal governments are responsible for the construction and maintenance of over 1,200 local bridges greater than 20 feet in length, and another 2,100 between 6' and 20'. Those bridges - an important part of our transportation network - need help. Yet funding for the state-funded Local Bridge Program has fallen woefully behind. Connecticut's local bridges need to be a state priority - about 37% of locally owned bridges greater than 20 feet in length are deficient and present safety dangers to the public - - and liability risks to municipalities. About 25% of the shorter bridges (6' - 20') are deficient.3 The Local Bridge Program has not received any new state bond authorizations since FY 1991. In the intervening years, projects that received funding from the State were financed using repayments from loans for earlier projects or available federal funds. That is insufficient. Alarmingly, the General Assembly and Governor agreed in February to transfer $28 million of the $35 million in the Program Fund to the state's General Fund, as part of deficit mitigation efforts. But those funds were already committed to local projects - meaning that either (a) projects will not go forward, imperiling safety, or (b) municipalities and their property taxpayers will have to eat the cost. A renewed commitment to the state Local Bridge Program is crucial - there needs to be significant new funding for it. The safety of the traveling public demands it. Can The State Afford It? The simple answer is that the State can't afford not to invest in local infrastructure - because the bill for maintenance and repair will grow for every year of delay. Obviously state general fund revenues are tighter than usual this year. The State could also bond for more infrastructure aid to municipalities - bonding is appropriate for infrastructure investment because the benefits are felt statewide and over a long period of time. Although Connecticut's debt burden is often cited as being one of the highest in the country per capita, a better test of our state's ability to do more bonding is to examine debt according to what the public can afford - and the best measurement of that is to compare debt to income. (Over) 2 About.com: U.S. Economy, Value ofU.S Dollar Compared to Other Currencies, 2008 http://usec0n0my.ab0ut.c0m/0d/tradep0ljcy/p/D0llar_Value.htm. 3 Source- Connecticut Department of Transportation; 209 local bridges are rated "structurally deficient", 414 are rated "functionally obsolete" and 495 are rated "totally deficient". 007131 4 Many professionals, including David Osborne during his February 2, 2009 presentation at the Connecticut Legislative Office Building, suggest that Connecticut would appear to have a higher burden when the data is viewed per capita, but that tax as a percent of income is the fairest measure of tax burden. Using that measurement for bonding, the state is in the middle of the pack: Connecticut (including state and local government) ranks 24th in the nation for Interest on General Debt per $1,000 of income, and 28th in the nation for Total Outstanding Debt per $1,000 of income. ifit itft itif itit afiii a Summary The improvement and maintenance of our state's entire public infrastructure is linked to economic development. Investment in these systems as a whole will provide Connecticut with additional private- sector investment, create much-needed jobs and provide additional tax revenues to fund public services in our state. An aggressive, state program to assist municipalities in repairing and building infrastructure is a necessary component of reinvesting and stimulating the state and local economies. Such a program would (a) help local governments and reduce the unfair burden on property tax payers, (b) enable needed projects with long-term benefits to go from the drawing board to completion, and (c) create jobs. It will not be inexpensive, but the costs of inaction are much higher and dire. Local officials look to the State and federal governments to help meet the challenge of renewing and invigorating local infrastructure. It is a great example of a partnership where all levels of government can contribute resources to address a statewide problem. We look forward to working with you on this bill to get the job done. fillIII IN I IIIII > AIII >II TTTTIII I P I I For more information, please contact Gian-Carl Casa or Donna Hamzy of CCM at (203) 498-3000. 007 132 H>tate of Connecticut SENATE STATE CAPITOL HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106-1591 SENATOR KEVIN D. W1TKOS EIGHTH DISTRICT RANKING MEMBER ENERGY AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE GENERAL LAW COMMITTEE LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING SUITE 3400 HARTFORD, CT 06106-1591 MEMBER CAPITOL (860) 240-6800 LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE TOLL FREE (600)842-1421 PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE FAX (860)240-6306 E-mail Kevin Witkos@cga ctgov Date: March 20,2009 To: Senator Toni Harp Representative John Geragosian Senator Dan Debicella Representative Craig Minor ' Members of the Appropriations Committee From: Senator Kevin Witkos, 8th District Re: SB 49 An Act Concerning an Annual Summary of the Long-Term Fiscal Condition of the State Senators Harp and Debicella, Representatives Geragosian and Minor, members of the Appropriations Committee, I am here before you today in favor of SB 49 An Act Concerning an Annual Summary of the Long-Term Fiscal Condition of the State. The current global recession has wreaked economic havoc on budgetary planning from the federal government all the way down to our local municipalities. Here in Connecticut we face the largest budget deficit in state history and the daunting task that lies ahead of us to balance the budget for the next two years needs no further explanation. There are legitimate questions as to how our state's budget deficit has grown so significantly in a relatively short period of time. People I run into often ask if this could in any way have been avoided. SB 49 goes to the heart of this matter by requiring the legislative Office of Fiscal Analysis to prepare an annual study on the long-term fiscal condition of the state to members of the General Assembly. The report would be substantive in that it would not only summarize the current fiscal condition but also SERVING AVON, BARKHAMSTED, CANTON, COLEBROOK, GRANBY, HARTLAND, HARWINTON, NEW HARTFORD, NORFOLK, SIMSBURY, TORRINGTON 007133 review all revenue sources and expenditures from the three previous fiscal years. It would review the economic trends throughout our region and take a hard look at where the biggest growth within the budget occurs. If this economic crisis has taught us anything it's that a long term perspective is necessary that takes into account the "what ifs" so that the budget can be sustained when times are tough. I would also add that such a measure would not cost the state any additional resources but would provide the necessary economic blueprint to help us navigate when times are tough. Thank you. 00713U H>tate of Connecticut SENATE STATE CAPITOL HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106-1591 SENATOR L. SCOTT FRANTZ RANKING MEMBER COMMERCE COMMITTEE MINORITY WHIP THIRTY-SIXTH DISTRICT MEMBER TOLL FREE 800-842-1421 APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE OFFICE 860-240-8800 PROGRAM REVIEW & FAX 860-240-8306 INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE E-MAIL Scott Frantz@cga cl gov TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Date: March 20, 2009 To: Senator Harp Representative Geragosian Senator Debicella Representative Miner Members of the Appropriations Committee From: Senator L. Scott Frantz Re: SB 49: An Act Concerning an Annual Summary of the Long-Term Fiscal Condition of the State Good afternoon Chairman Harp, Chairman Geragosian, Ranking Member Debicella, Ranking Member Miner and members of the Appropriations Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony in support of SB 49, which would forward the idea of annually informing the general public and the General Assembly of the current fiscal circumstances and future outlook in the State of Connecticut. The intention is to have at our fingertips a "dashboard report" as well as long term trend analysis using graphics and key summary metrics where possible of how we are positioned as a state. This tool would serve to raise awareness and allow state government to manage fiscal issues to assure a sensible budget and fiscal balance for future generations of families, individuals and businesses. Currently, state law (Sec. 2-36b G.C.S.) requires the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) and the Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA) to provide budgetary summaries and other information to the Finance, Revenue and Bonding and Appropriations committees. Although this information is readily available if someone searches for it, the data is oftentimes hard to comprehend for those without financial or accounting backgrounds and typically includes current numbers and shorter term forecasts. The proposed, more user friendly analysis will give members of the public as well as the General Assembly a more useful picture of the state's economic climate by providing an opportunity to spot economic trends that may have emerged. The more concise and clear the summaries are, the better equipped citizens will be in financial planning and legislators will be in making important decisions on taxes, spending, and other proposals going forward. Examples of suggested inclusions in the Annual Summary (Graphical and/or in tables): Suite 3400 * Legislative Office Building * Hartford, CT 06106-1591 * (860) 240-8800 * Fax (860) 240-8306 O Printed on recycled paper 007 135 Past Five Years State Revenues Annual Growth Rate of State Revenues State Expenses Annual Growth Rate of State Expenses . State Debt Levels Annual Growth Rate of Debt Levels Debt Service Expense Annual Growth Rate of Debt Service Expense Comparison of Above with Other States Future Five Years State Revenues fusing national forecasts adjusted for State of Connecticut1) Annual Growth Rate of State Revenues State Expenses (using the last five year rolling average) Annual Growth Rate of State Expenses State Debt Levels Annual Growth Rate of Debt Levels Debt Service Expense Annual Growth Rate of Debt Service Expense Macroeconomic Trends affecting Connecticut Comparison of Above with Other States Current Fiscal Year Expected Surplus (Deficit) Comments Current Debt Level Statement of Unfunded Liabilities Tax Base Trends in Connecticut Health of the Tax Base - Corporate/Family/Individual Comments on State Policies Affecting Either Positively or Negatively the Tax Base Comparison of Above with Other States Finally, in the spirit of minimizing or eliminating costs associated with any new or existing initiatives, the purpose of SB49 could be accomplished relatively easily and quickly by existing staff at OFA or OPM and could be posted on a website as opposed to printing it annually. As citizens as well as legislators, we all need to better understand where we are going as a state and how to assure that Connecticut remains great in all respects. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Suite 3400 * Legislative Office Building * Hartford, CT 06106-1591 * (860) 240-8800 * Fax (860) 240-8306 G Printed on recycled paper 007136 H>tate of Connecticut SENATE STATE CAPITOL HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106-1591 SENATOR TONI BOUCHER ASSISTANT MINORITY LEADER TWENTY-SIXTH SENATE DISTRICT RANKING MEMBER LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE ROOM 3701 SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN HARTFORD, CT 06105-1591 CAPITOL (860)240-0465 TOLL FREE (800) 842-1421 MEMBER FAX (860) 240-0036 EDUCATION COMMITTEE E-mail Ton! Boucher@cga clgov FINANCE, REVENUE AND BONDING COMMITTEE March 20, 2009 Chairman Toni Harp, Chairman John Geragosian, Ranking Member Dan Debicella, Ranking Craig Miner and other distinguished of the Joint Committee on Appropriations Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of SB 49, An Act Concerning an Annual Summary of the Long-Term Fiscal Condition of the State. In light of our state's current economic situation, new policies must be implemented to better educate and inform our state legislators in an effort to craft better economic policy which recreates an environment where businesses can grow and families can prosper. SB 49 requires the Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA) to prepare an annual summary of the long-term fiscal condition of Connecticut. This report would give a three year look back on Connecticut's economic trends and a five year forward looking view of the state's fiscal climate. This information is critical as we face a severe budget gap in the next three years. The General Assembly must expand its vision and analysis to better comprehend where Connecticut has been and where it is going, both economically and on a budgetary basis. Current state statute requires the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) and OFA to submit budgetary information on an annual basis to the.Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee and to the Appropriations Committee. SB 49 increases the audience of the report to the entire legislature, and expands the economic awareness and perspective to include long-term financial trends and prospects. SB 49 requires OFA to report on the following: • Summary of the financial climate of the state; • Information on state expenditures and revenues over the previous three fiscal years; • Information on projected expenditures and revenues for the forthcoming five fiscal years; • Information on specific tax and economic trends in the state and region; • Data on the largest cost drivers within the state budget; • Growth of long-term state debt, including bonding and unfunded pensions; Passing this bill would provide the General Assembly with an extremely useful tool to develop future legislative policies for revitalizing Connecticut's economy. Thank for your consideration of this proposal SERVING BETHEL, NEW CANAAN REDDING, RIDGEFIELD, WESTON, WESTPORT, WILTON • 0 7137 is>tate of Connecticut SENATE STATE CAPITOL HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106-1591 SENATOR ANDREW RORABACK DEPUTY MINORITY LEADER PRO TEMPORE RANKING MEMBER THIRTIETH DISTRICT FINANCE, REVENUE AND BONDING COMMITTEE REGULATION REVIEW COMMITTEE PO BOX 357,455 MILTON ROAD GOSHEN, CONNECTICUT 06756 MEMBER HOME (860)491-8617 ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE CAPITOL (860)240-8800 JUDICIARY COMMfTTEE TOLL FREE 1-800-842-1421 FAX (860)240-8306 E-MAIL Andrew Roraback@cga ctgov March 20, 2009 Senator Harp, Representative Geragosian, Senator Debicella, Representative Miner and Distinguished Members of the Appropriations Committee: I write to express my enthusiastic support for Senate Bill 49, An Act Concerning An Annual Summary Of The Long-Term Fiscal Condition Of The State. As we in the General Assembly are all committed to conducting ourselves so as to secure the long term economic vitality of our State, our work in this regard can only be enhanced through passage of this important bill. Short term measures we must take to keep State Government functioning will be more wisely undertaken if they are informed by an understanding of the long term fiscal conditions of our State. The document which this bill will provide us will be a very useful guide to our actions long into the future. I urge your support of this bill. Thank you. SERVING BROOKFIELD, CANAAN, CORNWALL, GOSHEN, KENT, LITCHFIELD, MORRIS, NEW MILFORD, NORTH CANAAN, SALISBURY, SHARON, TORRINGTON, WARREN, WASHINGTON AND WINCHESTER 007 I 20 H>tate of Connecticut SENATE STATE CAPITOL HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106-1591 SENATOR LEONARD A. FAS AN O SENATE MINORITY LEADER PRO TEMPORE RANKING MEMBER THIRTY FOURTH SENATE DISTRICT LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE SELECT COMMITTEE ON VETERANS'AFFAIRS LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING ROOM 3411 HARTFORD, CT 06106-1591 MEMBER CAPITOL (660)240-8800 EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE NOMINATIONS TOLL FREE (1-800)842-1421 COMMITTEE FAX (860)240-8306 E-MAIL Len Fasano@cga clgov CHAIRMAN LIS LNG TASK FORCE Date: March 20, 2009 To: Senator Harp Representative Geragosian Senator Debicella Representative Miner .Members of the Appropriations Committee From: Senator Len Fasano Re: SB 49: An Act Concerning an Annual Summary of the Long-Term Fiscal Condition of the State Good afternoon Chairman Harp, Chairman Geragosian, Ranking Member Debicella, Ranking Member Miner and members of the Appropriations Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of SB 49: An Act Concerning an Annual Summary of the Long-Term Fiscal Condition of the State. No one here needs reminding that the current fiscal crisis facing our state is the worst in recent memory. Our obligation now, as legislators, is to close our current and projected budget gaps but also, to examine how we wound up in such dire straits in an effort to keep this from happening again. SB 49 seeks to SERVING EAST HAVEN, NORTH HAVEN AND WALLINGFORD 007 I 20 address this obligation by requiring an annual report on the state's financial climate. The report would include a long-term analysis of data regarding a number of critical factors like where state money is being spent as well as an analysis of specific tax and economic trends statewide. While this data will be invaluable to future financial planning, one of the facets of this bill I am particularly happy with is that there is virtually no cost associated with its implementation. Because the bill tasks the Office of Fiscal Analysis to conduct and prepare the study, the work can be accomplished using existing staff and resources. Finding ways to examine and address our state's financial vitality within our means is so critical during these tough economic times when we have so little to spare. I believe SB 49 is a creative and effective approach to-providing a clear picture of our state's economy and I am proud to support this legislation. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to voice my support of this important measure and I urge its passage. Thank you. 007 I 20 Is>tate of Connecticut SENATE l • STATE CAPITOL HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106-1591 SENATOR MARTIN M. LOONEY ELEVENTH DISTRICT MAJORITY LEADER 132 FORT HALE ROAD NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06512 TELEPHONES HOME. (203) 468-8829 OFFICE: (203) 488-6101 CAPITOL (860) 240-8600 TOLL FREE 1-800-842-1420 March 20, 2009 Good Afternoon Senator Harp, Representative Geragosian and members of the Appropriations Committee. Thank you for raising SB 246, AN ACT CONCERNING A COMMISSION ON FEDERAL STIMULUS DISTRIBUTION. I proposed this legislation because I believe it is important, as a matter of accountability, that the decisions and responsibilities regarding our state's distribution of the funds received from the Federal Stimulus package be shared between the Executive and Legislative branches. This bill recognizes and provides for an appropriate separation of powers and shared decision making. The commission would be entirely bi-partisan; six of its members would be appointed by Republican officials (four by the governor) and six by Democratic officials. The citizens of Connecticut are well served when their government makes deliberate consensus decisions on crucial matters such as this. I hope that you will act positively on this legislation. ^ ^ Mnu4 ea recycM ptp*f Q07 I UI "Oral Health for All" * •itl1 Connecticut Oral Health Initiative Legislative Testimony Senate Bill 246 - An Act Concerning a Commission on Federal Stimulus Distribution Madeline McClave, Interim Executive Director Connecticut Oral Health Initiative (COHI) Good afternoon. My name is Madeline McClave. I am the Interim Executive Director of the Connecticut Oral Health initiative or COHI. COHI is a diverse statewide coalition of individuals and organizations that promotes oral health in Connecticut by raising public awareness of its importance and through improved access to care and education. First, thank you for doing what is such a difficult job in this economic crisis. We appreciate this opportunity to provide input as the General Assembly makes very difficult budget decisions. COHI urges you to support Senate Bill 246, An Act Concerning a Commission on Federal Stimulus Distribution. ' On behalf of our board of directors and other constituents, I encourage you to support this bill because: 1) it will help to maximize federal dollars helping Connecticut residents at a time when there is an increase in people seeking help due to loss of income and benefits; 2) it will promote an informed approach to cost-cutting in the area of healthcare delivered to participants across our Medicaid programs; and 3) will increase the likelihood that access to essential and cost-effective health services such as regular, preventive dental care are preserved for our low-income neighbors, including one in four children in the state enrolled in HUSKY. These services are threatened by the Governor's budget proposals (see attached sheet). We know that the Governor and General Assembly face a complex task in addressing revenue shortfalls in this budget process. However, the increased Medicaid funding coming to Connecticut through enhanced reimbursement in the federal stimulus is intended to help preserve basic healthcare services such as preventive dental care for our low-income residents. We believe that there should be a thoughtful approach that ensures congruence with Congressional intentions for spending these monies. Connecticut should not balance its budget using these monies at the same time that drastic cuts or cost-sharing in Medicaid services are imposed. In response to basic needs among your constituents, safety net health programs should be preserved not diminished as demand for them rises. Please do not hesitate to contact COHI (246-2644 or [email protected]) if you have questions or need additional information. Thank you for your time and attention. The Connecticut Oral Health Initiative works to raise awareness and improve public policy to support its mission 'Oral Health for All'. Founded in 1993, COHI has been an independent nonprofit since 2003. It brings together individuals, dental professionals and organizations that believe in 'Oral Health for All.' 007 I Connecticut Oral Health Coalition Governor's Proposals Threaten Access to Dental Care Savings Would be Outweighed by Increased Costs Members: Community Health Center Association of Proposal: Connecticut Community Health > Cut routine dental care for the 230,000 adults enrolled in HUSKY, Center, Inc. SAGA, Medicaid fee for service and Title 19. Reimburse only Connecticut AIDS emergency care. Resource Coalition Connecticut Impact: Appleseed • Dramatically increases healthcare costs Connecticut Association of Dental • Dentists will not participate in program. Dental patients will seek Assistants hospital emergency room care. Connecticut • Emergency room dental visits increased 12% after Maryland Association of made a similar cut School-Based Health Centers • Emergency room care is ten times more expensive than care in dental office Connecticut Dental Hygienists' Association • Eliminating adult routine dental care hurts children Connecticut Oral • Mothers with poor dental health have children with more dental Health Initiative problems • Maternal dental disease is linked to pre-term babies Connecticut Society of Pediatric Dentists Connecticut State Proposal: Dental Association > Requires prior authorization for all non-emergency dental services for Connecticut Voices for Children both children and adults in DSS Medicaid programs Greater Hartford Legal Aid Impact: Regional Oral Health CoTlaboratives: ' Undermines the General Assembly's intent to ensure • Bridgeport children's access to dental services • Danbury • New Britain • Creates costly administrative burden for Department of Social • New Haven Services and providers • Southeast • Discourages dentists from treating patients in Medicaid • Stamford • Waterbury • Violates spirit of dental lawsuit settlement do Connecticut Oral Health Initiative The Connecticut Oral Health Coalition believes that increased Medicaid funding to the 175 Main Street state through the federal stimulus is intended to pay for this kind of preventive Hartford, CT 06106 healthcare and should, at least, preclude having to make these cuts. 860 246.2644 (phone) 860 246 7744 (fax) For more information, contact COHI at 860/246-2644 or [email protected]. 007 IU3 r-H Center for Nje^ai^Advocacy, Inc. www medicareadvocacy org Connecticut Part D Coalition APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE Public Hearing - Senate Bill No. 246 An Act Concerning a Commission on Federal Stimulus Distribution March 20, 2009 INTRODUCTION The Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc. (The Center) is a private, non-profit organization headquartered in Mansfield, Connecticut with offices in Washington, D.C. and throughout the nation. The Center provides education and legal assistance to advance fair access to Medicare and health care. We represent Medicare beneficiaries throughout the state, respond to approximately 7,000 calls and e-mails annually, and host two websites. The Center also provides written and electronic materials, education, and expert support for Connecticut's CHOICES health insurance, counseling, and assistance program, and provides a vast anray of other services for Medicare beneficiaries throughout Connecticut arid the United States. CONCERNS ABOUT MEDICARE PART D WRAP AROUND AND ConnPACE I testify today as the senior staff attorney at the Center for Medicare Advocacy and on behalf of the Connecticut Part D Coalition. In 2005, the Center for Medicare Advocacy and other organizations concerned with health care rights and rights of low-income, older adults and people living with disabilities formed the Part D Coalition to safeguard Connecticut's Medicaid and ConnPACE populations in light of the impending implementation of Medicare's Part D program. As of January 1, 2006, all dually eligible people were required by federal law to obtain their prescription drug coverage from Medicare rather than from Medicaid. In many states this was a good thing; but in Connecticut it meant that dually eligible people would receive less drug coverage and have more cost-sharing responsibilities than before Part D. It also meant that people with just Medicaid coverage were better off than those that had both Medicare and Medicaid coverage. The Part D Coalition was able to work with the Legislature to develop the Part D "Wrap Around" in order to ensure that what Connecticut has long considered basic, necessary coverage for poor older people and those living with disabilities continued to be available 00711. ii when Medicare Part D became effective. We were able to show that this need could be met without great cost to the state - indeed with some savings, including to ConnPACE. For the last three years, after Part D's rocky start, the Wrap Around has worked well. Indeed, the Department of Social Services has been reporting about the benefits to dually eligible people and the relative ease of administration. Nonetheless, this year - when times are the toughest they have been in a long time - meaning that older people and those living with disabilities will be poorer, and more people will become eligible for Medicaid, the Governor proposes to end the Wrap Around, introduce new copayments for poor people in need of medications and healthcare, eliminate coverage for drugs not-on a person's Part D plan's formulary, and limit ConnPACE enrollment and participation. This is hardly the time to add these burdens to our most vulnerable citizens. Studies illustrate what will happen in Connecticut if the Governor's proposed cuts to the Wrap Around and ConnPACE program are implemented. For example, a recent study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that when people with incomes higher than dual eligibles reached the "Donut Hole" gap in coverage under Part D - when they had no drug coverage - they took 14% fewer of their prescribed medications. Another Kaiser study of dually eligible people found that those who lived in states with no, or limited Part D Wrap Around coverage, were often unable to access prescribed drugs and/or non- formulary medications. Numerous other studies have shown that when co-payments are required of low-income people they forego necessary care. We urge the Legislature to honor the intention of the federal stimulus money and not make cuts to essential services that our most vulnerable citizens rely on now more than ever. In particular we ask you to: • Continue to cover drugs for ConnPACE participants and dually eligible people that are not on their Part D plan formularies when the drugs are covered for other Medicaid- recipients; • Continue to cover Part D co-payments for dually eligible people and refuse to add co-payments to the Medicaid program; Safeguard ConnPACE. In particular, reject the Governor's proposal to limit the opportunity to enroll to only one six-week period per year and to unduly restrict access by adding a terribly onerous asset test; • Refuse to impose new prior authorization requirements for Medicaid-covered psychiatric and certain other high-cost drugs. CONCLUSION For a long time Connecticut has recognized the need to provide basic medication and health care coverage for lower income people, older adults, and people living with disabilities. We know the Legislature if faced with draconian choices among competing interests for the State budget. We realize that the Capitol is overflowing with people urging that various cuts not be made. However, portions of the federal stimulus money coming to the State are to ensure that cuts not be made to programs serving dually Q 0 7 I U 5 eligible people. The Center for Medicare Advocacy and the Connecticut Part D Coalition add our voices to those urging you to maintain the status quo for our most vulnerable citizens. In these uncertain times, one thing is certain. Lower income older people and those living with disabilities will forego necessary medications and health care services if the extreme cuts proposed by the Governor are accepted. We urge you to not place this untenable burden on people who are already struggling to survive these tough economic times. We urge you to maintain the status quo for dually eligible older adults and those living with disabilities. The undersigned organizations stand ready to help in anyway we can. I thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on this matter and I am happy to provide further information and/or to answer any questions you may have. Respectfully submitted, Connecticut Part D Coalition AARP Connecticut Connecticut Health Advocacy Forum Advocacy for Patients with Chronic Illness, Inc. Connecticut Legal Rights Project AIDS LIFE Campaign Connecticut Legal Services Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc Greater Hartford Legal Aid CT AIDS Resource Coalition Legal Assistance Resource Center of CT Connecticut Association of Area Agencies on Aging National Alliance on Mental Illness, CT Connecticut Commission on Aging National Multiple Sclerosis Society, CT Connecticut Community Care, Inc. New Haven Legal Assistance Association Pamela A. Meliso, J.D., M.P.H. Senior Staff Attorney Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc. 11 Ledgebrook Drive Mansfield, CT 06250 (860)456-7790 [email protected] www.medicareadvocacv.org 007 U6 CAHS Connecticut Association for Human Services Michael S. Rohde, President no Bartholomew Avenue - Suite 4030 lames P. Horan, Executive Director Hartford, Connecticut 06106 860.951.2212 www cahs org 860.9516511 fax Testimony Before the Appropriations Committee In Support ofS.B. 246, AAC A Commission on Federal Stimulus Distribution And S.B. 1, AAC Economic Security for Connecticut Families Submitted by Jim Horan, Executive Director Connecticut Association for Human Services March 20,2009 Good afternoon, Senator Harp, Representative Geragosian, and members of the Appropriations Committee. I am Jim Horan, Executive Director of the Connecticut for Human Services (CAHS), a statewide nonprofit advocacy organization that works to reduce poverty and promote family economic security. I am here in support of two bills before you, S.B. 246, AAC A Commission on Federal Stimulus Distribution, and S.B. 1, AAC Economic Security for Connecticut Families. In the midst of the economic downturn, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides a tremendous opportunity to reinvigorate our economy. CAHS applauds the effort to create a bipartisan distribution commission. Since the federal stimulus act ensures a strong role for the Governor, the proposed commission in one way to ensure that the General Assembly will be engaged in the distribution of funds. A commission can help ensure that new federal resources rebuild economic security for working families, and that the benefits of the economic recovery are shared broadly, particularly by those most in need. Attached to my testimony are "Principles for State Implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." The national Working Poor Families Project, of which CAHS is a part, developed these principles, which are endorsed by 20 national advocacy organizations. We urge legislators to follow these principles in using the funds, and to consider incorporating them into S.B. 246. There are two basic principles: • Make investments that stabilize the economy, promote growth, and benefit those hurt most by the recession. o Make it a priority to create family-supporting jobs, o Use resources to build worker skills and link training to job creation efforts, o Invest in distressed communities, o Maximize resources to benefit workers and their families. • Assure that funds are spent in an open and accountable manner that maximizes benefits. o Allocate resource based on goals and standards through transparent processes, o Maintain public accountability. o Align public systems and resources to achieve optimal impact. CAHS is pleased that Gov. Rell welcomes the stimulus funding, unlike some of her colleagues. Following these principles will help ensure that these resources spark economic recovery and opportunity for all Connecticut residents. 0&7IU S.B. 246 js before you at the same time as S.B. 1, Senator Williams' Act Concerning Economic Security for Connecticut Families. Given the economic downturn and the state budget deficit, it is clear that one of the most effective things the General Assembly and Governor can do this year to promote the economic security of our state's families is to implement the federal stimulus resources effectively, transparently, and with accountability. This fiscal crisis is hurting Connecticut families, and presents an opportunity to think boldly and make needed structural changes that invest in our economy and families. Also attached to my testimony is CAHS' policy agenda for 2009. For six years, CAHS has worked under the umbrella of "family economic security," and our work as an organization is built around policies and programs that help Connecticut build a vibrant workforce, a thriving economy, and strong families. • In these tough economic times, the General Assembly needs to create a stable revenue system to sustain investments. The Appropriations Committee should work with the Finance Committee to ensure that there is adequate revenue to minimize damaging cuts to essential services to families and communities. • Your actions can also help increase family income and savings, by creating a state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), promoting free tax preparation and access to the federal EITC, and creating a health care system that is universal, accessible, affordable, and sustainable, like the SustiNet proposal. • The General Assembly can build family economic security by strengthening work supports, including improving quality and increasing access to the Care4Kids child care program, and increasing access to and delivery of pubjic benefits through electronic applications and one-stop "financial resource centers," based on a model at Co-opportunity in Hartford. • Prepare people for good jobs, by aligning Connecticut's job creation efforts in health care, construction, manufacturing, and green technologies with training opportunities in our state colleges, community agencies, and union halls.' Training and education for Connecticut's adults must be a fundamental part of our plan for the state's economic recovery. That's a lot for one bill, but CAHS hopes that the Appropriations Committee will fill in the blanks o^fS.B. lwith real and sorely-needed policies and programs that build family economic security. You've got a tough job, especially this year. Thank you for your work, and for the opportunity to testify today. 007 I 20 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 aims to reinvigorate the national economy through a range of public investments, tax changes, and policy innovations. Used carefully, these resources can spark economic recovery, renew opportunity, and rebuild security for working families. With the recession deepen- ing, states need to bolster job creation and incomes to help the economy rebound. As the long-term provisions of the package are implemented, it is critically important that state policymakers do all they can to ensure that the benefits of the economic recovery will be shared broadly, particularly by those people most in need. And policymakers should be vigilant in ensuring that all funds are spent effectively, transparently, and with accountability ABOUT THESE PRINCIPLES As state policymakers seek to use these public funds to improve the state's economy as quickly as possible, all in- THE WORKING POOR FAMILIES PROJECT has vestments should be guided by these key principles: developed this set of Principles for State Implementa- tion to guide state policymakers as they allocate funds MAKE INVESTMENTS THAT STABILIZE THE ECONOMY, PROMOTE from die American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. GROWTH, AND BENEFIT THOSE HURT MOST BY THE RECESSION. The following national organizations have endorsed Low-income families and unemployed workers are espe- these principles: cially vulnerable during the current economic downturn. Creating new economic and education opportunities for Center for Community Change them should be a key state goal. Research has shown that Center for Law and Social Policy providing increased support and income to low-income Center for State Innovation people is one of the most effective and quickest ways of CFED expanding economic activity. Policymakers should: Coalition on Human Needs * Make it a priority to create family-supporting jobs. Community Action Partnership » Use resources to build worker skills and link training Corporation for a. Skilled Workforce to job-creation efforts. Council for Adult and Experiential Learning « Invest in distressed communities. Economic Analysis and Research Network - 0 Maximize resources to benefit workers and their Economic Mobility Corporation families. Economic Policy Institute Gamaliel Foundation ASSURE THAT FUNDS ARE SPENT IN AN OPEN ANII ACCOUNTABLE Half in Ten MANNER THAT MAXIMIZES BENEFITS Jobs for the Future The Recovery Act calls for strong oversight and trans- National Employment Law Project parency of spending. To meet that goal, state and local OMB Watch ~ policymakers should Progressive States Network « Allocate resources based on goals and standards Transportation Equity Network through transparent processes. Wider Opportunities for Women <• Maintain public accountability. Workforce Strategy Center 0 Align public systems and resources to achieve optimal impact. ;\I I • '1. R.IN' IN - 1 M'I-.I M * V ' 'MI' 1 ID ".I'«(,.?IIILI- •= 01; I WP.|)T-?-. ' IV I I '.'TL! I T."7 1 !.R0 007 I 20 I. MAKE IT A PRIORITY TO CREATE FAMILY-SUPPORTING JOBS. Recovery spending must focus on creating the maximum number of high-quality jobs—those that pay wages that can support a family, provide vital benefits such as health care and paid leave, and offer worker-friendly practices. States can use family, living, or prevailing wage standards to identify a family-supporting job. Creating such jobs will require a commitment. A recent report from Good Jobs First found that low wages are not uncommon in renewable energy manufacturing, green construc- tion, and recycling jobs1, areas where significant federal funds will be spent The standard of using prevailing wages, which address hourly wages, benefits, and overtime pay, as a benchmark can apply to many infrastructure jobs generated by the federal recovery package. States also need to ensure that the jobs created with Recovery Act funds are available to workers with low skills and low in- comes as well as women and members of minority groups. This can be done by giving preference to projects that allocate a portion of their contract funds to training and jobs for these populations 2. USE RESOURCES TO BUILD WORKER SKILLS AND LINK TRAINING TO JOB-CREATION EFFORTS. The recession has not hit all employment sectors and workers equally. While the national unemploy- ment rate rose to 7.6 percent in January 2009, it is much higher in some states and among certain segments of the population. Low-skill workers continue to have significantly higher unemployment rates. Workers with no more than a high school diploma are twice as likely to be unemployed as are those with a bachelor's degree, and workers with less than a high school credential are more than three times as likely to be unemployed as are those with a bachelor's degree. States should allocate new education and traming funds to prepare adults with low skills and poor literacy, as well as dis- connected youth, to move into jobs that lead to career advancement. States should support career pathway, pre-apprenticeship, apprenticeship, and work-study programs that help workers obtain the necessary credentials and experience to gain middle-skill2 jobs in high-demand sectors such as con- struction, health care, technology, and "green" industries. Fast-track education and training pro- grams should be linked to the good new jobs that are part of economic recovery. All training programs should provide adequate work stipends and supportive services such as child care. 3. INVEST IN DISTRESSED COMMUNITIES. Many communities—in urban, rural, and older suburban areas alike—have experienced distress and disinvestment and now suffer from high rates of unemployment, housing foreclosures, and business closings. States should ensure that a portion of recovery funds is used for projects in distressed com- munities Residents of those communities should be assured a portion of the jobs created through in- frastructure projects (including funding through transportation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, clean water, and broadband access) and should be included in training opportunities Woi'lr i,q iv-,r r.uii'lii i I'loir^t I w \w"'orkinsptiiiifnrmli,.- oiy 2 007150 4. MAXIMIZE RESOURCES TO BENEFIT WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES. Unemployment continues to be a critical challenge, with hundreds of thousands of additional workers losing their jobs each month. The recovery package gives states the opportunity to use federal funds to address a variety of worker and family needs, and states must take advantage of these opportuni- ties. The Recovery Act offers states incentive funds to modernize states' unemployment insurance sys- tems and provide benefits to an expanded pool of workers (such as part-time workers)3 The Act also provides additional funds to states that expand assistance, short-term benefits, or subsidized employ- ment. Economists have found that putting additional money into the hands of unemployed and low- income families will boost a state's economy. In addition, the Recovery Act gives states resources to benefit low-income children and families and allows broader eligibility for some key poverty-allevia- tion programs. For residents to receive these increased benefits, changes in state laws are needed. States should make these changes to take every advantage of these opportunities to reduce the im- pact of the recession on workers and their families while at the same time protecting their assets. States should strengthen outreach activities to ensure that all those qualified know about and receive the benefits for which they are eligible. In particular, states should increase outreach for new and ex- panded tax credits4 as well as for programs providing supplemental food, health assistance, child care, and other assistance. 5. ALLOCATE RESOURCES BASED ON GOALS AND STANDARDS THROUGH TRANSPARENT PROCESSES. States, in consultation with business and other groups, should set specific goals and standards for how recovery funds are spent to ensure that investments achieve the broader goals of recovery and reinvestment. The recovery goals include preserving jobs, creating immediate employment opportuni- ties, and helping those hurt most by the recession. The reinvestment goals include upgrading the ed- ucation and skills of the workforce, increasing energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy, and spurring technology advances to create new jobs in 21st Century industries and sectors. To assess progress, states should establish performance measures, such as the number of people completing training programs, the number of jobs saved or created, how many hours new hires work, wages and benefits paid, demographics of those hired and trained, on-time performance, and quality of work. Whenever possible, agencies should offer contracts through a competitive process to increase fairness and choice. States that make exceptions to open competition should identify those awards on state and federal websites and explain why an open competition was not offered. All project selection should be based on an objective scoring process. While an open bidding process is important in awarding public contracts, states must act quickly to meet the requirements of the federal law and to spur job creation. Many state agencies will receive funds 30 days from the bill's signing, and some of those funds must be obligated within three months of receipt. Despite time pressures, states must make both timely expenditures and smart investments. 3 Wijrh'iq 1'nur Fnniilv.i! Prnjr>.»t I w«\v workir^'pomtnLiilie* org 007151 6. MAINTAIN PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY. States and their contractors should report publicly and regularly how they are spending fed- eral funds and the results of that spending. Oversight procedures should be instituted that allow citizens to review and assess the success of investments. States should post searchable databases that track and report spending and progress. This information needs to be easily available and downloadable for detailed research and analysis. Websites created by states should provide comparable data about spending, and should incorporate common standards and definitions so that the information is comparable to and compatible with federal websites (such as Recovery gov and USASpending.gov). States should track data related to the number and demographics of people hired and trained, the number of hours newly hired employees work, the range of wages paid, benefits, and the number of jobs created or retained. In addi- tion, states should create an online tool and an automated hotline for citizens and government workers to report any misuse of Recovery Act funds.5 7. ALIGN PUBLIC SYSTEMS AND RESOURCES TO ACHIEVE OPTIMAL IMPACT. Recovery and reinvestment funds will flow through myriad existing and new channels. Now more than ever, it is important for state agencies to align and integrate their systems to make them more effective and avoid duplication of services. States must coordinate such projects and services among agencies, different levels of government, and private service providers. To the extent possible, jurisdictions should also coordinate their applications for federal funds to avoid inefficiency. The ability of projects to succeed will be determined by the availability of contractors to hire an adequately trained workforce To avoid reinventing the wheel, state agencies and private contractors should use and expand existing education and training programs, many of which can leverage philanthropic funds. ENDNOTES 1 See Good Jobs First's report, High Road or Low Road, Job Quality in the New Green Economy, for a list of tools and policy options that can help create good jobs at http //www goodjobsfirst org/pdf/gjfgreenjobsrpt pdf ' The Workforce Alliance has defined middle-skill jobs as those that require more than high school graduation but less than a four-year de- gree See http //www skiIls2compete arg/atf/cf/(8E9806BF-4669-4217-AF74-26F62108EA68)/Forgotten JobsReport%20Final pdf for a descrip- tion and analysis of middle-skill supply and demand 'See the National Employment and Law Project for a full description of the Unemployment Insurance changes and incentives in the ARRA at http //nelp 3cdn nef/dc5068d946ca4ba59a_wxm6bnlic pdf 'Expanded tax credits include Earned Income Tax Credit. Child Tax Credit, and American Opportunity Tax Credit sSee OMB Watch's Coalition for an Accountable Recovery for a detailed set of policy recommendations at http //www ombwatch.org/car THE WORKING POOR FAMILIES PROJECT O Millions of American breadwinners work hard to support their fami- lies. But, despite their determination and effort, many are mired in low-wage jobs that provide inadequate benefits and offer few opportunities for advancement. In fact, more than one out of four American working families now earn wages so low that they have difficulty surviving financially. Launched in 2002 and currently supported by the Annie E. Casey, Ford, Joyce, and Mott foundations, the Working Poor Families Project is a national initiative that works to improve these economic conditions. The project partners with 26 state nonprofit organizations and supports their poKcy efforts to better prepare America's working families for a more secure economic future. 4 007152 Connecticut Association for Human Services CAHS Our Policy Platform The Connecticut Association for Human Services (CAHS) works to end poverty and to engage, equip, and empower all families in Connecticut to build a secure future. Connecticut, like the rest of the nation, faces unprecedented fiscal challenges We must look at this financial crisis as a moment of opportunity to think boldly and be innovative. Now is our chance to make needed structural changes and to commit to long-term investments in our economy and families. CAHS supports policies that help move families from poverty to prosperity. By investing in basic needs, financial education, asset building, work supports, job skills and training, early care and education, universal health care, and equitable tax policy, Connecticut can build a vibrant workforce, a thriving economy, and strong families. Connecticut must invest in human capital. Looking out over the next decade, Connecticut's workforce will change substantially and we must prepare people for good jobs that are needed to make our state competitive Connecticut must also take bold steps to create a revenue stream that is adequate, reliable, fair and transparent Immediate and longer-term investments are needed to strengthen our working families. Create a Stable Revenue System to Sustain Investments Strategies: Restructure the state's revenue stream to ensure it is adequate, reliable, fair, and transparent. Increase Family Income and Savings Strategies: -» Create a health care system that is universal, accessible, affordable, and sustainable. -» Create a State Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Promote free tax-preparation services and access to the federal EITC Improve Access to Family and Work Supports Strategies: -» Improve the quality and increase access to the Care4Kids child care program -> Allow workers paid sick leave. -» Improve access to and delivery of public benefits. Prepare People for Good Jobs Strategies: -> Invest in education and skills development. Provide financial support, tutoring, and mentoring for adult community college students. -» Develop green jobs opportunities. For more information, contact Maggie Adair, Policy Director, 860-951-2212, x 239, or [email protected] 007 I 20 National Alliance on Mental Illness Testimony before the Appropriations Committee March 20, 2009 SB 246 Good afternoon, Senator Harp, Representative Geragosian, and members of the Appropriations Committee. My name is Alicia Woodsby, and I am the Public Policy Director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, CT (NAMI-CT). NAMI-CT is the largest member organization in the state of people with psychiatric disabilities and their families. I am here today to testify on behalf on NAMI-CT on SB 246, An Act Concerning a Commission on Federal Stimulus Distribution. SB 246 calls for a Federal Stimulus Distribution Commission to make recommendations to the Legislature and Administration regarding the use of available federal stimulus dollars by the state. The Governor's current budget proposal seeks to take the increased federal match of Medicaid funds, while at the same time avoiding the requirements and intentions of the entire stimulus program. Congress expressly intends for the states to maintain or increase Medicaid spending to "minimize and avoid reductions in essential services", and clearly states that a "state is not eligible for an increase in its FMAP...if procedures under its state plan are more restrictive than the...procedures under such plan as in effect on July 1, 2008." The Governor has proposed several disturbing cuts that would greatly restrict access to medications and further limit access to health care sen/ices for people receiving Medicaid. These cuts include restricting access to psychiatric medications, and eliminating the Medicare Part D state wraparound coverage for co-pays and non-formulary drugs that protects low- income people with disabilities and, seniors from the coverage reductions imposed by Part D. Without the Medicare Part D Wraparound, people with serious mental illnesses on Medicare and Medicaid will be responsible for co-pays ranging from $1 to $6 dollars, as well as the full cost of medications not on their particular plan's formulary (non-formulary). This will place them at a lower level of prescription coverage than they previously had under Medicaid and with less coverage than their counterparts who receive only Medicaid. For people on ConnPACE, this will make them responsible for full payment of non-formulary drugs, which can be thousands of dollars a month for lower income seniors and people with disabilities. The state made a promise to hold them harmless from changes in their drug coverage imposed by Part D. The state has and continues to save substantial amounts of money from the cost shifts to Part D ($188 million/year), and the Governor is now trying to take away what little protection we have to preserve the stability of these vulnerable populations. For most people with Medicaid and ConnPACE, buying a medication outright is simply not an option, so they go without their vital prescriptions. NAMI-CT 241 Main Street, 5th Floor, Hartford, CT 06106 PHONE: 860-882-0236 FAX: 860-882-0240 www.namict.org 00715k A recent study found that over half of the dually eligible Medicare Part D recipients with mental illness had problems accessing needed medications. The results: nearly one in five had an emergency room visit and over one in ten were hospitalized.1 Among the most commonly reported problems were not being able to access medication refills; discontinuing or temporarily stopping medications as a result of prescription drug plan management or coverage issues, or because patients could not afford copayments. Access barriers to Medicaid services and psychiatric medications, such as co-pays and prior authorization requirements ultimately increase health care costs as people forgo needed services and medication, and require more acute and expensive treatment. These measures will greatly and disproportionately restrict access to psychiatric medications for low-income people with serious mental illnesses, for whom barriers to medication access most often lead to an interruption in their treatment and can have serious life-threatening consequences. We are not going to resolve this budget crisis by taking from the most low-income and chronically ill people in our state. The costs of these decisions will spill out in other uncontrollable ways - as foreseen by Congress and the federal Administration when crafting the federal stimulus package. We need a thoughtful, alternative plan for the use of the stimulus dollars that preserves and expands upon critical lifesaving Medicaid services at a time when they are needed most. Thank you for your time and attention. I would be happy to answer any questions. 1 WEST, WILK, MUSZYNSKI, ET AL. Medication Access and Continuity- The Expenences of Dual-Eligible Psychiatnc Patients Dunng the First 4 Months of the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, Am J Psychiatry 164 5, May 2007 001155 Testimony for Public Hearing Appropriations Committee March 20, 2009 Virginia Gerena 120 Retreat Avenue (C-5) Hartford, CT 06106 SB-246 An Act Concerning A Commission On Federal Stimulus Distribution Good afternoon Appropriations Committee Members. My name is Ginny Gerena, I'man Advocacy Unlimited Graduate and I advocate for Seniors and youth throughout Connecticut.. I am here today to petition the rejection of the cuts proposed by Governor Rell. Please don't allow Connecitucut's Seniors and disabled individuals to be affected by these cuts. Please continue to cover drugs not on Medicare Part D formularies that are covered by ConnPACE and Medicaid. Continue to cover Medicare Part D co-pays for dually eligible people on Medicare and Medicaid members, low income Seniors and disabled persons. A good reason to continue the Co-pays is that under Federal law pharmacies can refuse to dispense prescription drugs to those who can't pay Medicare Part-D or Medicaid co payments. This will put Seniors and disabled individuals at risk of going without necessary medications. Even with Medicaid's full Low income Subsidy, (LIS), dually eligible individuals with Medicaid and Medicare, have a Co-Pay of up to $6.00 per prescription. These individuals already are living on a very low income level and by instituting the co-pays they would have to do without basic needs such as shelter, food, etc. Also on a final note, my own personal experience with Medicare Part D has not been easy. I was cut off Humana then put on another plan, which comes out to be almost $254.00 with my Student Loan deducted from my monthly disability. I was cut off DSS, food stamps and basic needs, because I lost my home. Fortunately, I am a Disabled Veteran and they will hopefully provide me with adequate housing and care. Please take this matter into careful consideration. Thank you for your attention and support. 007156 Written Testimony of Denise L. Nappier Q-h jW Treasurer of the State of Connecticut SlC -SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE MARCH 20,2009 Senator Harp, Representative Geragosian, and members of the Appropriations Committee, thank you for the opportunity to offer written testimony regarding House Bill No. 5909, An Act Concerning the Line Item in the Budget Entitled "Debt Service." The stated objective of this proposed bill is to provide information, itemized by agency and purpose, concerning the appropriation for "Debt Service" included in the state budget for each fiscal year. While the wording of this bill is very general, I would like to bring to your attention some threshold concerns. First, the State does not currendy have a way to report debt service by agency and purpose, and the cost to do so would be significant. The State generally issues bonds in large bond issues of between $200 million to §600 million at a time. Within a bond issue, there is an assignment of bond maturities to bond funds for accounting purposes and to meet tax and regulatory requirements at issue. Bonds are not issued on a project, purpose, or agency basis. Bond funds contain funding for several projects for a myriad of State agencies and only the total spending in each bond fund is tracked. While a particular bond maturity can be tracked back to a bond fund, once a bond is issued the principal and interest expenditure to repay that bond is not tracked or tied to a bond fund—let alone to a project, agency, or purpose. Second, even if the State could somehow account for debt service by agency and purpose, the information would be misleading due to the manner in which bond funds are assigned to maturities. For instance, assume that "Bond Fund A" was assigned to the 20-year maturity of a bond issue and "Bond Fund B" was assigned to the one-year maturity. This might lead one to wrongly conclude that bonding for Bond Fund A was much more expensive than for Bond Fund B. Finally, splitting up the debt service appropriation into several line items would severely limit the State's flexibility to restructure and refinance bonds within the overall appropriation for savings. You may be interested to know that the Office of the State Treasurer produces a monthly statement of debt, which may satisfy the desire for more detailed information concerning the State's debt Please feel free to call on me should you have any questions or require additional information. 007 »57 p*ft j/AC KEEP THE PROMISE COALITION Community Solutions, Not Institutions! 241 Main Street, 5* Floor, Hartford, CT 06106 Phone: 860-882-0236; 1-800-215-3021, Fax: 860-882-0240 E-Mail: [email protected]. Website: www.ctkeepthepromise.org Testimony in front of the Appropriations Committee In Favor of SB 246 March 20,2009 Good afternoon Senator Harp, Rep. Geragosian, and distinguished members of the Appropriations Committee. My name is Cheri Bragg, Coordinator of the statewide Keep the Promise Coalition. The Coalition was formed in 1999 in response to the crisis in community mental health services following the closure of two of the state's large psychiatric hospitals. It was promised that money would be invested to create and sustain a comprehensive, community mental health system to support people with mental illness in the community. This promise has not been kept. I am here today to testify in regards to SB 246, "An Act Concerning a Commission on Federal Stimulus Distribution." The stated purpose for this bill is "to establish a mechanism for the prioritization and distribution of federal stimulus program grants to the state." These funds are intended to promote the recovery of the State or National economy and would include 1.3 billion dollars that the state of Connecticut will receive over the next two years specifically for its Medicaid program. Keep the Promise Coalition is in opposition to the Governor's cuts to our Medicaid program, and especially in light of these Federal funds being appropriated. The Federal government is specifically allocating these dollars because they think it is important to support State Medicaid programs. What kind of message would CT be sending by saying that it wants to cut the same programs? The specific cuts that CT wants to make include eliminating the Medicare Part D wraparound and restricting access to critically needed psychiatric medications by placing them on the PDL. This State has chosen wisely over the last several years to support these measures in order to avoid costly, crisis-oriented spending on institutionalization, hospitalizations, and emergency room visits. If the intent of the increased FMAP in the federal stimulus packages to support states in protecting the most vulnerable, the State of CT would be violating the intent of this legislation by supporting the Governor's proposed cuts to Medicaid. The Coalition urges legislators not to use the Federal stimulus bill to cut the same benefits that the Federal government supports. Thank you for your time and attention to this critical matter. 007158 Lam Claude Holcomb, I live at 2 Park Place Apartment 4-F in Hartford. I am here to talk about Senate Bill 246,"An Act Concerning a Commission on the Federal Stimulus Distribution." Connecticut is going to get 1.3 billion dollars in Medicaid money from the federal government in the form of enhanced Medicaid matching funds. I am here to ask you to make sure that this money is used for Connecticut residents who obtain medical services through Medicaid. I know that Connecticut has budget problems now, but our poor citizens need the assurance that their medical needs will continue to be met. I understand that there have been suggestions to cut some services that are currently covered by Medicaid in Connecticut, like preventive eye care and dental care. This would be devastating to many people. I, for example, recently learned that I have glaucoma, a serious eye disorder.that may lead to blindness if I don't get regular exams and care from the eye doctor. I have severe disabilities already and don't need to be blind on top of it. And if people don't have access to regular dental care, they will have pain and mouth infections that can lead to poor nutrition because they can't chew and jaw infections and heart disease from migrating bacteria. This will lead to more medical expenses for Connecticut for doctor and hospital bills. These are only two examples of Medicaid programs that we need to preserve for our poor Connecticut citizens. Whenever cuts are proposed, the poor get injured the most. Please don't attack the health of the poor in Connecticut. Use all the money for our healthcare needs. Thank you. 001159 Testimony for Public Hearing Appropriations Committee March 20,2009 Selina Welborn 1 Hickory Lane Bloomfield, CT 06002 S.B. No. 246 (Committee) An Act Concerning a Commission on Federal Stimulus Distribution Good Afternoon Appropriations Committee Members. My name is Selina Welborn and I am an Advocacy Unlimited (AU) advocate and educator. I am also the founder and-ehapter leader-of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance of Greater Hartford (DBSA). Advocacy Unlimited is a statewide advocacy organization that offers education in self, systems and legislative advocacy skills for persons with, or in recovery from, psychiatric disabilities or co-occurring disorders. Since 1995, 371 advocates have graduated from 36 graduations across the state of Connecticut in our program. AU and DBSA Greater Hartford represent hundreds of Connecticut residents in recovery from psychiatric disabilities who have been .impacted by the economic downturn and who rely on psychiatric medications to support them in their recovery from severe mental illnesses. I am here today to ask you to reject the cuts to prescription coverage proposed by the Governor's budget. I am here today to ask you not to let Connecticut's older adults and people with disabilities be hurt by the same proposed cuts. • Continue to cover drugs not on Medicare Part D formularies that are covered by ConnPACE &Medicaid. • Continue to cover Part D co-pays for dually eligible Medicaid & Medicare participants; who are very low-income older adults and people with disabilities. • Safeguard ConnPACE-do not unduly restrict access or limit the enrollment period. • Do not impose new prior authorization requirements for Medicaid-covered drugs. 007160 I am here to ask you to ensure that CPs lower income older adults and people with disabilities are not hurt by the Governor's proposal to cut the Part D Wrap Around and ConnPACE! While I am speaking as an advocate for all those I know and have spoken to who will be detrimentally affected by the Governor's proposal to cut the Part D> Wrap Around and ConnPACE, I also have personal experience with both ConnPACE and Medicare Part D. You see, I am one of the more fortunate individuals in CT because I have full-time employment. However, I was just hired. From December 20, 2008 until January 14 pof this year I was between 'employments. If it were riot for samples of cholesterol medication I received from my endocrinologist and samples of my psych med I received from my counseling center, I would have gone without medication. Each medication was hundreds of dollars, my psych med1 over $300even-with Medicare Part D. Needless to say,-jobless,-1 could not afford the medication necessary for my own recovery. Before December 20,1 worked as a VISTA Member for three years so I had a health benefit from the Corporation of National and Community Service. My prescriptions during that period were free. As I said, I am one of the more fortunate in my recovery community. Because of my social security disability and living allowance, I wasn't eligible for ConnPACE, but Thank God, I didn't have to use Medicare Part D. In fact, I haven't used my Medicare Part D because I couldn't afford the premiums or the co-pays after rent, utilities, transportation and other necessities. Today, I have private insurance and a job, so the co-pays are manageable, but f still have not been able to get one of my necessary cholesterol medications because I am awaiting prior authorization. Since the samples ran out, I've had to go without this medication for weeks. I tell you my story, not to win your sympathy, but rather your vote to ensure that those less fortunate than me, the very lower income older adults, people with disabilities, and those somewhere in between, will not have to choose between rent and utilities*-foodyandtpansportationand medicines? especially the more expensive psych meds. Thank you for your time and consideration. 007161 t Appropriations Committee SB 246 March 20,2009 Good Afternoon distinguished Chairs and Committee Members. I come before you today to testify about SB 246. I ask that you please not cut our benefits, and reconsider requiring pre-authorizations for the procurement of psychopharmacological medications. Pre-authorizations would cause an unnecessary gridlock around patient access, as already overbooked doctor's offices have less and less time to process paperwork, and those responsible for granting access are often overwhelmed by the efficiency of the Monster they helped to create. This budget balancing tool has been tried before over the last TEN (10) years. Advocates like me have been appearing before you to plead against this very action. It seems that all concerned should be well aware of the dangers of limited access. I also implore you to consider that the often recommended "Fail First" Policy places an even greater burden on those already dealing with Mental Illness. The often physically debilitating side effects of medications is often bad enough, but coupled with the frustration found as consumers are forced to revisit meds they already know do not provide the cessation of symptoms they are looking for can be traumatic and in some cases relapse inducing. The last point I'd like to make is that when provider consultations along with patient history have already shown that pills are the only pharmaceutical therapy that has shown promise for the patient, care should be taken by those of us who are not Certified Medical Personnel. It is time to put MEDICINE back in the hands of the DOCTORS, ACCOUNTING back in the hands of the ACCOUNTANTS, INSURANCE (and nothing else!) back in the hands of the INSURERS. Patients deserve better care than this, especially when there are alternatives to cutting care. If you cut other programs not tied to the basic needs of living, you will have the funds needed to keep these measures from even being presented for consideration in the first place. The Universal Health Care Foundation's "Sustinet" Bill ( SB # 6600) is one alternative to the budget cuts we have heard discussed in hearings just like this over the last few months. Although this plan is not complete with regard to the scope of its coverage, I believe this plan is a better answer to our existing fiscal woes if only for its ability to keep OUR HEALTH AND OUR CARE IN OUR HANDS WHERE IT BELONGS. I believe no one knows my body and my mind better than I do, after all, I have lived with them all my life. Thank you for your time and effort regarding this issue. Maureen Kelly 85 Norman Rd., APT. 107 Norwich, CT 06360 007162 ROBBYN SIBLEY TESTIMONY ON_ SB 246 'Tip (6 Appropriations Committee fL^ ^ March 20,2009 Good afternoon distinguished chairs and members of the committee. My name is Robbyn Sibley and I'm from Oakdale. I'm here to talk about SB246 and access to medications. Please use these federal dollars appropriately and do not cut vital benefits. I have been on psychiatric medications for the past eight years. It took at least four of those years to find a group of medications that work for me. I didn't have to worry about the Preferred Drug List (PDL) or Prior Authorization (PA) until this year. My drug formulary changed this year and one of my medications suddenly found it's way to the PDL and prior authorization lists. I now have to take a third rate generic brand of this medication. I don't qualify for extra help for any of my medications and at times have to make choices of which medications I'm going to get each month. Is it going to all of my psychiatric medications and pick and choose which of my medical medications I can afford, or is it going to be the other way around? Some of these medications can cost as much as $1,000 a month. That is more than my rent. Which one of you can afford to pay these kinds of prices each and every month if you were or are taking medications for any reason? I could not afford one of my inhalers this month because it cost $180. alone. I also have to take a lower brand of drug (that doesn't work as well) we both take simply because I cannot afford it. Now tell me how is this fair. I have chronic bronchitis and need both my inhalers, but again I have to make a choice. This is why we need the stimulus package. Please do not let us be hurt by the Governor's proposed budget. People like me need the Medicare wraparound and CONNPace. Please DO NOT CUT THESE PROGRAMS. Thank You. 001163 a SB Mo. z-Mk W C^X tr^ocA CQ tfrpiprsffi^i-i 0(4-5 CQUVHI tt^&lp^ 9.ho feV^vy ctvul r rVvKVit- ^W^ar^ } OiUivii /fdvcc^f^ Cil/1/l ^oUv/Cb^ yj^ks +C mulH^U- m^cpj , Tk/j, ;$ <,ny ^Ht^ny tfitiLW-tMntj zWiojJ\tA ftck- C?4L-L<*,\Uvj •h CoMmiblort X Cov" yoo to k-vaovo ak^" u-HH. 4-c /ou, ;^iAv^ perjrt/i-^ ^o-cv^n^j Ujcl. t >3 61II10O IflAe^^C , ^p " ^So-oli^^, £ loose. Wr^i-iA ^vwt vHti.ia-vUy »Uce£Swv-y ^eitc^Vio^t?^ ju^ t"o ^itAs^eiV X^ bun Vdlvj 'jUiqecyfijjeJwtfi, ^WiW ^rtA .X^ ^ ykt 'rrorv jrW cWl v^l-fV. -vU, Flx^r^ccc^'s P^oir M-pprox/^l I 'cWi^l ^til +1 M* J^Aljw^X co^^br^ (\A05t u^Kic'k ciinrniL, • 9 K 003 I J; i piron-6 ^wi ^tedric bills, P sjvKw/n,^ } Gq,"^ vt>c< Vcod sta*^ pu^cit^e, ^^vase* "^TU^'p My h^iblit^L^ MJ fcJv^Jt V7 V&vWcn Otre, ^ VWu u/v^ ^ ^Lc -Cdoi p^nhntf) Z- vs> lo in, Kit? MFioAV V© ^ ^viO'PWv- ce^vV'iov'l"? ^ ^o^^ K r\o-h a^lily htkjhvmy -V^C & ill >01^ P-WU'-'sl IMoW- (tOiT M^vCPvV^. lo^vve&vV:* , "Hak ftj^W u fvcAVvt>r». woVcyV £X)f k-wveAH, Tl\-t FVow\\g,-e j Turtle l^V^i^ , (w^ yo\j r f>cth 'Sponsors Advisory Council for Protection & Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Advocacy Unlimited Advocates for Connecticut's Children and Youth in AfricaniCaribbean American Parents of Children with k£> Disabilities (AFCAMP) Bridge House PROTECT Bridges Open Door n- Center for Children's Advocacy, Inc. o City of Bridgeport Office for Persons with Disabilities Collaborative Center for Justice MENTAL HEALTH o CT AIDS Resource Coalition CT Association of Centers for Independent Living CT Association for Community Action CT Civil Liberties Union SERVICES CT Disability Advocacy Collaborative CT League of Women Voters CT Legal Rights Project, Inc. CT Partnership for Strong Communities CT Positive Action Coalition IMPLEMENT CT Voices for Children CT Women's Consortium Corporation for Supportive Housing BLUE RIBBON Disabilities Network of Eastern Connecticut Disabilities Resource Center of Fairfield County Eastern CT Regional Mental Health Board SOLUTIONS Families United for Children's Mental Health FAVOR Fellowship Place Friendship Genesis Center Gilead Community Services Greater Respect Aid and Support for Parents (GRASP) Laurel House Mental Health Association of Connecticut For more information, or if National Alliance on Mental Illness of CT - (NAMI-CT) North Central Regional Mental Health Board you have questions, please Northwest Regional Mental Health Board Padres Abriendo Puertas contact the Coalition toll Prune Time House Hie Reaching Home Campaign free at I-800-215-3021, COMMUNITY Region II (Soulh Central) Regional Mental Health Board Reliance House or by email at keepthepro- Southwest Regional Mental Health Board SOLUTIONS, State Board of Mental Health and Addiction Services [email protected] The Salvation Army Visit our website at NOT INSTITUTIONS Keep the Promise Partners www.ctkeepthepromise.org KEEP THE PROMISE COALITION Chrysalis Center Inc. CT Association of Mental Health Clinics for Children C/0 NAMI-CT CT Association of Non-Profits CT Community Providers Association 241 MAIN STREET, 5TH FLOOR CT rwi.-. stum of F'I'T^h^mI and Professional En^ployees CT Occupational Therapy Association HARTFORD, CT 06106 District 1199 New England Healthcare Employees Union, SEIU Milford Child and Adolescent Service System Program 1-800-215-3021 EXT 30 National Association of Social Workers/Connecticut w.n— — p. , www.ctkeepthepromise.org KEEP THE PROMISE : IMPLEMENT BLUE RIBBON SOLUTIONS HiiMl treatment, and to collaboratively plan for transi- Projects. Keep the Promise supports the Reaching BACKGROUND: In July 2000, the Governor's tions between departments and programs. Home Campaign's call for 1060 new units of Blue Ribbon Commission on Mental Health docu- supportive housing in 2009. mented the crisis in mental health services. Children FUND NEW UNITS OF SUPPORTIVE and adults were stuck in emergency rooms or HOUSING: There is a critical need for state RAISE THE MEDICAID INCOME LIMIT shelters, sent out of state, trapped in institutions, or funding for new units of supportive housing over FOR "AGED, BLIND, AND DISABLED" lost in the criminal justice system. Despite measures the. next two years. Supportive housing gives PERSONS: As our state expands access to to expand and improve community services, the people with mental illnesses the opportunity to health care coverage, older adults and people with crisis continues and taxpayer dollars are wasted, move from more restrictive and expensive serious psychiatric and physical disabilities while lives are irreparably harmed. settings, such as residential treatment, into continue to be left far behind. The Medicaid independent apartments, saving the state income limit for people who are "aged, blind, or Like the impact of September I Ith and the Iraq war, money by avoiding high cost institutionali- disabled" should be set at the same standard as all the state's current economic crisis, with rising fore- zation and emergency care (see chart). other adults on Medicaid. It has remained below closures and layoffs,, increases the demand for men- 80% of the poverty level since 1990. As a result, Cost per day per person of CT supportive housing thousands of vulnerable people with very limited tal health services. Cutting these services would versus alternative settings often serving people with resources must incur enough medical bills in a six Disabilities (Corporation for Supportive Housing 2008) compound that crisis by forcing individuals to use month period to "spend down" to qualify for emergency rooms and expensive hospital services. Medicaid. Spend down is a complex, restrictive, Now is the time to assure adequate access to com- and administratively burdensome program. munity care and reduce our reliance on institutions Medicare Part D has compounded the problem by by investing in proven solutions. The following making it even harder to qualify for Medicaid. solutions fund recovery — not crisis — through Raising the Medicaid income limit, so that fewer people have a spend down, will help people who responsible state investments. are caught in the "Part D trap", and simplify access to vital health care services. ADDRESS THE CRISIS IN SERVICES FOR YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULTS WITH MENTAL ILLNESSES: Young adults account for PROVIDE A COST OF LIVING an estimated 35% of incoming clients in the adult ADJUSTMENT (COLA) FOR NONPROFIT mental health system (DMHAS). DMHAS must have PROVIDERS: Private Nonprofit (PNP) mental comprehensive young adult services statewide health providers service state clients but are paid with adequate staff and training. Specialized In-State substantially less than state operated providers for Residential Programs are necessary to meet the the same service. The average COLA for complex needs of this age group. The Department nonprofits over the last 20 years is 1.1%. of Children and Families (DCF) & DMHAS must be Without PNP services, people will be forced to accountable for transition planning and collabora- use more' expensive institutional care. PNP tive programming, and clients must have the right to services are critical to providing a community- enforce their plans. State agencies must work to In the last two funding rounds, more than 1,500 based system of care and housing options for prevent youth with mental illness from inappropri- units that would help end homelessness could people with serious mental illnesses. Nonprofits cr> ately entering the juvenile justice system, to not be funded due to inadequate state resources. require a 5.5% COLA in 2009 just to keep pace provide them with appropriate mental health Without ongoing state investment, we will lose with the rate of inflation. the developers ready to proceed with new 007167 Uni ^ NEW HAVEN LEGAL ASSISTANCE ASSOCIATION, INC. . 426 STATE STREET NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510-2018 TELEPHONE: (203)946-4811 FAX (203)498-9271 March 20, 2009 Testimony of Sheldon V. Toubman Before the Appropriations Committee Regarding S. B. No. 246 (An An Act Concerning A Commission On Federal Stimulus Distribution) Good afternoon, Senator Harp, Representative Walker and members of the Appropriations Committee. My name is Sheldon Toubman and I am a staff attorney with New Haven Legal Assistance Association. I am here to testify on SB 246, a bill creating a commission to address the distribution of the substantial funds coming to Connecticut in the federal stimulus package. Specifically, I would to talk about the increased federal reimbursement under the Medicaid program and through the TANF Emergency Contingency Fund, and to urge you-to not make any cuts in the Medicaid program and the rest of the state's health insurance safety net for low-income residents, or in the TFA cash assistance program. While I support the concept of a commission, I think it also is important to set some basic guidelines at the outset about how this new money should be spent. Increased Federal Reimbursement under the Medicaid Program Connecticut is receiving a large sum of money from the federal stimulus and particularly through an increase in the federal reimbursement rate for each dollar we spend under Medicaid—from 50 cents to about 60 cents on the dollar, when the extra increase due to high unemployment is factored in. This money is coming to us through the Medicaid program for a reason: so we can shore up our health insurance safety net. Yet, at the same time that this money is coming to us, the Governor, who actively worked with our Congressional delegation to get this increased reimbursement to Medicaid, is proposing drastic cuts to Connecticut's health care safety net: Medicaid, HUSKY, SAGA, Part D Wraparound for Medicare/Medicaid recipients, ConnPACE, health care for recent low-income legal immigrants. There are many cuts and, taken individually and certainly together, they will be extremely harmful. They will harm: • HUSKY parents required to pay unaffordable premiums to keep insurance • HUSKY children required to get prior authorization for basic dental services • adults who will get no dental services at all (except in an extreme emergency) • people (adults and children) with mental illness required to go through prior authorization to get urgently needed psychiatric medications • child and adult HUSKY recipients who need a drug not on the state's preferred drug and who will no longer get a temporary supply of that drug when their doctor hasn't yet requested prior authorization at the time the prescription is presented to be filled 007 I 20 • elderly individuals with multiple illnesses required to pay unaffordable copays or unable to get drugs that their limited Medicare Part D plans don't cover • non-citizens cut off of essentially all health benefits despite being legally here and playing by the rules • Non-English speaking individuals who need medical translation services • SAGA recipients cut off of medical transportation and vision care • etc., etc. Many of you have expressed grave concerns about one or more of the Governor's proposed cuts. But what I would like to address is the inappropriateness of'making any of these cuts in light of the $1.3 billion in new money we are receiving under the federal stimulus specifically under the Medicaid program. I acknowledge that, technically, the federal stimulus act does not require Connecticut to spend this new federal money on Medicaid, and the only prohibition is that new eligibility rules or new procedural requirements to get on Medicaid cannot be imposed; cuts in specific Medicaid benefits or new restrictive policies for accessing those benefits are all legally permissible. But the overall intention behind this new money was that states would not cut their Medicaid programs and the related health care safety net. For example, at a meeting of the National Governor's Association on February 23rd, President Barack Obama emphasized to the governors there convened that the increased Medicaid reimbursement will "help ensure that you don 7 need to make cuts to essential services Americans rely on now more than ever." He further stated to the governors: "To show you we're serious about putting this recovery plan into action swiftly, I am announcing today that this Wednesday, our administration will begin distributing more than $15 billion in federal assistance under the Recovery Act to help you cover the costs of your Medicaid programs. "That means that by the time most of you get home; money will be waiting to help 20 million vulnerable Americans in your states get health coverage and 49 million Americans keep it. * * * Children with asthma will be able to breathe easier, seniors won't need to fear losing their doctors, and pregnant women with limited means won't need to worry about the health of their babies." See http://www.whitehouse.gov/the press office/President-Obama-Announces-15- BiUion-in-Medicaid-Rehef-from-ARRA-Headed-To-States ] Since we are getting 1.3 billion specifically in enhanced Medicaid money, at a bare minimum, we should hold the recipients of the state's health insurance safety net harmless, consistent with the broad intent behind the federal stimulus bill. 007169 I also realize that, even with the $1.3 billion increase in Medicaid reimbursements and the other provisions in the federal stimulus bill benefitting us, we are still facing a serious shortfall of billions of dollars in the budget for the next two years. And that is why I also urge you to take a close look at the Better Choices proposal of a broad coalition of advocates, which would fill the rest of the hole in the budget by modestly increasing taxes on those individuals in the state who are most able to pay a little more. TANF Emergency Contingency Fond In addition, I wanted to mention the options for bringing more money to the state under the federal stimulus package, through the new TANF Emergency Contingency Fund which was also established by it. This fund will pay for 80% of a state's TANF costs related to increased expenditures for basic cash assistance, non-recurrent one-time payments and employment subsidies, up to 50% of the state's family assistance grant amount, or about $133 million in Connecticut. These new matching funds will be available from October, 2008 through September, 2010. Connecticut has not used one-time, short-term payments very extensively in the past in the Jobs First/TFA program. But we should explore whether we have existing programs (possibly eviction prevention, energy assistance, or tuition assistance programs) in which increased spending would qualify for this match. In addition, we should think about desperately needed programs which could be largely paid for by the federal government at least for the first year of the biennium. Similarly, we have a limited employment subsidy program. We should consider expanding this program to assist families which will have increased challenges to finding work in this economy. These expanded programs will be largely paid for by the federal government. To qualify for the 80% match on increased cash assistance expenditures, we must show an increase in the TFA cash assistance caseload from the corresponding quarter of the previous year. Connecticut has a very short lifetime limit on cash assistance to families in which the parents are deemed able to work. As a result, our cash assistance caseload rises slowly even in times of significant economic distress. It is likely, however, that we will qualify for this new federal support for increases in our cash assistance payments in the 2009-2010 state fiscal year. Before making any cuts in the TFA cash assistance program, we should assess the increased federal assistance available through this program and apply those funds to the TFA program. 3 007110 To: Members, Appropriations Committee From: , Sheila B. Amdur, NAMI-CT Re: Committee Bill No. 246: AN ACT CONCERNING A COMMISSION ON FEDERAL STIMULUS DISTRIBUTION Date: March 20, 2009 NAMI-CT is an organization of people in recovery from serious mental illnesses and their families. We are deeply concerned that the Governor's proposed budget makes damaging cuts in Medicaid, the wrap around protection for dually eligible persons under Medicare Part D, for CONNPACE recipients, and cuts access to prescription drugs specifically for the treatment of mental illness. Bill 246 stated purpose is to form a "Federal Stimulus Distribution Commission to make recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly concerning the distribution of funds made available to the state from federal legislation intended to promote the recovery of the state or national economy...." This would include the extra $1.3 billion the state is receiving over the next two years for its Medicaid program. I think it's important to note what the state is also receiving in additional Medicaid funding since the passage of Medicare Part D. Connecticut is saving a net amount of approximately $159 million per year, because Medicare Part D has now taken over the cost of most of the prescription drug coverage for people who are dually eligible for Medicaid and Medicare or on CONNPACE, and an additional annual subsidy of $28 million for state retirees who would otherwise be covered by Medicare Part D. In spite of this close to $1.5 billion in additional Medicaid funding, savings, and retiree subsidy, the budget that you received from the Governor imposes premiums, co-pays, drastically reduces coverage for people eligible for Medicare Part D, and assures that people with serious disabilities and the poor elderly will be faced with choosing between paying for their medications and basic health care and food and housing. Studies have documented when confronted with these choices, people with very limited income choose basic survival first and healthcare second with terrible and expensive consequences. It would seem that the state is actually proposing to do a bit of "double dipping" here at the expense of the basic health care safety net for our low income elderly and disabled citizens. We have previously given you a position paper outlining how the state can also bill under Medicaid for services it currently does not cover under Medicaid. I have attached "Saving Lives, Saving Money" proposal to this testimony. To the best of my knowledge, we are the ONLY state that does not use Medicaid to provide financing for most of its community mental health services, including a large part of its intermediate psychiatric inpatient treatment. Why aren't we looking at creative ways that will produce.more income AND improve services? The Commission you form under this bill must have all options open to them. The Federal Stimulus package was intended to enhance the economy, provide relief to the state budget, and expressly not hurt vulnerable people. That must be our collective intent. 007171 SAVING MONEY. SAVING LIVES -Since the Governor's Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) Report was issued in July, 2000, Connecticut has pursued initiatives to replace an institutionally-biased, crisis-oriented and fragmented approach to mental health care with a more cost-effective, community-based, person and family focused system. While some progress has been made, the state's current fiscal dilemma challenges us to review recommendations and consider measures that could be implemented both immediately and longer term to improve the state's efficiency and outcomes while preserving vital housing and services. The goals are to: • Maximize federal revenue while strengthening the community system of housing and supports, • Reduce reliance on expensive long-term, institutional settings, including out of state placements, and • Promote community integration in accordance with state policy and federal law. Maximize Federal Medicaid Revenue Both DCF and DMHAS have already collaborated with DSS to increase federal reimbursements under Medicaid by expanding the services covered under the state plan for the low income individuals they serve. This is particularly significant given the expected increase in the federal Medicaid reimbursement rate under the stimulus package. However, there may be more services for children that could be covered under HUSKY or the Behavioral Health Partnership, and there are many DMHAS services currently state grant funded that could be covered as optional1 rehabilitation services under Medicaid2. Expanding Medicaid Adult Rehabilitation Services An actuarial study conducted by the Mercer Consulting Group for the Department of Social Services (DSS) identified in their February 2004 published study the following new federal revenue for these existing DMHAS services as Medicaid rehabilitation services: Assertive Community Treatment Teams (ACT) $10,554,692 Supervised Housing (services only) 11,141,684 Supported Housing (services only) 7,074,768 Mobile Crisis 6.167.272 Total estimated $34,938,416s Targeted Case Mgt. current revenues 7.000.000 NET NEW FEDERAL FUNDS $27.938.4164 Due to concerns about expanding an entitlement and disrupting the community providers, OPM and DMHAS have moved cautiously on Medicaid coverage for adult mental health services, only covering rehabilitation services at group homes thus far. However, since that study was issued, the state has allocated funds to build the capacity of community providers to comply with Medicaid requirements. In addition, the state has received federal approval to operate a home and community based services waiver for persons with mental illness who can be diverted or discharged from nursing homes which will start April 1st. 1 The state can also expand Medicaid under the 1915(i) state plan option, which enables states to provide a prescribed set of home and community based services to individuals that earn less than 150% of the Federal Poverty Level and require less than institutional levels of care. 2 The federal Medicaid program has both mandatory and optional services. 3 Group homes are excluded since DMHAS and DCF are already proceeding with coverage of their services under the Rehab Option 4 Mercer Government Consulting Group, Estimate of the Budget Neutrality of the Connecticut Behavioral Health Partnership, Technical Appendix, Feb. 2004, Appendix J 5 A collaboration of CT Legal Rights Project, Inc and the National Alliance on Mental Illness, CT (NAMI-CT) February 2009 007H2 In the course of developing this waiver, DSS and DMHAS have developed service definitions and a rate-setting methodology for services to be covered under the waiver. Two of these, assertive community treatment and community support services (included as ACT in the Mercer study), could be covered by the Medicaid state plan expanding the population served and increasing federal revenue, possibly during SFY 2010. The capacity building required to bill for services in supervised and supported housing requires further investigation. In order for the Medicaid maximization of community mental health services to work long-term, DMHAS must retain grant funds for the transition costs into Medicaid fee-for service, non-medical services (social support), and non-Medicaid eligible clients. In addition, the rate-setting structure must cover the cost of providing services, and funds must be targeted to expand housing options and services for individuals with complex needs. The impact of these measures must be monitored to report the outcomes on inappropriate institutional and emergency room care. Expanding Medicaid Waiver Slots The state can also maximize federal revenue by increasing the number of persons with mental illness to be served under its Medicaid waiver. Currently the waiver allows Connecticut to serve 72 persons in each year of the waiver, for a total of-216 persons. However, in 2006, DMHAS estimated that 420 individuals with mental' illness in nursing homes had "high discharge potential." In addition, the State has lost an estimated $7.5 million in Medicaid reimbursement because the number of persons with mental illness in some nursing homes has exceeded the federal limit. During the past two years DMHAS and DSS have developed their infrastructure to pursue nursing home discharges, and this should support an expanded waiver population. Maximizing Medicaid Billings for Outpatient Services Federal revenue can also be maximized by assuring that outpatient services provided by state operated and contracted providers are billed to Medicaid to the fullest extent allowed. Services provided by state operated programs and facilities are billed through the Department of Administrative Services not DMHAS. DMHAS and other state agencies do no direct billing, nor are their budgets dependent upon any income generatedrThe state should determine if standards regarding productivity, timely and accurate billing, and targets related to income recovery have been established to maximize what the state does collect for its billable services. Increasing Medicaid Funded Intermediate Care at Private Hospitals DMHAS presently operates 830 inpatient psychiatric beds, with no federal reimbursements for any patients between the ages of 21 to 65, with the exception of a small number of persons with Medicare coverage. This means that the state.pays 100% of the cost of care. The per capita cost of the 572 licensed beds at CVH, originally built in 1867, is $1177 (based on SFY 06-07), an increase of roughly 37% in five years, and the per capita cost of the 128 licensed beds at Cedarcrest Hospital, built in 1910, is $1284, an increase of more than 39% in five years. Except for services provided in the Whiting Forensic Division, and some specialized inpatient long-term treatment, 'the intermediate inpatient mental health treatment and the alcohol and drug inpatient treatment provided at state facilities could be provided at many general hospitals if they were adequately compensated for the cost of providing that care and a system for assuring discharges to stable and appropriate settings, not shelters, were in place. This would require that DSS establish a new Medicaid intermediate inpatient service rate with specific 'provider standards for treatment, rehabilitation, and discharges that would be closely monitored for compliance and outcomes. Investing in Cost-Effective Housing and Community Services A collaboration of CT Legal Rights Project, Inc and the National Alliance on Mental Illness, CT (NAMI-CT) February 2009 007173 / Transferring some intermediate inpatient care services to private hospitals could both alleviate the gridlock in the state's mental health system and create an opportunity to consider transferring resources from inpatient settings to the community. It is well documented that the lack of adequate funds for housing and community services and supports for persons with psychiatric disabilities contributes to the utilization of nursing homes, prisons, shelters, emergency rooms and hospitals at a significant cost to the taxpayer and the individuals. Conversely, community options, particularly supportive housing, reduce hospitalizations, increase employment and education, and contribute to increasing neighborhood property values. Any state workers displaced could be transferred to provide the community treatment and support as was done when state hospitals were closed. The state's long term gain is in reducing institutional costs, gaining Medicaid payment for inpatient care, expanding resources for community integration without jeopardizing jobs, and concomitantly, reducing emergency room costs. Reducing Institutional Costs for Children Riverview state psychiatric hospital is the only state operated psychiatric hospital for children in New England. Its average daily census is under 70 patients, many of whom are' referrals from the Juvenile Court for evaluations. At the same time, Connecticut continues to send children out-of-state, presumably because there are no state alternatives. The cost-effectiveness and efficacy of this facility and those out of state placements must be closely examined. Any actions regarding the intermediate inpatient psychiatric care for children and youth must be tied to strict treatment standards and a discharge planning process, to developing cost and care effective solutions, and allowing creative solutions with the state workforce at Riverview to address community alternatives or specialized in-state residential care for children placed out-of-state. Expanding Alternatives to Incarceration Currently, almost 20% of persons incarcerated in CT prisons and jails have been diagnosed with a mental illness. Since 2000, the number of inmates with moderate to serious mental illnesses rose from 2,200 to over 3,700 today. Along with homelessness and nursing home admissions, this is a stark example of the deterioration of our basic mental health system. Department of Corrections officials confirm that an estimated 1,428 persons with moderate to serious mental illnesses are incarcerated for low-level, non-violent offenses.5 This represents a substantial number of non-violent offenders with mental illnesses who could safely live in the community, if they had housing and services. Instead of providing services and housing, the state spends approximately $40,000 to $60,000 per person to incarcerate people. Although it may not be possible to do a "one on one" closure of prison beds for every person we can take out of prison or divert from prison, over time we will reduce the number of prison beds. State staff who are no longer deployed to state institutions could form the core of new community supervised placements for diverting and discharging people from prisons who do not need to be there. Planning and Oversight Many of these measures require planning and oversight. The state has an existing strategic planning body that could oversee this process and present a report to the Governor and the Legislature by June 1, 2009—the Community Mental Health Strategy Board. Chaired by the Commissioner of DMHAS, the DCF Commissioner and a representative of OPM also sit as voting members of the Board, and other relevant state agencies have non-voting seats. Hospitals and advocacy groups also are members. There are currently vacancies on the Board to which union, consumer and family, and community provider representatives could be appointed. 5 As of October 2007, the Department of Corrections (DOC) reported that of the 3,897 inmates with mental health issues classified as level 3, 4 and 5,1,741 were not convicted of, or on bond for, a violent or serious offense (46%). The DOC reports the Mental Health level 3 numbers to be inflated by approximately 20% because they include inmates with problems that are probably not directly attributable to serious psychiatnc illness. This still leaves 1,428 inmates with moderate to serious mental illnesses who are in prison for low level offenses A collaboration of CT Legal Rights Project, Inc and the National Alliance on Mental Illness, CT (NAMI-CT) February 2009 007 17W BART RUSSELL TESTIMONY CONNECTICUT COUNCIL OF SMALL TOWNS (COST) BEFORE THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE MARCH 20,2009 RE: HB-5143, AN ACT CONCERNING THE DATE FOR ADOPTION OF THE MUNICIPAL AID PORTION OF THE STATE BUDGET. State aid to municipalities is a significant portion of a town's budget Towns are finding it increasingly difficult to craft a balanced, responsible budget because they do not have reliable information regarding how much state aid they can expect. Towns are being asked to do more with less and even a few thousand dollars less than what was budgeted creates problems. Since the mill rate is set based on the town's budget, if less state aid comes in, the town will face a shortfall, resulting in necessary midyear cuts or layoffs. This situation makes it difficult for towns to move forward with planned projects. It also results in deferred maintenance, which ends up costing towns more in the long run. In order to give towns the opportunity to develop realistic budgets, COST supports efforts to require the state to adopt the municipal aid portion of the state budget in March, when towns and boards of education are beginning to draft their budgets. 2 007175 5§>iate of donnerttrut HOUSE REPUBLICAN OFFICE STATE CAPITOL HARTFORD, CONN. 06106 House Republican Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Testimony on HB 5305 Chairwoman Harp, Chairman Geragosian, Ranking Members Debicella and Miner, and members of the Appropriations Committee. Thank you for raising and holding this public hearing on House Bill 5305, AAC The Implementation OfArticle XXVIII Of The Amendments To The Constitution Of The State Of Connecticut Concerning The Limitation On Expenditures Authorized By The General Assembly. HB 5305 is similar to other bills we've seen since the Constitutional spending cap was adopted by more than 80% of voters almost 18 years ago. As members of the Appropriations Committee, you are all probably aware that the legislature never implemented the Constitutional spending cap since that time. This proposal would tie the maximum growth in state spending to the growth in inflation or personal income, whichever is greater. The bill makes an exception for the state's debt service - the cap would not apply to those payments. By contrast, the current spending cap that we live under additionally excludes grants to distressed municipalities and court mandates. Implementation of the spending cap is important because in the past we have found loopholes in the current law, which I believe violate the spirit of the spending cap. The spending cap-was not designed as a means of controlling spending simply for it own sake. Rather, the spending cap is a recognition that at some point, too much spending is harmful to taxpayers. The spirit of the law is simple: if the state spends taxpayer money, it should be counted as state spending. We've devised cute terms like "intercept" to circumvent the spending cap. I don't think taxpayers care whether you call something an intercept, an expenditure, or an appropriation. It's money out of their pockets being used by the state. In short, it's state spending, and it should all fall under the spending cap. The spending cap is an alarm. For example, the Office of Fiscal Analysis projects that we will exceed the spending cap by about $417 million next year and $650 million the following year. Before we consider a single tax increase, our law requires us to take the first step of reducing our spending to levels that are under the spending cap. We need to reduce spending a lot more than that, but if we can't get that far, then we completely failed in solving the state's budget problem. 007116 From the time the spending cap was adopted, it took the state only 14 years to double its budget from about $7 billion to $14 billion. Some people would argue that it doesn't work, and we should get rid of it. I believe that it has been twisted, ignored, and manipulated over the years, and that we need to better define the cap to allow it to work. ( Again, I thank the Committee for having this public hearing. I am available to answer any questions you may have. 007 177 State of Connecticut GENERAL ASSEMBLY i'z. Commission on Chsfldren General Assembly Committee on Appropriations Public Hearing March 20, 2009 Testimony submitted by: Elaine Zimmerman Executive Director Connecticut Commission on Children Proposed S.B. No. 1, An Act Concerning Economic Security for Connecticut Families S.B. No. 246, An Act Concerning a Commission on Federal Stimulus Distribution Proposed H.B. No. 5309, An Act Concerning Federal Funds Under the Spending Cap Senator Harp, Representative Geragosian and members of the Committee: My name is Elaine Zimmerman. I am here to testify on behalf of the Connecticut Commission on Children in support of three bills:,Proposed S.B. No. 1, Committee Bill No. 246, and Proposed H.B. No. 5309. These bills free up the stimulus distribution from the spending gap, offer oversight of the federal stimulus distribution with participation of both the executive and legislative branches and promote the security of Connecticut families. The recession is anticipated to cause three million children to fall into poverty. This will trigger $1.7 trillion in long-term losses to the U.S. economy. In Connecticut, more than one-quarter of those using food pantries belong to working families. More than 100,000 children under 12 years of age are at risk of hunger. Teachers in Waterbury are witnessing more young students coming to school tired and stressed. In Willimantic, school authorities cannot keep up with the number of children who have moved into homeless shelters and who need to be transported to school. In Madison, the number of students receiving subsidized school lunch has gone up dramatically. Some child care centers in Connecticut are closing rooms because families are losing jobs and unable to pay - causing these same families to lack care for their children while they seek job training and employment. 18-20 Tnnity St. Hartford. CT 06106 Phone: (360) 240-0290 Fax: (860) 240-0248 Website cga ct gov/eoc 007118 Children who fall into poverty now will not recover when the economy recovers. The last two recessions reveal that children stay poor for five to seven more years after a recession ends. What we do now as a state - regarding our budget, our policies, and federal support from the stimulus - will influence nearly a decade of children's lives. We know from the esteemed national panel of bipartisan experts who were brought in by the Poverty and Prevention Council to advise the state on what was proven and efficient to reduce family poverty, that the proven way to reduce poverty is to invest in four major policy areas: 1. Family income and earnings potential 2. Education 3. The income safety net, and 4. Family structure and support. Some of these policy areas avail themselves in the federal stimulus opportunity. There are federal resources for infant care, housing support, new job training programs, summer youth employment, to name a few. We need to sandbag the shore to minimize the damage from this recession to children and families. With a coordinated cross sector review of the opportunities, we can impede the damage and bolster choices for families. Proposed ,S.B. No. 1 is intended to promote the economic security of Connecticut families. We support this goal. The state must bolster economic security for families, so that the recession can be weathered, families can find work at a fair wage, and children can thrive. The Commission recommends that the committee incorporate into the legislation some of the strategies to reduce child poverty presented by the bipartisan national poverty experts to the Poverty and Prevention Council. These strategies were approved by the Council, chaired by OPM, as the key proven areas to reduce family poverty. http://www.cga.ct.gov/coc/PDFs/povertv/120707 poverty report.pdf). The national experts from Brookings Institution, the University of Michigan , Gerald Ford School of Public Policy, the National Center on Children and Poverty, The National League of Cities, the University of California, Goldman School of Public Policy, The Task Force on Poverty for the Center for American Progress and the Annie E. Casey Foundation, mutually selected these strategies on the basis that they "have a sufficiently strong evidence base to support their potential effectiveness in reducing child poverty." The strategies include expanded rental assistance, supportive housing, expanded health insurance coverage and efforts to assure that eligible parents and children receive the health care for which they are eligible, early childhood education and teacher quality initiatives, education and job training and additional strategies in the areas of income safety net and family support. Second, the Commission recommends thatS.B. 1 establish a formal emergency response to the recession for children and families. The immediate challenges facing families require a coherent and intentional state plan. Without such a response, children and families will fall through the cracks. 2 J 007179 When the previous national crisis of 9/11 occurred, Connecticut was a leader in prioritizing a response for children and families in the wake of terrorism (S.A. 02-8). Now it is time for Connecticut to take on this new economic crisis with the success of children and families firmly prioritized as Job #1. In proposing this emergency response, we have interviewed agencies, families, as well as state and national experts. Their key recommendation is that state leaders work together immediately to craft and carry out a carefully coordinated plan to protect families from economic despair. Another bill, H.B. 6411, contains some of these proposals. Third, the Commission on Children recommends that S.B. 1 contain provisions to ensure maximization of federal stimulus opportunities. Much of the funding in the stimulus act affects children and families - in health, education, safety, economic security and many other areas. We have identified provisions in the federal stimulus where the amount received by Connecticut will be affected by state budget and policy decisions. In some cases, our state's impending budget decisions may have a significant impact on the amount of federal stimulus funds to be received. - The state needs to go after the stimulus funds in an expeditious manner. It also needs to use "creative accounting" to shift state funds as necessary in order to maximize favorable federal match opportunities in the stimulus act. Committee Bill No. 246 would establish a Federal Stimulus Distribution Commission (FSDC) to make recommendations concerning the distribution of stimulus funds. The Commission supports this legislation, which would bring together the expertise of the executive and legislative branches to formulate a coordinated approach to the use of federal stimulus funds. Some funds are being released quickly to states, and competitive grant opportunities are already appearing. It is important for legislators to engage their communities in this process to maximize Connecticut's receipt of stimulus support. The FSDC will provide a focal point for state coordination and communication on this important task. The Commission recommends that S.B. 246 be amended to specifically reference conditions facing Connecticut's families in the recession and to offer recommendations that use stimulus funds to impede the impact of the recession on children, including but not limited to strategies related to poverty, homelessness, hunger and limited early care and education. The FSDC should pay close attention to stimulus opportunities for which state budget investments must be increased in order to maximize the enhanced federal level of support established in the stimulus law. Examples include: • cash welfare, including scheduled TFA COLA (TANF emergency contingency fund) • subsidized employment (TANF emergency contingency fund) • non-recurrent short-term assistance (TANF emergency contingency fund) • FMAP-eligible expenditures (Medicaid) 3 007180 The TANF emergency contingency fund in the stimulus act reimburses states for 80 percent of the increased expenditures in any or all of these areas - which could total up to $133.4 million in additional funding for Connecticut. The stimulus act also provides a temporary but significant increase in the share of the Medicaid program paid by the federal government. National experts, presenting at our March 10 forum on the federal stimulus act, identified additional opportunities for Connecticut. One such example is the availability of $58.5 million in additional stimulus funding if Connecticut adopts any one of the following three policies: (1) Provide Unemployment Insurance (UI) coverage to workers seeking part-time employment (under current state law, these workers are eligible only if they have a disability), (2) Make eligible for UI those workers who leave a job due to spouse relocation, or (3) Provide extended UI benefits while a recipient is in training. Proposed H.B. No. 5309 is intended to redefine the spending cap to permit the state to accept federal funds. The Commission supports this goal. Under state law, most federal funds that Connecticut receives count against the cap, since the state appropriates both federal and state funds for various programs (e.g., Medicaid) and then counts federal reimbursements as revenues. New federal funds could push the budget over the spending cap. As a result, there is a disincentive to seek new federal funding. The Commission recommends that H.B. 5309 exclude new federal funds from the cap in their first year, but include them in the budget base, in order to eliminate the disincentive to seeking new federal funds. Thank you for your consideration of the Commission's views on these important bills. 4 007181 State of Connecticut GENERAL ASSEMBLY Commission on Children Federal Stimulus Funding for Connecticut's Children & Families: State Budget Opportunities March 10, 2009 President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of2009 on February 17, 2009. Under this federal stimulus act, Connecticut will receive an estimated $1.65 billion in direct aid and $1.32 billion in Medicaid assistance. The state is eligible for billions more in competitive grants that will be available through various federal agencies. Much of the funding in the federal stimulus act affects children and families. The law includes funding in health, education, safety, economic security and many other areas. The Commission on Children has identified provisions in the federal stimulus where the amount received by Connecticut will be affected by state budget and policy decisions. In some cases, our state's impending budget decisions regarding rescissions in the current fiscal year - as well as regarding the upcoming two-year budget - may have a significant impact on the amount of federal stimulus funds to be received. The following state budget investments should be increased, not decreased, in order to maximize the enhanced federal level of support established in the new stimulus law: ® cash welfare, including scheduled TFA COLA (TANF emergency contingency fund) • subsidized employment (TANF emergency contingency fund) ® non-recurrent short-term assistance (TANF emergency contingency fund) o FMAP-eligible expenditures (Medicaid) In addition, the following budget and policy areas should not be decreased or weakened in order to meet federal stimulus requirements: ® child care: federal stimulus funds for CCDBG may not supplant state funding • Medicaid eligibility criteria and enrollment/renewal procedures as of 7/1/08 • prompt payment of physicians, hospitals & nursing homes that provide Medicaid services » Unemployment Insurance: alternative base period must remain to obtain some new funds Background on TANF emergency contingency fund: The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) emergency contingency fund provides significant new funding for states that increase certain investments for families in need. Funds are made available through FY 2010 and shall be used to make grants in FY 2009 and 2010 for states in three areas: 18-20Tnmty St. Hartford. CT06106 Phone* (860) 240-0290 Fax-(860) 240-0248 Website cga ct gov/coc 007182 • basic assistance (cash welfare) [caseload increase must also occur to be eligible] • non-recurrent short term benefits, and • expenditures for subsidized jobs. The fund reimburses states for 80 percent of the increased expenditures in any or all of these areas. Federal TANF, state Maintenance of Effort (MOE) or a separate state program claimed as MOE expenditures can be used as increased expenditures to receive the federal reimbursement. Examples of increased state expenditures eligible for reimbursement could include the scheduled COLA for TFA recipients, Jobs Funnel and other employment initiatives, emergency shelter and supportive housing services, and helping families pay security deposits or avoid utility shut-offs. Only increases in Connecticut state budget funding qualify for emergency contingency reimbursement at 80 percent. Conversely, state budget decisions that decrease or flat-fund such investments - rather than increase them - cause our state to miss out completely on that federal support. Once qualified for reimbursement, the law provides that a state can spend the emergency contingency fund payments in any way that a state can use TANF block grant funding. There is a limit to the amount of funds to be received. Each state cannot receive more than 50 percent of its TANF Block Grant from the emergency contingency and regular contingency fund over the two- year period. Background on Medicaid/FMAP increase: The federal stimulus act provides a temporary increase in the share of the Medicaid program paid by the federal government (Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP)). The provision will take effect immediately and provide states with assistance over nine calendar quarters (October 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010). There are three components to the policy. First, each state will be "held harmless" from any drop in its FMAP rate that would otherwise occur under the regular FMAP formula as a result of an increase in its per capita income in years prior to the recession. States with higher incomes have lower FMAP rates than states with lower incomes, so Connecticut's FMAP rate for FY 2009 prior to passage of the Recovery Act was 50 percent. Second, under the Recovery Act, each state will receive a "base" 6.2-percentage-point FMAP increase. Therefore, Connecticut's FMAP rate over the nine quarters will temporarily increase to 56.2 percent. Third, states that are experiencing large increases in their unemployment rates — as Connecticut and most states are — will receive an additional FMAP increase that will proportionally reduce the state's share of Medicaid costs by 5.5 percent, 8.5 percent, or 11.5 percent, depending on the size of the increase in unemployment. Each state's eligibility for this additional FMAP increase will be evaluated each quarter based on the most recent unemployment data, with states qualifying for a greater level of assistance if their economic situation worsens. (No state would lose this higher FMAP rate if its unemployment dropped before July 1, 2010.) Given the increased Medicaid match rate, every eligible state expenditure is worth more in federal reimbursement - and every cut by Connecticut will lose more federal dollars - than ever before. It is important for Connecticut not to cut FMAP-eligible expenditures. It is also essential that the state ensure that it claims federal matching funds for all services that may be reimbursed under Medicaid. 007183 CBIA Connecticut Business & Industry Association TESTIMONY OF PETER M. GIOIA VICE PRESIDENT AND ECONOMIST CONNECTICUT BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE MARCH 20, 2009 LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING STATE CAPITOL HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT Good day. My name is Pete Gioia. I am the economist for the Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA). CBIA represents about 10,000 firms, which employ about 700,000 women and men in Connecticut. Our membership includes firms of all sizes and types, the vast majority of which are small businesses with fewer than 50 people. CBIA would like to comment upon the following bills: SB 49, SB 156, SB 157, SB 172, •H B 5098,' HB 5303,' and HB 5305. SB 49 The state is weak in its long term fiscal planning. Any comparably sized private organization routinely does such long term planning. It would be wise to think in longer horizons given cyclical economic changes such as we are facing today. We support such efforts. HB 5303 It would be prudent that any budget bill, including both the Governor's Recommended Budget and any Appropriations Budget Bill sent to the Governor, include such information as a matter for greater disclosure and transparency in the budget making process. However, we would 350 Church Street ° Hartford, CT 06103-1126 ® Phoije: 860-244-1900 ® Fax: 860-278-8562 ° Web: cbia.com 10,000 businesses working for a competitive Connecticut 00118U like to see this include the median and average cost comparisons of private social service provider contracts and similar work provided by state employees. DSS research shows the state employee cost of such services to be about double the cost of our not for profit provider network. A light needs to be shined upon this. Spending Cap Bills CBIA welcomes efforts to better define and\ codify existing OPM-OFA use of inflation and personal income statistics so that these are consistently adhered to from administration to administration CBIA reminds the committee that spending reforms passed in 1991, including both the spending cap and biennial budgeting were part of a compromise that included adoption of a broad-based state personal income tax. In our minds and in the minds of our members the two items -spending reforms and tax changes - are unequivocally linked. Eighty-one percent of the electorate in 1992 voted for the state spending cap, an unprecedented call for prudent state spending. Our business membership overwhelmingly supported this spending cap. Businesses trust in state government is closely linked to the state government promise to keep spending in check to the growth in personal income. This is substantiated by several surveys of the business community. CBIA asks the General Assembly to heed these wishes well as it debates modifications to the cap. CBIA notes that the spending cap has served the state well. The bulk of our state surpluses has been actually used in one-time spending projects or has retired or avoided state debt. Other surplus funds now comprise our "Rainy Day Fund" reserve. 2 007185 CBIA recognizes that no cap is foolproof. Policy makers determined to ignore or circumvent a limitation can and will do so. But, we will be vigilant in holding policy makers accountable regarding how and for what reasons they modify the cap. Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. 3 007186 AFT Connecticut AFT. AFL-CIO AFT Connecticut A Union of Professionals Healthcare Higher Education Public Employees PSRP Teachers March 20, 2009 35 Marshall Road Rocky Hill, CT 06067 TO: Senator Harp 860/257-9782 Representative Geragosian Fax. 860/257-8214 Members of the Appropriations Committee. Toll Free. 888/398-3373 www.aftct.org As president of AFT Connecticut, which represents more than 28,000 teachers Sharon Palmer and educational personnel, healthcare professionals, state employees and higher PRESIDENT education faculty and staff, I am writing to you regarding the state spending cap. Melodie Peters FIRST VICE PRESIDENT As you are aware, the state spending cap has prevented the legislature from providing cities and towns the funding necessary to provide the services and Leo Canty education that our communities need. This has forced municipalities to shift the SECOND VICE PRESIDENT burden to local property taxes. Thomas Bruenn SECRETARY-TREASURER The spending cap has also prevented our state from receiving maximum federal funding for projects and services, essentially throwing money away. VICE PRESIDENTS John Altieri Despite claims from our current and former governor, the spending cap is not as Dennis Bogusky sacred as they would have people believe. Governor Rell and her predecessor, Cathy Carpino Joanne Chapin Governor Rowland, repeatedly broke the spending cap as they saw fit. David Cicarella Art Costa, Jr It is time for Connecticut to remove the spending cap, and provide communities Tom Culley with the funds they need. Kathie Daly M. Kevin Fahey Thank you. Patti Fusco Betty Gadson Phyllis Kornfeld Sharon Palmer Paul Krell President, AFT Connecticut Edward Lang Ann Lohrand John Malsbenden Jean Morningstar Harry Rodriguez Kathleen Sanner Barbara Smyth RickTanasi Sadie Williams 007187 NFIB The Voice of Small Business® CONNECTICUT TESTIMONY OF NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS BY ANDY MARKOWSKI, CONNECTICUT STATE DIRECTOR SUPPORTING SB-1S6, AA DEFINING TERMS RELATED TO THE SPENDING CAP; & SUPPORTING SB-157, AAC THE BUDGET SURPLUS;. BEFORE THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE MARCH 20, 2009 The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), Connecticut's and the nation's leading small-business advocacy association, respectfully submits the following comments supporting the aforementioned bills: The problem that seemingly most legislators do not want to address is the long-term fiscal problem of state government. While huge state deficits are not directly a small business problem, the taxes required to fund government are, as are the programs those taxes pay for. Small business therefore has a huge stake state in fiscal policy. But to return current troubling fiscal trends to a rational course of reduced spending will require difficult political decisions that lawmakers seem abhorrent to discuss, let alone make. In order to survive and remain competitive in business in the highly taxed, highly regulated, harsh economic climate of Connecticut, small businesses have their fiscal house in order. It is high time that state government does the same. Passage of SB-156 and SB-157 will go a long way toward improving the long-term economic condition of our state- sman business supports SB-156. which would enact the constitutional spending cap approved by a strong majority (81%) of the voters in 1991 by adopting certain defining terms contained in the bill dealing with personal income, inflation and general budget expenditures. A constitutional spending cap would be a much stronger benefit for all taxpayers than the current statutory spending cap. Legislators would not have to bend to the pressure of special interest groups asking to do away with or modify the spending cap. In the same spirit that NFIB bases its state and federal public policy positions on our unique Member Ballot, the legislature should follow the will of the voters and enact the spending cap amendment they overwhelmingly passed. Small business also supports SB-157. which creates a new and very responsible way to handle any budget surpluses, should there ever be any in the future. State government needs to stop spending surplus money as it comes in. By putting money in the "Rainy Day Fund" and providing tax cuts to Connecticut's overburdened taxpayers, the legislature would be sending a serious message that it is concerned about investing in the state's economic future. However, should the legislature continue past practices of spending surplus money, creating structural deficits and not adequately saving in the "Rainy Day Fund", the state will consistently find itself in the horrible economic throes we are in today. National Federation of Independent Business — CONNECTICUT 25 Capitol Avenue • Hartford, CT 06106 • 860-216-8810 • Andrew [email protected] • www NFIB com/CT 007188 COMMISSION OFFICERS Connecticut General Assembly HONORARY MEMBERS Susan O. Storey, Char Connie Dice Tanya Meek, Via Char Patricia T. Hendel Adnenne Farrar Houel, Seaaary Patricia Russo Elizabeth Oonohue, Tibbubt Permanent Commission on ihe Siaius of Women LEGISLATIVE MEMBERS COMMISSIONERS Senator Andrew J. McDonald The State's leading force for women's equality Yvonne R. Davis Senator John A. Kissel Barbara DeBaptiste Representative Michael P. Lawior Came Gallagher Representative Arthur J. O'Neill Melanie O'Brien Jean L Rexford EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Denise Rodosevich Teresa C Younger GndyR. Slane Patricia EJvl Whitcombe Cecilia J. Woods Testimony of The Permanent Commission on the Status of Women Before the Appropriations Committee Friday, March 20,2009 Re: S.B. 1, AAC Economic Security for Connecticut Families S.B. 246, AAC A Commission on Federal Stimulus Distribution Senator Harp, Representative Geragosian and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on S.B. 1, AAC Economic Security for Connecticut Families and S.B. 246, AAC A Commission on Federal Stimulus Distribution. S.B. 1, AAC Economic Security for Connecticut Families PCSW has identified economic and financial security as one of its top priority areas and are supportive of S.B. 1 which proposes to enhance economic security for Connecticut families. PCSW has worked on three projects that analyze the self-sufficiency level of Connecticut families and encourage you to consider these reports when making decisions regarding economic security for Connecticut families. Below is an overview of the key findings and recommendations for the Family Economic Self- Sufficiency, the Health Economic Sufficiency Standard, and the Elder Economic Security Standard. Family Economic Self-Sufficiency (FESS) FESS measures the income a working family needs to meet their basic expenses - housing, childcare, healthcare, transportation, miscellaneous and taxes -without public or private assistance. In 1999, Connecticut created its Self-Sufficiency Standard and updated it in 2005. PCSW provided administrative and research support on this project headed by the Office of Workforce Competiveness and Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW). 007189 PCSW Testimony Before the Appropriations Committee March 20,2009 Page 2 In 2007, PCSW contracted with the Center for Women's Welfare to determine whether families in Connecticut were self-sufficient. The result of this effort is entitled Overlooked and Undercounted: Where Connecticut Stands-1 FESS Key Findings: 1. Twenty-percent of Connecticut working families do not have enough income to meet their basic costs of living. Of this population, female head of households represent 29% vs. 14% of male head of households. Households Below Se3fH5ufFrri=Ticy • Below FPL • Below FESS 25% 20% 15% •9%. 14% 8% 10% A 5% 9% 10% 6% 0% E^mibes SitgisMafes S jgfeFsnaTps H ousehoHers by G ender 20% 16% 15% 13% 10% • Male 10% • Female 5% 4% 0% Betow FPL BebwEESS 1 Diana M Pearce, Ph D Overlooked and Undercounted Where Connecticut Standi Prepared for the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women, June, 2008 007190 PCSW Testimony Before the Appropriations Committee March 20,2009 Page 3 In dollars, this means that individuals and families are not able to maintain the following self- sufficiency levels:2 Self-Sul Fficiency. Standards for Selected Family Types in Selected Connecticut Cities, Metro Areas and Regions, 2008 Jurisdiction Adult Adult + Adult + 2 Adults + Infant Preschooler + Preschooler + Schoolage Schoolage Greater $26,099 $48,122 $62,900 $69,526 Waterbury Greater $26,383 $48,672 $63,530 $69,994 Danbury Northwest $20,485 $40,659 $55,312 $61,958 Comer Bridgeport $17,362 $38,234 $54,610 $57,899 Upper Fairfield $29,536 $53,152 $70,257 $76,415 (high, Adult) Hartford (low, $16,146 $34,873 $48,713 $51,847 Adult) Hartford $23,472 $43,678 $58,012 $64,915 Suburbs North Central $22,576 $42,330 $56,785 $63,814 New Haven $17,357 $36,271 $50,128 $52,943 Upper $22,238 $42,105 $56,372 $62,971 Connecticut River (median, Adult) Greater New $23,757 $43,562 $57,859 $64,837 Haven Greater New $21,073 $36,995 $48,432 $54,754 London Northeast $18,928 $35,309 $46,496 $52,908 Corner 2. Families of color are more likely to have inadequate income. 3. Higher rates of inadequate income are linked to foreign birth and non-citizenship. 4. Women who maintain families alone, especially single mothers, have high rates of income inadequacy. 5. Education reduces the rate of income inadequacy, especially for people of color and/or women. 6. Employment is key to income adequacy, but not all jobs are equal. Implications for Connecticut: • With one-fifth of households lacking adequate income, the problem is clearly not one explained by individual characteristics, but rather one that reflects the structure of the economy. • It is not the lack of work that drives poverty, but rather the nature of the jobs and economic opportunity in the economy of those who are working. 2 Wider Opportunities for Women The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Connecticut, 2008 007191 PCSW Testimony Before the Appropriations Committee March 20,2009 Page 4 • The majority of families with inadequate incomes include adults who are working, many full-time, yet are struggling to make ends meet without help from work support programs. • The Self-Sufficiency Standard's "bare bones" budgets point to the areas where families most need help, particularly childcare and housing. Recommendations to Increase Family Economic Self-Sufficiency: • Improve affordability and access to continuing education including high-technology training rather than training for low-wage, low-skill jobs. Investments in skilled occupational and incumbent worker training as well as adult education should be expanded. • Invest in sustained sector initiatives. Targeted development would allow the Department of Economic and Community Development to leverage previous investments in career ladder pilots and build on successful programs. • Expand access to asset-building strategies, including individual development accounts (ID As). • Expand microenterprise support and development especially targeted to women, the Latino community and urban residents. • Institute a State Earned Income Tax Credit, which has proven to be one method to reduce poverty. • Provide tax incentives for business that offer sustainable family and work policies. Tax credits could be offered to small and mid-size businesses that offer paid sick or family leave, flexible work schedules and reduced work week options. • Raise eligibility levels for subsidized housing, health, childcare, food and energy programs to help bridge the gap between low wages and basic needs for working families. • Increase wages by raising the minimum wage. Health Economic Sufficiency Standard (HESS) HESS measures the economic burden of healthcare and illness on Connecticut families It is based on three possibilities workers face: good employer-sponsored insurance, where the employer pays the average share of the premium; "undennsured" wherein the worker pays 50% of the health insurance premium; and no employer-sponsored insurance, wherein the worker purchases non-group insurance and pays the full cost. In 2006, PCSW provided administrative and research support on the development of a report on the health sufficiency standard for Connecticut. The result of this effort is entitled The Real Cost of Living and Getting Health Care in Connecticut: The Health Economic Sufficiency Standard.3 Connecticut Health Policy Project The Real Cost of Living and Celling Health Care in Connecticut The Health Economic Sufficiency Standard Prepared for the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women, February 2006. 007192 PCSW Testimony Before the Appropriations Committee March 20,2009 Page 5 HESS Key Findings: 1. Access to employer sponsored insurance has a much greater impact on family finances than health status or family illness. 2. Women experience higher family financial health burdens. 3. Income loss due to family illness threatens economic security. 4. Mounting health care costs and medical debt put families' economic security at risk because such costs, whether for premiums, out-of pocket medical expenses, or both, compromise other financial obligations. 5. Workers aged 55-64 are vulnerable to unmanageable financial health burdens. Implications for Connecticut: Developing a comprehensive model of health-related economic burden is important for three reasons: • ' Rising health care costs create financial insecurity for families. Health-related expenses cause economic stress and dislocation for Connecticut families. • Access to insurance means access to care. Health care costs relative to income are major determinates of access to health services and medical outcomes. • Fewer uninsured means a stronger Connecticut economy. Uninsured residents weaken both health and economic community resources. Recommendations to Increase Health Family Economic Self-Sufficiency: • Expand programs such as HUSKY to include more children and caregiving adults and streamline the enrollment of eligible families. • Target interventions to those in Connecticut least likely to have employer-sponsored insurance, including women, the working poor, part-time workers, service/retail-sector employees, childless adults, and employees of small firms. • Strengthen and expand employer-sponsored insurance, particularly among smaller firms. • Study private insurers' policies that restrict health insurance benefits to certain employees or impose exclusions or limitations. • Make paid sick leave and paid family leave available to Connecticut workers. Elder Economic Security Standard Index (ESSI) ESSI measures the cost of basic expenses and necessary living expenses of elder households (those with household heads who are age 65 or older) to age in place, continuing to live in the community setting of their choice without public support In 2009, PCSW and the Commission on Aging provided funding, administrative and research support on the development of a report on the State's economic status of the State's elderly population. The result of this effort is entitled Elders Living on the Edge: Toward Economic Security for Connecticut's Older Adults.4 JWider Opportunities for Women. Elders Lwmg on the Edge• Toward Economic Security for Connecticut's Older Adults, 2009 007193 PCSW Testimony Before the Appropriations Committee March 20,2009 Page 6 ESSI Key Findings: 1. Connecticut older adults cannot meet their basic living expenses whether they live at the federal poverty level or the level of the average Social Security benefit. This is true of elders statewide, whether they rent or own a home. 2. Housing costs (mortgage or rent, taxes, utilities and insurance) put a heavy burden on some elder households, representing as much as half of their total expenses. Housing assistance has the biggest impact on economic security. Without housing assistance, renters across the state and across a spectrum of incomes fall well below economic security. 3. The significance of healthcare costs for Connecticut older adults who must purchase supplemental health and prescription drug coverage to Medicare. 4. Even older adults who are currently making ends meet face an uncertain future if their life circumstances change, such as loss of a spouse/partner or a decline in health status. 5. The need for home and community-based long-term care can more than double an elder's expenses, significantly increasing the income needed to meet basic needs. Figure 1: Statewide Annual Incomes vs. the Eider Economic Security Index for Single Elders in Connecticut, 2008 $24,408 (Economic Security for a Renter) Supplemental Security Avg Social Avg Social Median Income m Median Income in Income Standard Security, Women Security, Men Retirement, Women Retirement, Men Table 1: The Sfafewtcfe Eftfer Economic Security Standard Cndex for Connecticut, 2QQ8 (Annual) Single Elder Elder Couple Monthly Expenses Owner w/o Renter Owner Owner w/o Renter Owner mortgage w/ mortgage w/ mortgage mortgage Housing $657 $909 $1,483 $657 $909 $1,483 Food 234 234 234 430 430 430 Transportation 209 209 209 368 368 368 Health Care (Good Health) 385 385 385 770 770 770 Miscellaneous 297 297 297 445 445 445 Total Monthly (Index) Expenses $1,782 $2,034 $2,608 $2,670 $2,922 $3,496 Total Annual (Index) Expenses $21,383 $24,408 $31,296 $32,039 $35,064 $41,952 007 1 9U PCSW Testimony Before the Appropriations Committee March 20,2009 Page 7 Recommendations to Increase Elder Economic Security: EESI has identified six categories of public assistance that are important to helping older adults achieve economic security. The categories are; housing assistance, income assistance, medical assistance, food assistance, prescription assistance and energy assistance. Figure 2: The Impact of Public Supports on Economic Security, 2008 Monthly Bder $2,162 Index, $1,971 $1,549 $1'618 Iv'iarf ^ $1,164 $1-209 I •c-ft '1 t. $1,041 ^•'Vt"" I • Income (Social Security) a Food - Rx 3 Medical • Energy a Housing Short Term • Use the Elder Economic Security Initiative to prioritize programs that support the economic well-being of low-income individuals and families, particularly in housing and health care. • Encourage employers, both public and private, to "redefine retirement." This means providing more flexibility in work options, including pro-rated benefits for part-time workers, telecommuting, and a shorter work week. • Reduce confusion and duplication of applications for eligibility for benefit programs such as ConnPACE, Food Stamps and energy assistance. A single intake application could streamline the processes in place, creating efficiencies for intake workers and applicants. • Broaden and diversify outreach and public information on income supports, including targeted outreach and support for caregivers - the majority of whom are women juggling work and family. • As recommended in the state's Long-Term Care Needs Assessment, Connecticut should embark on an educational campaign encouraging individuals to plan for their and their families' future long-term care needs. • The state should adopt measures to allow more low-income older adults to participate in the Medicare Savings Program. This could save older adults hundreds of dollars annually and would also shift some prescription drug coverage from ConnPACE to Medicare Part D. 007195 PCSW Testimony Before the Appropriations Committee March 20,2009 Page 8 Long Term • Reduce housing costs • Increase the number of hosing vouchers to help more older adults achieve economic security as well as overall independence • Reform property taxes by; examining the combining or streamlining of existing property tax relief programs for efficiency and ease of use, requiring towns to send easy-to-understand information about local programs to residents with their property tax bills, and enacting comprehensive tax reform on the state level that would shift the burden away from the property tax. • Raise income for older adults • Expand eligibility for health care programs and create a healthier Connecticut • Fund proven prevention programs such as fall prevent, flu/pneumonia shots, and chiropractic and podiatric care under Medicaid • Create a single income disregard applicable only to "aged, blind or disabled individuals" for Medicaid only. S.B. 246, AAC A Commission on Federal Stimulus Distribution PCSW supports passage of S.B. 112, which would convene a commission to make , recommendations regarding the prioritization and distribution of federal stimulus program grants to the state. We would encourage that any plan to maximize federal stimulus funding adhere to the following principles: 1. Make investments that stabilize the economy, promote growth, and benefit those hurt most by the recession. a. Make it a priority to create family-supporting jobs. b. Use resources to build worker skills and link training to job-creation efforts. c. Invest in distressed communities. d. Maximize resources to benefit workers and their families. 2. Assure that funds are spent in an open and accountable manner that maximizes benefits. a. Allocate resources based on goals and standards through transparent processes. b. Maintain public accountability. c. Align public systems and resources to achieve optimal impact. In regards to the proposals to cut health care programs by $273 million, we urge you to reconsider these proposals in light of the federal stimulus money being granted to the State under Medicaid. The federal government will increase the federal share from 50% to at least 56.2%, which will result in a distribution to the State of $1.3 billion. Although the funds are not specifically marked for health care services, the intent behind this new money is that states would not cut their Medicaid programs and the health care safety net. 007196 PCSW Testimony Before the Appropriations Committee March 20,2009 Page 9 This intent is clearly stated by President Barack Obama in his remarks ^t a meeting of the National Governor's Association on February 23rd, where he emphasized that the increased Medicaid reimbursement will "...help ensure that you don't need to make cuts to essential services Americans rely on now more than ever." He further stated: "To show you we're serious about putting this recovery plan into action swiftly, I am announcing today that this Wednesday, our administration will begin distributing more than $15 billion in federal assistance under the Recovery Act to help you cover the costs of your Medicaid programs. That means that by the time most of you get home; money will be waiting to help 20 million vulnerable Americans in your states get health coverage and 49 million Americans keep it. Children with asthma will be able to breathe easier, seniors won't need to fear losing their doctors, and pregnant women with limited means won't need to worry about the health of their babies." We appreciate your attention to these matters. 007197 f TESTIMONY BEFORE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE ROOM 2C 1PM MARCH 20, 2009 Sb^L St>\Sl MICHAEL GUARCO - CHAIRMAN r n ln . , „ ^ BOARD OF FINANCE-TOWN OF GRANBY HONORABLE CHAIRPERSONS, VICE-CHAIRS, RANKING MEMBERS AND MEMBERS OF THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, I AM MIKE GUARCO....CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF FINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF GRANBY FOR SOME 20 YEARS NOW, AND A MEMBER SINCE 1982.1 AM ALSO A FOUNDING MEMBER OF THE CT MUNICIPAL CONSORTIUM FOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY - A BROAD ALLIANCE OF SOME 208 BOARDS AND BOARD CHAIRMEN FROM 118 TOWNS AND CITIES STATEWIDE WHO BELIEVE THAT MORE r EMPHASIS NEEDS TO BE PUT ON LETTING TOWNS MORE EFFECTIVELY MANAGE THE EXPENDITURE SIDE OF THE BUDGET EQUATION. WHILE TYPICALLY MY APPEAL IS FOR MANDATE RELIEF FOR THE MUNICIPALITIES, I TODAY AM HERE TO ADVOCATE FOR MEASURES THAT WOULD HELP PROVIDE LONG-TERM BUDGET STABILITY FOR THE 007198 STATE...WHICH THEN TRANSLATES INTO FOR THE TOWNS AS WELL. SPECIFICALLY I REFERENCE SB156...157...AND172....HB 5096...5098...5305. I MYSELF AM HERE TODAY TO SUPPORT BILLS WHICH WOULD HELP FLATTEN YOUR COST CURVE GOING FORWARD....AND HELP BUFFER AGAINST HARD TIMES BY HOLDING ONTO SURPLUS MONEY FROM GOOD YEARS TO HAVE AVAILABLE FOR USE WHEN A FISCAL CRISIS LOOMS...LIKE TODAY. SURPLUS RETENTION IN GOOD TIMES COMBINED WITH DEBT PAYDOWN TO PRESERVE CAPITAL CAPACITY ARE APPROPRIATE USES OF ONE-TIME MONEY AS OPPOSED TO BUILDING ITS USE INTO THE BUDGET IN WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A STRUCTURAL DEFICIT. AS WE SEE, BETWEEN THE LACK OF FORTITUDE IN RESTRAINING SPENDING AND FAILING TO HOLD ONTO SURPLUS IN GOOD TIMES TO BUFFER SEVERE OR MODEST ECONOMIC SLOWDOWNS, THE NET RESULT TRANSLATES INTO THE FOOL'S GOLD OF RAISING TAXES AT THIS LEVEL WHICH 007 DAMPERS ECONOMIC ACTIVITY... OR CUTTING MUNICIPAL AID WHICH FURTHER ACCERBATES THE RECESSION BY INDUCING MUNICIPAL LAYOFFS AND PUSHING THE LOCAL PROPERTY TAX BURDEN HIGHER. MEASURES TO REDUCE THE RATE OF GROWTH OF GOVT EXPENDITURES GOING FORWARD ARE IMPORTANT IN KEEPING A SEMBLANCE OF BALANCE IN CT... AND IN KEEPING US COST-COMPETITIVE SO THAT WE AND NEW ENGLAND DON'T BECOME ANOTHER RUST BELT. I WOULD ALSO ADVOCATE FOR THE CONCEPT BEHIND HB5143 - HAVING THE STATE ADOPT THE MUNICIPAL AID PORTION OF THE STATE BUDGET BY MARCH.... SO THAT TOWNS CAN PLAN. AS WE ALL STRUGGLE TO HOLD THE LINE ON SPENDING AND TAXES, WE FIND OURSELVES SIMPLY GUESSING WHAT WILL COME OUT OF THIS BODY AND IN THE WORST EXAMPLE OF BRINKMANSHIP, FIND MANY UNIONS UNWILLING TO PLAY BALL WITH MODERATING COST GROWTH LOCALLY.... WAITING TO SEE IF MONEY FROM HEAVEN APPEARS TO PREVENT LAYOFFS AND FUND THEIR 3 AND 4.5% RAISES. WHAT I SEE IS 007200 AN OPPORTUNITY FOR LABOR TO HAVE THEMSELVES SEEN AS PART OF THE SOLUTION INSTEAD OF STANDING OUT AS THE PROVERBIAL PIG AT THE PUBLIC TROUGH. IF WE ALL KNEW NOW WHAT WAS COMING....AND ITS IMPACT ON HOLDING OR LOSING PEOPLE AND PROGRAM.... THE CLARITY WOULD INDUCE COMPROMISE AND RESOLUTION. THE SYSTEM IS UNBALANCED AND THE FIRES ARE BURNING. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION 001201 Mar 19 09 02:39p Shepherd Park 8602362283 p.l Greetings Senators and congressman and fellow advocates, The generic medications that I take are very helpful to me. However It is not so helpful y^g That I have to pay over 30 dollars a month for them as co-pay. ^ ^ I see this co-pay as a kind of assault to my person and a humiliating insult to my integrity ^ ^ And a hinderance to my progress and recovery. It is bad enough that I have lost tons of friends and most of my family members, the Possibility of many jobs or a family of my own because of people's prejudice of My taking meds. It is even worse that I have to forfeit money that could be Used towards my independence and self Betterment.We need a liberation not an inprisonment. Sincerely, Janet Auster ( G 007202 State of Connecticut NANCYWYMAN IMS MARKE. OJAKIAN UneZ £ COMPTROLLER %-X IsM DEPUTY COMPTROLLER^- Hartford Testimony Before the Appropriations Committee State Comptroller Nancy Wyman W&LLlQ March 20,2009 „ , ' 1 1103 Good afternoon Senator Harp, Representative Geragosian, Senator Debicella, Representative Miner and distinguished members of the Appropriations Committee. I am State Comptroller Nancy Wyman and I would like to thank you for raising several of my legislative proposals and for the opportunity to testify. First, I would like to offer my full support for Senate Bill 1124, "An Act Increasing The Amount Of Unappropriated Surplus Deposited In The Budget Reserve Fund." The depletion of the entire $595 million Budget Reserve Fund (BRF) during the economic downturn of FY's 2001-2003' made it clear that the five percent (5%) statutory limit on the BRF at the time was insufficient. I subsequently advocated for increasing the BRF's maximum limit, and with the agreement of the Legislature and the Governor it was raised to 7.5% of appropriations, and later to 10%, where it stands today. I commend the Legislature for replenishing the BRF as the state recovered from that downturn. Those efforts built the current $ 1.4 billion balance in the BRF that will play a vital role in balancing the budget for this year and the next biennium. The $1.4 billion in the fund represents 8.1% of appropriations - $325 million short of the 10% cap. I note that between 1992 and 2008, the state appropriated $5.7 billion in excess revenue that otherwise would have been deposited in the BRF as surplus funds. Since FY 2003, the state has improved its savings rate by depositing slightly less than 50% of surplus into the BRF. But at the same time, much of the remaining one-time surplus has been used to fund ongoing programs. That not only diverges from the state's more fiscally-sound past practice of directing surplus revenue to fund one-time expenditures only, but also has created a structural budget deficit approaching $500 million. National economic analyses consistently assert that the optimum level of BRF funding to address a typical 3-year economic downturn is 18-20% of the general fund budget. Given the current state of the economy and size of Connecticut's budget deficits, it is very likely that most or all of our 8.1% reserve will be drained within the next two years. 007203 I believe that now is an opportune time to prepare for the next inevitable downturn by raising the cap on the BRF to 15% of appropriations. Under the current budget, a 15% BRF would have resulted in $2.6 billion being available to buffer the potential for tax increases and cuts to safety-net programs that Connecticut now faces. In fact, I believe the BRF would be better named the Tax Rate Stabilization Fund, and that policymakers should treat it as such. I am also requesting that the Appropriations Committee consider Joint Favorable Substitute language, which is attached that would amend Senate Bill 1124 to permit incremental funding of the BRF during the fiscal year, rather than after the books have been closed. Current law mandates the Governor to submit a deficit-mitigation plan whenever the projected General Fund deficit exceeds 1% of appropriations. The new language I have submitted would transfer projected surplus funds on a monthly basis to the BRF whenever the projected surplus exceeds 1% of appropriations, or $176 million under the current budget. If a projected surplus becomes a projected deficit as the year progresses, these funds would be available to mitigate the shortfall; Ensuring that excess revenue is directed to the BRF, coupled with raising the fund's cap to 15%, would move the state closer to establishing adequate fiscal protection for government and taxpayers during economic slowdowns. Continuing the theme of improved long-term planning, I urge the Committee to support House Bill 6679, "An Act Concerning Establishment of an Account to Fund the Twenty-Seventh State Payroll Period." This bill would create a long-term funding approach to address the additional 27th week of payroll that occurs every eleventh year, and is next due in FY 2012. For the past five years, I have proposed annual incremental funding to lessen the impact of this known liability, which currently represents approximately $120 million. My initial proposal was to pre-fund a meaningful portion of the liability with a transfer to the salary-reserve fund from any anticipated budget surplus and an additional annual appropriation until the disbursement occurs in 2012. The creation of this fund would also improve the state's standing in the bond market because it would demonstrate proactive fiscal management of known liabilities. The general fund is the only state fund with a perpetual GAAP deficit, and is of most concern to our bond-rating agencies. We are fortunate that the additional payroll period did not fall during the current fiscal crisis, and now is clearly not an appropriate time for me to request funding for this initiative. 2 007201* However, as a follow-up to my GAAP conversion bill (PA 08-111 "AAC The Implementation of GAAP"), I urge the Legislature to establish this anmial funding mechanism effective beginning FY 2013. That would bring the state closer to GAAP accounting while providing the tools to plan accordingly for this obligation. Finally, I am also here in support of Senate Bill 1123 "Art Act Concerning Flexible Spending Accounts." Flexible spending accounts permit an employee to put aside their own money on a pre-tax basis to fund out-of- pocket health care expenses not covered by their medical plans, e.g. eye glasses and orthodontia. Money put aside in the accounts reduces the social security tax liability of both the employee and the state. This proposal permits the program's start-up costs to be funded first from forfeitures in the plan. If those are insufficient to cover the administrative expenses, the balance would be transferred from the savings the state achieves in Social Security "taxes. This proposal is expected to be revenue-neutral in that the savings will outweigh the administrative costs and the decreased tax revenue. i I thank you for the opportunity to testify and will be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 213 007205 Section 1. Section 4-3 Oa of the general statutes, is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective July J, 2009): (a) [After] The Budget Reserve Fund shall be funded as follows: (1) If the cumulative financial monthly statement issued by the Comptroller pursuant to section 3-115 includes a General Fund projected surplus of greater than one percent of total General Fund appropriations for the fiscal year, the Treasurer shall transfer, during such month, the projected surplus amount that exceeds one percent of General Fund appropriations for that fiscal year to the Budget Reserve Fund: (2) after the accounts for the General Fund have been closed for the fiscal year ending June 30. 2009. and each fiscal year thereafter, and the Comptroller has determined the amount of unappropriated surplus in said fund, after any amounts required by provision of law to be transferred for other purposes have been deducted, the amount of such surplus shall be transferred by the [State] Treasurer to a special fund to be known as the Budget Reserve Fund. When the amount in said fund equals [ten] fifteen per cent of the net General Fund appropriations for the fiscal year in progress, no further transfers shall be made by the Treasurer to said fund and the amount of such surplus in excess of that transferred to said fund shall be deemed to be appropriated^ [to] (A) To the State Employees Retirement Fund, in addition to the contributions required-pursuant to section 5-156a, but not exceeding five per cent of the unfunded past service liability of the system as set forth in the most recent actuarial valuation certified by the Retirement Commission. Such surplus in excess of the amounts transferred to the Budget Reserve Fund and the state employees retirement system shall be deemed to be appropriated for: (1) Redeeming prior to maturity any outstanding indebtedness of the state selected by the Treasurer in the best interests of the state; (2) purchasing outstanding indebtedness of the state in the open market at such prices and on such terms and conditions as the Treasurer shall determine to be in the best interests of the state for the purpose of extinguishing or defeasing such debt; (3) providing for the defeasance of any outstanding indebtedness of the state selected by the Treasurer in the best interests of the state by irrevocably placing with an escrow agent in trust an amount to be used solely for, and sufficient to satisfy, scheduled payments of both interest and principal on such indebtedness; or (4) any combination of these methods. Pending the use or application of such amount for the payment of interest and principal, such amount may be invested in (A) direct obligations of the United States government, including state and local government treasury securities that the United States Treasury issues specifically to provide state and local governments with required cash flows at yields that do not exceed Internal Revenue Service arbitrage limits, (B) obligations guaranteed by the United States government, and (C) securities backed by United States government obligations as collateral and for which interest and principal payments on the collateral generally flow immediately through to the security holder. (b) Moneys in said Budget Reserve Fund shall be expended only as provided in this subsection. (1) When in any fiscal year the Comptroller is projecting a deficit of greater than one percent of the total General Fund appropriation requiring a deficit mitigation plan in accordance with Section 4-85(W2') of the general statutes and funds have been credited to the Budget Reserve Fund in accordance with subsection (aVlV to the extent necessary, only such funds credited in the current fiscal year may be released to mitigate such deficit after all rescission authority is exhausted: (2) [W]hen in any fiscal year the Comptroller has determined the amount of a deficit applicable with respect to the immediately preceding fiscal year, to the extent necessary, the 007206 amount of funds credited to said Budget Reserve Fund shall be deemed to be appropriated for purposes of funding such deficit. (c) The Treasurer is authorized to invest all or any part of said fund in accordance with the provisions of section 3-3 la The interest derived from the investment of said fund shall be credited to the General Fund. 007201 CONNECTICUT iSNERAL ASSEMBLY PUBLIC HEARING TKAHSCRIPT INFORMATION SHEET COMMITTEE: DATE: 3/L WtJ 9 TIME: )' (X> ROOM SO. ^ C LOCATION (IF OTHER THAN STATE CAPITOL): PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT OR BILL NUMBERS: £(5 SISy S& PRES113INC CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Secretary 007208 The Connecticut General Assembly Joint Committee on Appropriations Sen. Toni Nathaniel Harp Rep. John C. Geragosian Co-Chairperson Co-Chairperson Z009 ATTENDANCE. SHLEX CHECK. OND PUBLIC HEAR1NG_>Z_ DATE- ,3 1 09 TIMP t'O^ prvs COMMITTE.E. ME.E.T1NG \/ 5en Marp N/ Rep Genga Rep ferillo Rep Geragosian 5en. Gomes f~)cn. frague \/ Sen. hartley y/^ Rep Gonzalez yX^ep Rebimba Rep £>artlett Rep f"iamm _V^^Rep Reynolds Rep ["jeinnch en Handley p Ritter >/ Rep. RolJan 5?en \~)arns Rep Roy en Debicella ("iethenngton _l//Rep. Ryan f Rep Mmcr \f Rep Mewett >/ Rep Santiago Rep £>acker Rep. Movey Rep lawyer en. Qahgiuri ep hwang Rep ^c^o^ield ^ Rep. Camillo . K.ane en. ^lossberg V^'/Rcp Gandelana Rep Kjrldey-E)ey Rep. 5tn'pp y Rep. Ocmons V/^Rep Lewis Rep Tercyalc ^ Rep D'Hon Sen. Maynard ^ Rep Thompson _vZ5=n Duff VX Rep McCrory Rep (Jrban _V^Rep Z.sti) V_ R^p Miller V^ Rep. ViHano V^Kep f^awcett _^Rep Nafis Rep Walker y Rep He y Rep O'Neill Rep W'llis isclimann a/R. P Orange Rep holder-W'nfield V^Sen Hrantz V^ Rep Wood Room 2700 • Legislative Office Building • Hartford, CT 06106-1591 • (860) 240-0390 • web site http IIwww cga ct.gov/app/ 007209 The Connecticut General Assembly Joint Committee on Appropriations Sen. Toni Nathaniel Harp a i Rep. John C. Geragosian Co-Chairperson f ) Co-Chairperson Appropriations Committee PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA Friday, March 27, 2009 1:00 PM in Room 2C of the LOB COMMITTEE BILLS FOR REVIEW 1. S.B. No. 828 AN ACT CONCERNING STATE REVENUE. 2. S.B. No. 829 AN ACT CONCERNING PERSONNEL MATTERS. 3. H.B. No. 6363 AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING GENERAL GOVERNMENT, CONSERVATION, DEVELOPMENT, REGULATION, PROTECTION, JUDICIAL AND CORRECTIONS. 4. H.J. No. 45 RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO REQUIRE THAT SEVENTY PER CENT OF ANY BUDGET SURPLUS BE USED TO FLJND A BUDGET RESERVE FUND OR REDUCE BOND INDEBTEDNESS AND THAT NO PORTION OF ANY REMAINING SURPLUS FUNDS BE USED TO PAY FOR RECURRING EXPENDITURES. 007210 CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS, STATE AGENCY • REPRESENTATIVES and LEGISLATORS CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKER REGISTRATION « COMMITTEE: fe^ ROOM NO.: PATE: Matck <50, TIME: i '. 6* Pto*- PLEASE PRINT NAME SPEAKER REGISTERED BY REPRESENTING BELL #/SUB.TECT y/1. "Robeft- L GenuaUjO , SgeveUwj, [ .y^TK-M^c ^ C > —a r ^JWfeura. titnnl RiesT SeLgcrup-tst Rq*&op>i Unit's Bo/f*-4 6?sc. X 1/9. T^m jHqrsh Sp /e^fhy, t-le r 6>3(pI 1 A A/ _ ri^ I \ i / _ 1C+- V ^ f V y^« * it .If J7 • 11. K R/ITFTM V.A R-BL-L F 13. 14. 15.. 16.. 17.. 18.. 19. 20. 00721 I Page. /of ^ Date: Of Time: _ Room: ^ APPROPRIATIONS PUBLIC HEARING Lottery Siqn-Up Name Representing Subject '1. 2 Michael Quinn Meriden 6363 2. 3 Nancy Ahearn New Haven 828/6363 Preservation Trust 3. 4 Mary Ann Amore Hope Partnership 828 Dennis O'Neil AFSCME 829 5. 6 Christopher Wigren CT Trust 6363 / 6. 7 John Ivers Self 6363 /7. 8 Stacey Zimmerman SEIU 828 el Besaftie Wilson Self 828 .A*- pomftVMf^u-g- 10 Diana O'Donohue NECCA 6363 13 Amy Paterson Public Land Trust 828 14 George McGoldric Meriden 6363 15 Jennifer Zito CCOLA 6363 17 Kathy Sanner UCPEA 829 Anita Mielert CT Preservation 828 Action 19 Jim Vigue CEUI 829 Jennifer McTh'ernan City Seed 828 21 Barbara Koren Mercury Fuel 6363 18. 23 Cheri Quickmire Common Cause 6363AA vl 19 25 Mike Daly Self 6363 u/20: 26 David Leff CT Forest and Park 6363 27 Gordon Gibson CT State Grange 828 007212 Page <2- of 22 29 Melissa Spear CT Land 828 , Conservation Council 23 30 Christine Horrigan League of Women 6363 Voters 24 31 Peggy Brennan Economic 6363 Development / Corporation of Meriden 32 Pat Kooney Self 6363 x/ 2i 5 33 Jfff Martin Working Lands 828 Alliance 36 Steve Rief CT State Police 6363 J Union .28 37 Mike Winkler ANR 829 p 29 38 J$EF Muthersbaugh CT Trust 828 30 39 Jack Shannahan CT Preservation 828 Action 41 Marcella Hylahd LISC 828 31 / ,32 44 James Bookwalter CT Correctional 6363 Ombudsman 33 47 John Simone CT Main Street 828 34 48 Charlie Thompson Self 6363 / 35, 49 Jeff Freiser and Pat CT Housing 828 / Spring Coalition ' 36, 51 Mike Martone Cumberland Farms 6363 • 37, 55 Kevin Pimenthal Xtramart 6363 56 James Turcotte Sup. Asst. Sate 6363 Atty. 39 58 - Michael Collins CT State Police 6363 / Union /40, 59 Eric Trotter CT State Police 6363 Union 007213 hr CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKER REGISTRATION COMMITTEE: f^ppVO^Vl GL^I (SV^S ROOM NO.: DATE: TIME: PLEASE PRINT NAME SPEAKER REGISTERED BY REPRESENTING BELL #/SUB.IECT 4l£ ^42. II hJL 'JA m3\|A\w A 44..P>ftU (Louv|C,7 V AF 60. 1 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. CHAIRMEN: Senator Harp Representative Geragosian VICE CHAIRMEN: Senator Hartley- Representative Roldan MEMBERS PRESENT: SENATORS: Debicella, Duff, Frantz, Handley, Harris, Kane, Prague, Slossberg REPRESENTATIVES: Caligiuri, Camillo, Candelaria, Clemons, Dillon, Esty, Fawcett, Fleischmann, Genga, Gonzalez, Hamm, Hetherington, Hewett, Hwang, Lewis, McCrory, Miller, Miner, Nafis, O'Neill, Orange, Rebimba, Reynolds, Ritter, Roy, Ryan, Santiago, Sawyer, Slossberg, Stripp, Thompson, Urban, Villano, Walker, Holder- Winfield, Wood SENATOR HARP: And we're going to be hearing four bills. And our first speaker this afternoon is secretary Robert L. Genuario. Good afternoon and welcome, sir. ROBERT GENUARIO: Nice to see everybody today. I notice a couple of weary-eyed legislators that I think is consistent with the time of year. So I'll do my best, though there are no warranties of trying not to put you to sleep. For the record, my name is Robert Genuario. I am the Secretary of the State of Connecticut, Office of Policy and Management. And I'm pleased Senators Harp and Debicella, and Representatives Geragosian and Miner, and members of the Appropriations Committee to be here today to speak about four bills, three 2 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. bills and one resolution that has been introduced by the Governor: Senate Bill 828, Senate Bill 829, House Bill 6363 and House Joint Resolution 45, which all, obviously, deal with the Governor's budgetary proposals. You have written testimony from me on each of these bills. And I will not read those bills. But I'11 give you a general overview of what each one is about and then take questions, if that's acceptable to the committee. Senate Bill 828 is the bill concerning state revenue. And it contains a number of provisions. A large component of that bill is the Governor's proposal to redirect funds from off-budget funds into the General Fund. And I want to talk, generally, about the concept. All of those funds contain taxpayer, or other public funds. And, obviously, they are funds in which their expenditures are made each and every year. And I dare say that those expenditures are made with probably less scrutiny than the expenditures that are made each and every year out of the General Fund, or the Transportation Fund. They are important expenditures. They are expenditures that at one time or another -- in some cases many years ago -- had been authorized by law. And they exist. But they tend not to be scrutinized as much. When we looked over those funds, as I'm sure you are doing now, we looked over them from two components, two points of view. One was: Was there more money going into the fund than was needed to carry out the mission of the fund? And if we felt there was more money going into the fund than was needed to carry out the mission fund, we recommended transferring 3 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. those excess funds into the General Fund to subsidize other important state expenditures. Another thing we looked at, acknowledging that in some cases the funds that -- the amount of money going into a fund was being expended each and every year. We looked at the possibility of reducing expenditures that the fund supported, just like we looked at the possibility of reducing expenditures in the General Fund. We felt, in the particular fiscal climate that we were in, we could not safeguard, or leave without analysis, expenditures that were being made out of other funds. So in some cases we transferred monies from an off-budget fund to a General Fund knowing full well that it would result in a reduction of state expenditures, perhaps problematic decreases, but that was consistent with what we had been doing, and what I know that you are struggling with, as we speak, with regard to the General Fund and the Transportation Funds. In other words, our views were that off-budget funds could not be exempt from the analysis that we put forth with regard to the General Fund and the Transportation Fund. And that is the result of our proposals. Now, a couple of high-profile examples: Some of our transfers include the Clean Elections Fund. While I am aware that the agency does not agree with us, we think there are excess funds, more than necessary to complete the mission of the State Election's Enforcement Commission and the public financing of the campaign, something that the Governor was an advocate for and integral in the institution of. But we've made certain assumptions, as you will, assumptions on what are the likely 4 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. numbers of elections and primaries and candidates. And I think our assumptions are quite reasonable. We believe there are excess funds there. There are other areas, the Tobacco Trust Fund, where we have recommended transfers of dollars for years; only the interest in the fund was allowed to be expended. Last year, as a result of gubernatorial initiative adopted by the legislature, we allowed the trustees of the fund to expend more for the first time ever. Obviously, we're now in a year where that is not possible. So we've looked at those funds, a variety of other funds. And I won't detail them all. I'm sure many of you will have questions about some and I will address them as the --as the questions arise. In addition, there were certain other revenue items contained in that bill. We have recommended transferring 20 million - an additional $20 million of gross receipts money from the General Fund to the Transportation Fund in this biennium and $30 million in the out years. The reason for that is because fund expenses in the Transportation Fund are increasing. We have suggested the elimination of the sales tax free week. A further postponement of the singles -- the increase in the single's exemption on the income tax, and the capping of the film credit -- the film tax credit cap of $30 million a year. There are a variety of detailed proposals contained in that bill. And at the risk of -- or at the desire to save time and direct attention where you want it directed, I'll let you ask questions and I will respond accordingly. 5 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. The second bill, which is Senate Bill 829, deals with personnel matters. And we have suggested a number of changes to our personnel laws. The Governor has suggested in this bill, an elimination of the statutory- longevity pay for new employees. Any existing State employees would be grandfathered in and would continue to receive the benefit of the statutory longevity payments, but new employees would not receive the benefit of the longevity payments. This is a long-term savings. Longevity payments were adopted before the onset of binding arbitration, and we don't see any reason to continue that statutory practice. We are suggesting a limitation of employee health care coverage for employees that work 20 hours a week or more. The Governor is also proposing that legislative action be required on binding arbitration awards. We see this as a good government proposal. It's been talked about for many years. It would result in, I think, a more transparent system where the public would know who was supportive of certain awards and who was not. The proposal also suggests a limitation on the issues that would be subject to binding arbitration. Many of you are familiar with binding arbitration as a concept and the components that come before you. Binding arbitration for those who deal with it on a day-to-day basis is a process that has a variety of ramifications. The Governor suggests and believes that arbitration is appropriate for wages, salaries, health care benefits and pension funds - pension proposals; the base compensation issues that 6 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. the State, as employer, and labor need to deal with on behalf of their members. We don't believe that an unelected arbitrator ought to be deciding issues that are particularly within the traditional scope of management rights, whether they be things as simple as: transfers of employees, change in duties of employees, things that include things as simple as meal money and compensation for meals. That can be done statutorily through elected representatives. It can be done as a result of bargaining between the state and the union. It does not need to be the subject of binding arbitration. The third bill, House Bill 6363, contains a number of other of the Governor's proposals that are consistent with the budget that she proposed to you on February 4th. To name just a couple of the items that are included in there, maybe some of the higher profile items that would include the implementation of the 45-day re-entry furlough program in the Department of Corrections. It would contain the redistricting of several judicial districts of accommodate the closing of some courthouses. It contains the -- a requirement that there be a limit on administrative expenses expended out of the Soldiers, Sailors and Marine Fund. It contains an increase in the amount municipalities would pay for resident state troopers and a variety of other issues. And, again, I will -- I will refrain from detailing each and every section of that bill. It is listed in my testimony, as well as my written testimony. And I think you might -- you might prefer to get to a question and answer and a dialogue, rather then a 007220 7 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. recitation of what is in the bill and the summaries of the bills. So with that, Chairman Harp and Chairman Geragosian, I will conclude my opening remarks. And 11d be happy to take any questions. SENATOR HARP: Thank you very much. Are there questions? Yes, Representative Walker. REP. WALKER: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Good afternoon, sir. ROBERT GENUARIO: Good afternoon, Representative Walker. Nice to see you. REP. WALKER: I'm going to start with the first am question I have: In your funds transfer in the General Fund, you have down there Charter Oak Health, 3.7 million. Where does that come from, sir? ROBERT GENUARIO: That is initially -- Charter Oak Health, that was a transfer -- I think that was done, actually, in the first Mitigation Package, and it came from the Tobacco Health and Trust Fund. REP. WALKER: From what I've been told by several of the Department of Social Service staff, that our numbers are starting to go up. I think we're up to 7,100. So does this interfere with this? ROBERT GENUARIO: We don't believe so. We think the program is successful. It's obviously a very high priority of the Governor. It was her initiative adopted by the General Assembly. It is something that is near and dear to her heart. And she would have not 8 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. proposed this if she felt it would leave the state budget with insufficient resources to accommodate expected growth in the program. We do expect growth, but perhaps not as much as originally predicted. REP. WALKER: Is this -- was this money because of the fact that it took such a long time to startup? Is that part of the reason why? Because I know we questioned the 20 million when it first started. And we went over those numbers. And we were assured that that 20 million was going to be utilized. And as we went through it, we questioned it on an ongoing basis, I think, several times over the fall. And we were assured. So I'm very concerned, if we have been told all along that that money was going to be utilized, how that money is still available now. ROBERT GENUARIO: Well, Representative Walker, it is a new program. REP. WALKER: Yes. ROBERT GENUARIO: And while projects each and every year for ongoing programs are difficult, they are particularly difficult with new programs. There's no track record to justify it. We made reasonable estimates. The Office of Fiscal Analysis made reasonable efforts -- estimates. We came to an agreement on what we thought. The transfer here is limited, I believe, to this year's funding. And it comes from Tobacco and Trust Fund. The program is -- we are getting increasing -- increasing participation in the program. We will need to expand the program. The Governor's budget does accommodate an expansion of the program, both in fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2001. 9 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. This transfer is limited to the current fiscal year. REP. WALKER: So it -- the expectation is that the funding that you have before us in this bill will not affect services. These are funds that have been -- not lapsed, but funds that are sitting there that can be drawn down without affecting any services whatsoever? ROBERT GENUARIO: That's correct. I assure you that this is a program that the Governor -- is of the highest importance to the Governor. And if I were to recommend the reduction of funds for this program and it turned out to be an inappropriate reduction, I think I might be called into the office for a chat. REP. WALKER: As far as the rest of the items that are on the funds transfer in the General Fund, all of those items on here will not effect services? ROBERT GENUARIO: No. No. That is -- that is not - - REP. WALKER: -- the case. ROBERT GENUARIO: -- correct. As I indicated in my opening remarks, there are some funds where we think more money is going into the fund, or is sitting in the fund than is necessary to continue with the services at the level they are today. There are other recommendations where, clearly, it will result in a reduction of expenditures and perhaps a reduction of services for the programs that that fund supports, "just as if we made a change in the General Fund, it would result in a reduction of services with that fund. All we are saying is that the services that are contained in the 10 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. Special Funds can't be held sacrosanct while we look at cuts to services that are funded in the General Fund. So some of these proposals would result in reduction of services. REP. WALKER: Services. When we were going over the last week -- we've been going over in Appropriations the nonlapsed funds accounts. And one of the things that was very concerning to us is the fact that we found bond funds that have been sitting in accounts since 1987 that had not been expended. And I was just wondering if you have any comments on that because the concern is that we are paying for those accounts and the money is sitting in the account and not being utilized. ROBERT GENUARIO: Periodically, the Treasurer's office will notify us that there is a stagnant bond account. And when there is a stagnant bond account, under certain circumstances -- and they are limited circumstances, they deal with bond covenants and IRS regulations -- under certain circumstances -- and they are rare -- some of those funds can be taken and used for other purposes. They are rare situations. We work with the Treasurer's Office. It requires Bond Commission approval. And I think it was 2 007 there was such a situation and the Bond Commission approved the transfer of $3 million of stagnant bond funds utilized for the reduction of debt. We transferred that for the reduction of debt. There are occasions when that can be done. I would caution you that they are limited. REP. WALKER: But we do monitor that on a daily -- at least a semiannual basis? ROBERT GENUARIO: We do. The Treasurer's Office -- 11 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. REP. WALKER: Because -- ROBERT GENUARIO: -- looks at it on a regular basis, I believe. REP. WALKER: -- debt is one of our biggest problems. ROBERT GENUARIO: Oh, I'm aware of that Representative. REP. WALKER: Thank you, sir. SENATOR HARP: Thank you very much. Are there questions? Senator Kane. SENATOR KANE: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Secretary. ROBERT GENUARIO: Senator, nice to see you. SENATOR KANE: Nice to see you. To me, I think government has to provide four basic principles, which is education, infrastructure, public health and public safety. My concern is in Bill 6363, and more specifically, to the cuts to the Resident State Trooper Program. Probably half of my towns, if not more, take advantage -- or I shouldn't say take advantage -- use the Resident Trooper Program. Currently, as you know, they pay 70 percent. They're basically funding the program. And then we, as a State, provide them the other 3 0 percent. I'm concerned about the Governor's proposal to make it 85 and then, ultimately, a hundred, because these small towns are struggling now. And these resident troopers are the first line 12 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. of public safety in these small communities. They don't have the ability to build jails. It's very difficult for them to add police presence. I'm hoping you can at least address that. ROBERT GENUARIO: Sure. I -- I'd be happy to. First of all, we don't see any reduction in services as a result of the Governor's proposal. The State Trooper -- the State Trooper Program will still be available to all municipalities that want to use it and qualify. The question is who is going to pay for the resident trooper? Candidly, we think the Resident Trooper Program is a good deal for the municipalities that choose to use it. It is a good deal because there are a variety of associated costs that local taxpayers would have to pay if they were to develop and implement their own locally funded police costs. By allowing these Resident Trooper Programs to take the place of a locally funded police cost -- locally funded police force, we actually save municipalities money. And I believe that even under the Governor's proposal, where they will be paying initially 85 percent and then a hundred percent of the resident troopers, there are still a variety of ancillary costs that they will not have to incur that they would have to incur if they were required to have their own police force; infrastructure costs associated with a trooper program that the State will still bear. So the State will still be bearing the -- the -- a portion of the subsidy if you consider all of the associated cost with developing a trooper and the like. And the long-term cost of having the State Trooper Program, all of those costs are still saved by the municipalities. 13 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. I'd add two other things, the issue, really, isn't the municipality, local taxpayers who have locally funded police forces, those local taxpayers pay that. They pay that every year through their property taxpayers. Municipalities that are small enough that they can take advantage of the Resident State Trooper Program don't have to pay that. And that is a savings to their taxpayers. And the taxpayers, if you will -- and I'm not saying it's a large amount of money -- but the taxpayers who are paying both local property taxes where there is a police force and then other state taxes are essentially paying for a portion of the trooper for those municipalities who don't have to pay for it through their property tax. The last thing I will say is that I do -- this is to a small extent, and to a very small extent, a slight shift of burden to a municipality that currently doesn't have the burden of running its own police force. But I think that if you look at the Governor's budget as a whole for both large cities and small towns, it was pretty fair to municipalities. And most small town first selectmen and large city mayors have agreed on that. So on whole, we tried to be fair to municipalities. We think this is a fair' proposal. Others may disagree. SENATOR KANE: Well, one can argue -- and I think our Selectmen will argue -- ROBERT GENUARIO: I'm sure they will. 14 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. SENATOR KANE: -- that the towns are funding the program, not the State, because the towns are paying 70 percent of it. So in reality, I think they would argue the reverse, not that the -- you know, they're picking up the burden; but they're funding a program of the State of Connecticut. I wonder if we go down this road that -- because I've already heard from a number of my selectmen -- that they're going to drop the program. And if they drop the program, that's going to cost the State more money because in my area -- for example, let's say Troop L in Litchfield -- means more officers, more cars, more extra duty for them, more coverage that they have to expand upon. So I don't know if it's really a savings, but a -- possibly cost prohibitive because it may go up. Is there any analysis on that? ROBERT GENUARIO: Well, it's certainly possible that municipalities will elect not to take advantage of the program. And that would be their election. And that would be fine. We think that if that were to occur -- first of all, we don't think that will occur. Like you, we'll await the testimony that comes after me. But we don't see an increased cost to the State if that occurs. If the towns do not want to take advantage of the program, we'll adjust our expenditures accordingly. SENATOR KANE: You know, the small towns, they don't have the commercial development. They don't have the big industry. You know, they keep going back to the residential taxpayer for more, more and more. And I don't see how we can do that. So, you know -- and I thank you for your answers. I appreciate that. But 15 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. I think at the same time, it's pretty- disheartening for me because, as I said, public safety is one of the four major things I think a government has to provide. ROBERT GENUARIO: We agree. And, clearly, this is not in any way, shape, or form indicate a lack of support for public safety programs. As you, the Governor believes that public safety is one of the prime fore functions of state government. And we just need, collectively, to work out what the best way to pay for it is, in this particular venue. SENTOR KANE: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. SENATOR HARP: Thank you. Senator Debicella followed by Senator Prague. SENATOR DEBICELLA: Thank you Madam Chairman. And Mr. Secretary, thanks for coming out today. ROBERT GENUARIO: My pleasure. Nice to see you, Senator. SENATOR DEBICELLA: It's good to see you, as well. I'd like to ask you some questions on House Joint Resolution 45, which strikes me as a game changing type of idea, not something that is going to help us in our current budget negotiations, but something that's going to help the "us of the future." You know, in looking at the numbers behind this idea -- and I'm looking specifically in your testimony on page -- where you have a couple of graphs. It seems to me that from -- since the last time we had a deficit back in '03, we've had -- if I'm doing my math right - - about $3.7 billion worth of cumulative surplus. And of that, $2 billion of that has 16 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. not gone towards budget reserve and debt avoidance. You have it here as, All Other. Does All Other -- does that mean we spent it? Did we spend all that $2,026.4 billion? Or is there something else in there besides spending when you say, All Other? ROBERT GENUARIO: I would say that's what it means. SENATOR DEBICELLA: So if we had taken -- the bill that the Governor has here, would say at least 70 percent of that would be deposited in the Rainy Day Fund. We would literally have -- and, again, I'm not going to get my math precisely right -- but another $1.3 billion on top of the $1.3 billion we currently have in the Rainy Day Fund to deal with the deficit that we're facing. My math might be a little off. ROBERT GENUARIO: Your math might not -- might be pretty close to correct. The Rainy -- under current law -- not the proposal before you, which we're supportive of -- under current law that money would have gone into the Budget Reserve Fund up to the cap of the Budget Reserve Fund, which would have been about 1.8. So 'we have about another 500 million in the Budget Reserve Fund where it was capped. The balance of the money, under this proposal, would go to debt avoidance. And as we've already recognized in this colloquy, debt -- and debt serves as a significant part of the budget that we would like to get under control. SENATOR DEBICELLA: I appreciate that. I just -- you brought up the proposal to lift the cap on the Rainy Day Fund from 10 to 15 percent. I actually see this as a companion piece to it. 007230 17 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. So I think, as we're, obviously haggling over the minutia of the current biennium budget, this is a pretty big sweeping idea that will not only stop us from using one-time revenue from funding ongoing expenses -- thus creating some of the very problem we're in today -- but it's also going to prepare us better for the next time this happens, because economic cycles being what they are -- you know, whether it's five years or ten years from now -- we're going to have a deficit again. ROBERT GENUARIO: I -- I concur with your analysis of economic cycles. I think that's correct. I think the Budget Reserve Fund is an important tool. And I would see this as a long-term reform to make it a better tool. SENATOR DEBICELLA: I agree with you. I think it's something that --my hope is that we can get behind this in a bipartisan way, because I think the comptroller was here testifying on behalf of the raising of the cap on this. I think this is a commonsense idea that we can get behind for the future. So thank you for it. SENATOR HARP: Thank you very much. Senator Prague. SENATOR PRAGUE: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. Secretary. ROBERT GENUARIO: Nice to see you, Senator. It's been a little while. SENATOR PRAGUE: It has been a while. There is an item in your fund transfers that, you know, number 28, Farmland, Affordable Housing, Historic Preservation. It's my understanding that the money that goes into that comes from 18 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. a $30 fee that people pay at town halls, you know, when they go in for documents. ROBERT GENUARIO: You are correct. SENATOR PRAGUE: I have a huge problem with taking that much money, even though we have -- the farmland issue is a critical issue for us. And if we don't have farmland preservation and begin to protect the areas where we grow our food and have our dairies, we're going to have big problems. I would ask you to take a second look at that, simply because once the farmland is gone. And we don't buy any more farmland; we're not going to back it again. It's not something that's replaceable. ROBERT GENUARIO: I think -- I think the point's well taken. And we considered this very seriously, as did the Governor. I would point out a couple of things, particularly with regard to farmland preservation. The Governor has been a huge supporter of farmland preservation. She has -- there are -- there is a new bill -- a relatively new bill that requires -- it's a statute that passed a session or two ago that requires the Governor to place on the Bond Commission agenda, twice a year, amounts for -- specifically targeted for farmland preservation. I think it equates -- memory serves me -- I think it's $10 million a year. In addition, prior to the enactment of that bill, one of the most frequently item -- one of the most frequently placed items on the Bond Commission agenda, at the Governor's directing, were dollars for farmland preservation. So we share your concern about it. 19 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. The problem we have this year, Senator -- and it's no surprise, we are balancing the need for a lot of good things -- while we all agree that farmland preservation is an important program, we also need to preserve as many resources as possible for: health care for the elderly, health care for children, early childhood education, transportation enhancements, name your program. We did see that for farmland preservation, there were other vehicles in which we could continue the gains that we have made in recent years in this area. But your concern about the importance of this effort is -- is certainly not lost on us. And it is part of the balancing that we did and part of the balancing that you're going to have to do. SENATOR PRAGUE: Some things are more painful than others. ROBERT GENUARIO: Yes, they are. SENATOR PRAGUE: Anyhow, thank you. ROBERT GENUARIO: Thank you, Senator. I appreciate it. SENATOR HARP: Thank you. Representative Lewis. REP. LEWIS: Thank you, Madam Chair. And good afternoon, Mr. Secretary. ROBERT GENUARIO: Representative Lewis, nice to see you. REP. LEWIS: I, too, am very concerned about the Community Investment Act. I remember working in the wee hours of the morning to get this 20 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. passed. And I'm very concerned, in my area, about farmland preservation. And I truthfully think we need every dollar that we can get, because once that land is gone; it's gone. I also think that this act is a little bit of our own stimulus act, because through historic preservation and through affordable housing, we are providing jobs. And I -- I really am, you know, very much opposed to taking this money. And I understand that, you know, we are in very difficult times. And we have to make some difficult decisions. But I just wanted to voice my concern with regard to this particular fund. ROBERT GENUARIO: I appreciate that concern. It was a difficult decision. And there's going to be many difficult decisions over the course of the next several months. REP. LEWIS: Thank you. SENATOR HARP: Thank you very much. Are there further questions of Secretary Genuario? If not, thank you very much, sir. ROBERT GENUARIO: Nice to see you. SENATOR HARP: Have a lovely afternoon. ROBERT GENUARIO: I look forward to seeing much more of you in the coming year. SENATOR HARP: Yes, and I do too. ROBERT GENUARIO: That didn't sound so enthusiastic, Senator. 21 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. SENATOR HARP: Take care. Our next speaker is Commissioner Theresa Lantz. Good afternoon, Commissioner. THERESA LANTZ: How's that? Is this on now? Okay. Good afternoon, Senator Harp and Representative Geragosian and members of the Appropriations Committee. I am Commissioner Theresa Lantz of the Department of Correction. I'm pleased to appear before you this afternoon in support of Governor Rell's initiative. In Section 11 of House Bill 6363, the department supports this Section 11, which would reinstate my discretion to place qualified inmates on furlough, with up to 45 days of community supervision, a key period of transition back to the community through the restoration of language that would allow furloughs to be granted for any compelling reason consistent with rehabilitation. Prior to its elimination last year with the enactment of Public Act 08-01, and prior to the enhancements of Community Supervision Strategies implemented in the past year, the 3 0-day furlough program had a 97 percent successful completion rate, which is one of the most successful discretionary programs that we have in the criminal justice system. In addition to improving the reentry process, this option also reduces the incarcerated population and, therefore, reduces the State's costs. In fiscal year 2007, which was the last year, full year, that we had -- I had the ability to do reentry furlough for 3 0 days, just over 3,300 offenders were released. The loss of this option effectively: added 274 inmates to 22 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. our every day standing population, extended the incarceration of inmates who might otherwise have qualified to end their sentence with some type of community supervision, rather than just go to end of sentence with no supervision. In the recent Mitigation Bill, I was required to submit to the co-chairs and judiciary committee, a proposal that would, in effect, give two things. Number one, dealt with the reentry furloughs. And the second thing also dealt with the opportunity to look at earned credit. And so I hope to have that -- I will have that. And I hope to -- I will have that to those co-chairs by April 1st, which is next week. And that's it. I just want to thank you for the opportunity to reinforce this important section. SENATOR HARP: Thank you very much. I don't know if there are questions. Does the committee have questions of Commissioner Lantz? Senator Debicella. SENATOR DEBICELLA: Thank you, Commissioner. Just one question is: In your testimony, you know, just wondering what the -- when you say successful completion rate, 97 percent successful complete rate, what does that mean? Does that mean 3 percent -- THERESA LANTZ: -- were brought back because they did not meet the requirements of them under the reentry furlough. SENATOR DEBICELLA: Which is, typically that under the current law, that they have a job or a job interview. Is that correct? 23 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. THERESA LANTZ: Yeah. The reentry furlough is part of the original statute that had it was that you could do up to 3 0 days, a furlough, for rehabilitative purposes. And that was the part of the statute that I did my reentry furlough f rom. And 97 percent means that I put them out under this type of a supervision model and 97 percent of them completed that 3 0 days without incidents, or without having to come back. SENATOR DEBICELLA: I'm just making clear in my mind, this incident is a violation of the law? THERESA LANTZ: Supervision. SENATOR DEBICELLA: A violation of supervision. THERESA LANTZ: Or it could be a violation of a law. SENATOR DEBICELLA: Got it. THERESA LANTZ: But it -- it was that they were remanded back to custody either for a new charge or technical violation. SENATOR DEBICELLA: Great. Thank you, Commissioner. And thank you, Madam Chairman. SENATOR HARP: Thank you very much. Are there further questions? If not, thank you so much. THERESA LANTZ: Thank you very much. SENATOR HARP: Our next speaker is First Selectman Jeffrey Hamel. Okay. Our next speaker is First Selectman Barbara Henry. Good afternoon. 24 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. BARBARA HENRY: Good afternoon. Thank you, Senator Harp, Representative Geragosian and members of the committee. I have to tell you, I've been to speak before the legislature before. This is the biggest crowd I'm seen in front of me, so I thank you. I am First Selectman, Barbara Henry, Town of Roxbury, as well as vice-president of COST, the Connecticut Council of Small Towns. And I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. I've submitted separate testimony under COST for you to read. In both of these capacities, I'm here to speak in strong opposition to H.B. 6363, which would, among other things, implement the Governor's budget recommendation, which proposes higher local cost for the Resident State Trooper Program. Eighty-five percent in fiscal '09-'10 and a hundred percent in fiscal year 2011. Roxbury has a population of less than 2,400 people. We are so small that you cannot even buy a pound of hamburger meat there. And I'm only telling you this because I want to emphasize, like so many towns that are members of COST, we are predominantly a residential tax base. When you transfer the State's financial crisis to the local level, the tax shift is one that we, already overburdened property taxpayers, can't handle. If we didn't have to shoulder many unfounded mandates of the past, we might be able to. But this is just shifting the cost of the program from one budget to another budget. And there's only one thing left to do when it falls to the municipal budget and that is for us to say, no. 25 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. The costs for salary and overhead for one resident trooper in our town is a little over $142,000. That's more than double my salary and overhead. And I work an average of 60 hours a week. Seventy percent of the 142,000 plus equals $99,584 that the town of Roxbury pays. With the proposed increase to 85 percent, that will expand to $120,923 and a $21,000 increase. And that's not with the overtime figured in. I don't get paid overtime. And I don't think you do either. When I look at all the operating lines in my proposed budget, which the Selectmen - have worked very hard to see either: decrease, stay level, or a very small increase. The line for the state police jumps out with a whopping 23 percent increase. In two years, that will be a minimum of a 43 percent increase. And that1s not figuring any contractual increases for overtime or overtime. It also doesn't cover the computer we purchased -- so that the NexGen program can run in the office -- the cellphone, electric heat, office space and supplies or Internet service. I'm not going to even add those figures in. But what's particularly hard about this -- the troopers that are getting -- they are getting contractual salary increases. They have a stipend for housing, which I question. But it is also known as resident trooper stipend of $100 a month. The teachers are getting salary increases, too. But in our town, no employee is getting a salary increase. And, in fact, after discussions with our public works group, who is union, they have agreed to forego their contractual 3 percent increase this year, because they see that some of their fellow 26 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. town employees have already been cut hours. And they are not going to getting increases in July. And I commend them for this. That's what small towns are all about. So with the town pulling back in the other areas, this proposal is moving the resident trooper program, in our town, closer to the chopping block. Senator Kane was correct. We have been a resident trooper town for many years. It's not something I would be in favor of doing, but I've already had to make some tough choices. This will become a public safety issue that I am very concerned about. And it will shift the entire cost of the trooper back to the State, which you should be very concerned about. And in reality, our trooper will probably still patrol our town through the troop, funded 100 percent by the State. Phasing out state aid for the trooper program is not a good idea. It's an invaluable public safety assets, which already costs us a small fortune, at the present 70 percent. And I'll note -- I have to -- that even paying 7 0 percent of the cost, there is really very limited real authority over the trooper. While this program is a good deal for the towns, like the Secretary said, it is also a good deal for the State. And it goes a long way towards being a benefit for the person who is in the job. As I understand it, if we lose our resident trooper, by law, we also lose our town constable. We have one. And we're not ready to lose him, or our resident trooper. But, as it stands now, if we decide to keep the program, there will be no extra money budgeted for overtime for our trooper. Over the years we have endeavored to provide 27 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. additional funds for overtime because this is what our residents wanted. They wanted more exposure. They wanted more traffic control and more enforcement by the resident trooper. That is not going to happen. On the subject of overtime, perhaps there should be a change in what is allowed, as far as exchanging a day scheduled to work for the town for a day working overtime through the troop. Possible savings could be realized there, if it were looked into. I may be very wrong on this, but I think it should be looked into. I've inquired about the opportunity of sharing a resident trooper with a surrounding small town; namely, Bridgewater, which we border. And I was told that it has not been done, and it can't be considered until there is a budget. If the State wants to do something to save money, perhaps business as usual should be looked at. I haven't heard of any cutbacks in hours or jobs of state employees. Like the municipal governments and the private sector, the State needs to feel the pinch too, in this area. It's very difficult to rationalize the burden of the economic effect being largely felt by just the private sector. Our building department, for example, is down nearly 80 percent in revenue this year. We cannot honestly justify keeping employees' hours at previous years levels and so adjustments have already been made to the two jobs that run that department by reducing work hours. We're not talking layers of bureaucracy here. 28 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. The Resident State Trooper Program has been an important program in many of the member COST towns. We've come to depend on it. I can tell you, though, that several will have no choice but to do without the program in the future, if this proposal goes through. We know that we will be served by the troop. And we know that the response times will not be as good as they are now. Clearly, this proposal will directly jeopardize the public safety of our citizens and businesses. Therefore, I implore you to vote against this proposal. Keep the Resident Trooper Program funded at its present level. The towns need the program. And the State needs the money. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak here today. SENATOR HARP: Thank you very much. Are there questions? Yes, Representative Orange and then Senator Kane. Representative Orange. REP. ORANGE: Thank you, Senator Harp. Good afternoon to you. BARBARA HENRY: Good afternoon. REP. ORANGE: I appreciate that you took the time to come in and testify on behalf of the Resident Trooper Program. Although I'm from eastern Connecticut, I represent towns that use the Resident State Trooper Program. And I am 100 percent with you on this. And I just wanted you to know that I have advocated on your behalf. What happens in the end, we'll find out. But I appreciate the Resident Trooper Program. What it does -- I was a member of the police commission in the Town of Colchester. And, you know, really had a hands-on with the Resident Trooper Program in that respect, as well. And it's a great 29 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. program. And I know that the towns are not going to be able to afford the increases at this particular time in the municipal season. And I hope that, you know, it will continue. It's a great program. And I know that a lot of the towns are just not going to have police departments and will lose their police officers, as well, because the towns are just too small to be able to afford their own police department. BARBARA HENRY: That's right. REP. ORANGE: So, you know, it's going to be a heavy reliance on the state police in a way that I don't think they've seen a long time. BARBARA HENRY: You're right. And thank you very much for your support. SENATOR HARP: Thank you. Senator Kane. SENATOR KANE: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Barbara. BARBARA HENRY: And, Senator. SENATOR KANE: I know that you have 2,400 residents in Roxbury. And, in fact, my legislative aide said Denis Leary is one of them. BARBARA HENRY: That's right. SENATOR KANE: And I also know that you're right about the community. It is a lovely community. And I know -- you know, you have the general store, the post office, the bank and then you've left town. BARBARA HENRY: No hamburger meat. 30 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. SENATOR KANE: But, to get back to the seriousness of this issue, you -- so you've spoken to Bridgewater, as well. I know they're not here today, but the First Selectman Stuart and -- pretty much feels the same way. That, you know, we really need to keep funding on this. Correct? BARBARA HENRY: Correct. And -- and he would be here today. He's coming in from a vacation and asked me to speak on his behalf. But I am also speaking up for many towns that belong to COST. And Selectman Hamel was here this morning. He'll be back he said. But it is on the chopping block for the Town of Bethlehem. And that is not the only town that is really considering it, because it is such an enormous increase for us. SENATOR KANE: And I apologize. What was the dollar figure? BARBARA HENRY: We're going to look at a $21,000 increase, which is 23 percent. And it will be almost 50 percent next year -- I'm sorry, the year after. SENATOR KANE: Well, I appreciate your testimony. I know you do a great job in town. BARBARA HENRY: Thank you. SENATOR KANE: And we are doing what we can to support this program. BARBARA HENRY: Thank you. SENATOR KANE: Thank you, Madam Chair. SENATOR HARP: Thank you very much. Representative Miner. 31 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. REP. MINER: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon. As I understand the program, you mentioned that you have limited authority over the resident trooper. BARBARA HENRY: That's right. REP. MINER: How does that discussion work between the State of Connecticut now? I know how it used to work about -- almost ten years ago. But does the barracks retain control over assignment? BARBARA HENRY: Yes, pretty much so. I mean, I have been asked to go because the last two interview processes, I said, I really want to be in on it. You know, I want to have someone here that's going to work for this town. But, you know -- and they have obliged me and been very nice. I have just happened to agree with their choice for our town. But I feel that they really -- they have -- they make the decision on who is going to move into your town. It's worked well for us. It hasn't worked well for all the towns, though. REP. MINER: And with respect to assignments and tasks that are important to Roxbury, are those first on the list? Or are there other opportunities where the troop has to reassign individuals that are currently, kind of a joint employee? BARBARA HENRY: They have not reassigned anyone out of Roxbury. People have retired. There have been promotions. So, yes, I guess. But they have not, if I'm understanding the question correctly. 32 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. REP. MINER: Well, I meant kind of on a day-to-day basis. If -- BARBARA HENRY: Oh, well -- REP. MINER: -- if you decided that the most critical thing for the Town of Roxbury was to do radar on Jump Street. BARBARA HENRY: Right. REP. MINER: And the barracks decided that on that given day they were going to be assigned on a state road. How does that work? BARBARA HENRY: They usually win. But -- and the other thing that is: Well, I'm going to have to go to Meriden for a class, or whatever. Whenever that's scheduled, that's where they're going. REP. MINER: And the last question. I -- BARBARA HENRY: So that's why it is: It's good for the State. The other thing is -- and this has worked well. It benefits us sometimes. Sometimes it benefits the next town. If something is going on in a town where the trooper might have hours that are, you know, five days on, three off, and our trooper is on, when theirs is off and something's going on in that town; they go over there and help out. And that's the way it should be, because we benefit that way, too. REP. MINER: And the last question has to do with the constabulary point that you made. As I understand it, under current law right now, the Town of Roxbury would not be permitted to have a constabulary unless they could show 33 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. that they had their own lockup, own dispatch - BARBARA HENRY: Right. REP. MINER: -- or the Resident Trooper Program. BARBARA HENRY: We've had our town police officer there for over 20 years. And we would not be able to keep him, if we did not have a resident trooper. He knows the town, you know, like no one else. But he could have the opportunity to go and work for another town, an adjoining town, that has a police force. I don't know that -- that wouldn't benefit us, though. REP. MINER: If we were to go in this direction -- and I think the fallout would be, towns would make that choice, whether they would keep their constabulary -- is allowing the municipality to continue with a constabulary and requiring the use of the barracks as the lockup and dispatch point, is that a solution to this issue, or not? BARBARA HENRY: Not for us because we're going to be starting from scratch. And we would have to -- for example, our town constable is part- time. You're talking about full-time. You have to have more than one person. We would have to have another car. We have one car. So you1 re looking at an even more increased cost. REP. MINER: Thank you. Thank you. BARBARA HENRY: And we just wouldn't be able to do that either. REP. MINER: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you. 34 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. BARBARA HENRY: Thank you. SENATOR HARP: Thank you very much. Are there further questions? If not -- yes. Senator Prague has a question. SENATOR PRAGUE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a brief question. I thought you said in your testimony that the resident state trooper gets $100 a month for -- BARBARA HENRY: -- stipend -- SENATOR PRAGUE: -- besides a salary for -- BARBARA HENRY: -- for being the resident trooper. It's actually in the bill. It's called housing. And so I had inquired exactly what was housing. And that I was told that that is what it is. But that's contractual. So we pay 70 percent of that too. SENATOR PRAGUE: So that's part of their contract negotiations? BARBARA HENRY: Right. SENATOR PRAGUE: I'm not clear what that stipend is for. I think I'll ask. BARBARA HENRY: Good. SENATOR PRAGUE: This is most unusual, unless it was for a particular purpose. BARBARA HENRY: I haven't found that out. When you find out, you can let me know. SENATOR PRAGUE: Okay. Well, thank you. BARBARA HENRY: Thank you very much. 00721*8 35 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. SENATOR PRAGUE: Thank you. BARBARA HENRY: Further questions? If not -- yes. They'll be others testifying this Linda, if you don't mind. Representative Orange. REP. ORANGE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to make the comment that I do believe - - and I could be wrong. And we can ask further down the road here as people testify - - that that $100 stipend is basically for -- it's contractual, as we know. But it's basically for becoming a resident state trooper. It's a little boost that somebody actually made resident trooper. That's what I believe that it is. But we can find out down the road. BARBARA HENRY: Okay. Thank you very much. SENATOR HARP: Thank you very much. We have -- are delighted to have the Speaker of the House here. We 1 re going to ask him to come forward for just a moment. Speaker Donovan. CHRISTOPHER DONOVAN: Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I don't think I knocked anybody out of line. I think I was already signed up. So that was good timing. But it's nice to see everybody here working hard on a Friday afternoon trying to do the State's business and work out this budget. But thank you for having the opportunity. There's a number of bills before you, but I'd just like to speak, specifically, on one aspect, which is a more parochial issue, kind of take off my hat as speaker, and as a State Representative, representing the Meriden 36 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. District. There's a proposal to close, actually, the Meriden courthouse, which is a very business courthouse in talking to both judges and attorneys and the city itself. It provides a lot of service in the community. They are packed every day. There's a backlog of cases in the area. And the proposal to move those cases to New Haven or Middletown would just overburden those systems, as well. It's also in our -- smack in our downtown area. And it's certainly a bit of an economic hub for sandwich places and frame places and other things that kind of add to the vitality of our downtown. So it wouldn't be a wise decision, in terms of not only providing judicial assistance to the state as a whole, but also to our community. So in talking to the Chief Justice, she was not aware of the proposal and she admitted that it was a very important courthouse. And so I ask that that be retained in your judgment. Thank you very much. SENATOR HARP: Thank you very much. Are there questions? If not, thank you so much. CHRISTOPHER DONOVAN: Thank you very much. SENATOR HARP: We appreciate your coming forward. Actually, I've got to apologize to everyone. The co-chairs are going to be moving on to another meeting and our vice-chairs are going to take over. And I believe that that will be Representative Roldan and Senator Hartley. So with that, I'm going to turn the hearing over to Representative Roldan. 007250 37 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. REP. ROLDAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. We will continue with the public hearing. Susan Storey, chief public defender is up next. SUSAN STOREY: Good afternoon, Representative Roldan and members of the Appropriations Committee. I'm Susie Storey. I'm the chief public defender for the State of Connecticut. I'm here -- I'm just following the speaker to talk about the same issue that he just spoke about and that is the proposal in the Governor's budget to close the Bristol and Meriden courthouses and then reallocate those cases to other judicial districts. The main concern that I have is that the Governor's budget also proposes, as a result of closing Bristol and Meriden, to reduce the permanent position count of the public defender division, by five permanent positions. This is very worrisome to me, also . for our clients, because it isn't as if the clients from Bristol and Meriden don't exist anymore, they're just reallocated to other courthouses. And the courthouses where these clients would go to also have very heavy caseloads in our offices. And for those of you who will remember, who were here in 1999, as a result of the settlement, the case class action, Revere v. Rowland, the Commission set guidelines for caseloads for public defenders in the G.A. courts at no more than 500 new cases per attorney per year. Now, that caseload is lower than it was, but that caseload goal is also higher than the national average for other indigent defense organizations with a mixed caseload of felonies and misdemeanors. So all these other clients would be reallocated to other offices. And I can 38 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. assure you that Waterbury, the caseloads are already over the caseload goals, I think partially due to the economy. New Britain is near, about 452 new cases per attorney per year. So we really are maxed out. So I would ask you, if you do decide to close these courthouses, that you not reduce our permanent position count, because that will result in ineffective assistance of counsel claims, which may be accurate in that particular instance. The other thing that I want to mention, as far as for our clients, is that transportation -- Connecticut really doesn't have the mass transportation present to have -- to have poor people get from here to there in any -- in any timely way for court. This is already a problem that we've seen in the Danielson area when they moved the courthouse from -- from the center of Willimantic out to Killingly. So when you move courthouses and consolidate them, people -- people who don't have the means or cars, have a very difficult time getting there. And this results in more charges of failure to appear, more re-arrests, higher pretrial incarceration. So I would ask you to consider that. And the other thing that happens is that you have longer continuances, because you have more people added to another courthouse base. So you have longer continuances, cases move more slowly. There was a problem, actually -- and I think judicial has addressed this -- but in many courthouses women were not brought in from York as regularly as men and actually waited longer for their court cases to be heard because they were only coming in, you know, once every two weeks or once every three 39 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. weeks. And that's a problem. I think that judicial has addressed this. But that's a problem that you could see again. And I would really think that that should be avoidable because that's not a just result for anyone. So if anybody has any questions for me I'd be happy to answer them. REP. ROLDAN: Thank you. Do any of the members of the committee have any questions? Seeing none, thank you. SUSAN STOREY: Thank you very much. REP. ROLDAN: Robert Harris from the State Library Board followed by Tom Marsh, First Selectman of Chester. Good afternoon, Mr. Harris ROBERT HARRIS: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm Robert Harris. I'm the vice-chairman of the State Library Board. And I'm pinch-hitting today for Dr. Mollie Keller, who is the Chair of the Board. She had a family matter she had to be dealing with. I'm here to express our concern and, in fact, the opposition that the State Library Board takes concerning a provision in House Bill 6363 specifically repealing Sections ll-23a and ll-23d, which is called for in Section 19 of that bill. Those sections authorize the State Library Board to maintain library service centers in Middlesex and Windham/Tolland county area to serve public libraries and public schools in each area. There's written testimony that's been provided to the committee, so I won't take the -- your time to go through and read all of that. But 40 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. some of the highlights of what these centers do -- and they've been around for 45, 50 years. They provide technology training and professional development for librarians and staff. There were 839 library staff that attended 73 workshops in 2008. And it provides, as we see, a cost saving to libraries when you compare it to sending folks to community college training, for example. There's early literacy and literacy support materials that are made available to libraries, just library resources in general, over 331 libraries of various systems. We're not talking just public libraries, but school libraries, academic libraries; special libraries took advantage of services there. The centers house approximately 150,000 items, if they were closed, a major problem of dealing with what to do with all of that material. As library budgets are stressed, libraries who rely on these resources more than ever. The two service centers, the Middletown Service Center is a state owned facility. It's operating at approximately $50,000 a year. The Willimantic Library Center is in a fairly new leased facility. And the annual operating cost there, including these lease payments if almost $160,000. To conclude, by any measure, the Service Centers provide a good return on the State's investment. The Library Board urges that the authority to operate them not be repealed. And just my own comment: That I think there's an awful lot of benefit here to particularly the local libraries. And if these services are removed, they'll have the choice of either 41 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. having to pay themselves to have their people take advantage of the training or keep trying to obtain new materials, or they will have to forego it for some period of time. Kendall Wiggin, state librarian is here with me. And we'd be happy to try to answer any questions for you right now. REP. ROLDAN: Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Committee members, any questions? REP. ESTY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As one who has been on the library board and used the facilities of the State Library Association, I'd like to thank you for being here today. Can you also tell me what kind of figures are you getting from libraries around the state about usage in these tough economic times? ROBERT HARRIS: Just somewhat anecdotal, but that the usage fees are way up: that more and more people are coming to the libraries. So many of them now offer DVDs and that sort of thing, at no direct cost to the people. The Internet access, I think, is very very popular. I've heard again, anecdotal comments: The libraries' almost becoming like social service centers. And people, who are out there trying to work on resumes, doing things about looking for jobs and all, are coming there for help. So it's very very much increased. REP. ESTY: Thank you. I mean they are anecdotal in my district as well. I've seen dramatic increase. And I was wondering if you were getting reports at the state level. But that was across the board. ROBERT HARRIS: I would say pretty much. I mean I don't have hard figures for you. But it seems to be. 007255 42 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. REP. ESTY: Thank you very much. REP. ROLDAN: Any other questions? Go ahead. REP. THOMPSON: I just want to welcome Mr. Harris back. Where are you when we most need you? ROBERT HARRIS: I was here in 1991. I was there. Yeah, you folks have my sympathy. I used to be the director of the Office of Fiscal Analysis. And I see some familiar faces here. I retired in 2001, and this looks as bad or worse then 1991. And I think it was the third week in August by the time they finally finished. I hope it's sooner for you. REP. THOMPSON: Thank you, Bob. ROBERT HARRIS: Okay. Thank you. REP. ROLDAN: Any other questions? If not, thank you, Mr. Harris. Thank you for your testimony. ROBERT HARRIS: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. REP. ROLDAN: Tom Marsh, First Selectman Marsh. THOMAS MARSH: Good afternoon. REP. ROLDAN: Good afternoon. THOMAS MARSH: Thank you for the opportunity. I've Hft submitted testimony in writing. And I'll not review that. I just would point out that many of the points that have been brought up so far regarding the cost effectiveness of this cut, the impact to small towns, the impact to the reduction of safety in our small communities /A 43 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. is agreed to, not just by me, but as chairman of the Lower Connecticut River Valley Chief- Elected Officials, a group of 17 towns: Richard Cabral, the First Selectman of Killingworth; Tim Griswold, the First Selectman of Old Lyme; Laura Francis, First Selectman of Durham; Richard Smith, First Selectman of Deep River, and Tony Bondi, the First Selectman of Haddam, all share the sentiments of negative impact this plan would cause, not only financially for our towns, but also for the public safety of our residents. Something that I think may bring a little different perspective that can bring home what -- what these numbers may mean, in towns the size of Chester, which is about 4,000, the numbers in our budgets are significantly different than the numbers you generally deal with at the State. There's a lot fewer zeros on our budget than on yours. The impact of this proposal to go from 70 to 85,000 -- 75 to 85 percent in Resident Trooper Program will mean about $20-21,000 to our budget. It may not sound like a lot of money, but we spend about $15,000 a year to mow all the lawns that we have in our community. We spend about $13,000 on library books. Our park and rec director makes $40,000 a year to manage all of those services. We spend $12,000 to sweep our streets. So when we're looking at a $20,000 line item, that's a line item of significance. And it can mean a significant change in the other services that we offer our community. So while $20,000, at the State level, may not be that meaningful. But at the town the size of Chester, we're wrangling over hundreds and thousands as we try to get to our point. 44 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. And I just --we understand how difficult it is at every level. But just intuitively, as has been discussed, the notion that by putting this burden on the towns that we will not be pushing back and more than likely, turning at least some of the resident troopers back to the responsibility of the state; that this just seems like bad government. This is worse service for more money. And at that basic level, we're just hoping, again, at the size of the towns that we are, under 30,000, that you'll give that serious consideration; that the impact that this is going to have will be detrimental to our residents' safety. It will be detrimental to our residents' tax situation. And I think that it's detrimental to the State's budget impact. Thank you. REP. ROLDAN: Thank you very much. Any questions? Senator Prague. SENATOR PRAGUE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm just very curious. One of the CEOs of one of the towns suggested that -- it was $100 a month in stipend paid to the resident state trooper. Is that the same situation in your town? THOMAS MARSH: We do. I believe that that's standard. SENATOR PRAGUE: So this is part of their statewide contract. THOMAS MARSH: Yeah. There's a -- SENATOR PRAGUE: Not for any particular town because of the -- any issue. 45 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. THOMAS MARSH: Not that I' m aware of . I don 11 know if it's for everyone, or we just happen to be one of the ones that are included, but we are. SENATOR PRAGUE: Okay. Do you know what that's for? No> THOMAS MARSH: No. SENATOR PRAGUE: Okay. Well, thank you. THOMAS MARSH: I'm sure it's worthwhile, though. SENATOR PRAGUE: Thank you. REP. ROLDAN: Before you go, any other questions from any other members? Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Mark Walter, First Selectman, East Haddam. MARK WALTER: Thank you very much. I appreciate you giving us the opportunity to speak. Hello Representative Orange. I'll put it in perspective. We're -- land size, we're one of the largest towns in Connecticut. I think it's the fourth largest. We're 56 square miles. But we only have 9,300 residents. The challenge we have is on the government's side of the budget, rounded off around $10 million to run our entire town. The Resident State Trooper Program, full cost for our two resident state troopers -- which I have in the audience, Officer Rhodes and Officer Blanda are here supporting this program -- full cost is a quarter million dollars. Now, we're paying 70 percent of that cost. And we're willing to pay that because it is a fantastic program. And it does work. 46 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. The town employees when faced with this crisis we're in, all three unions, all town employees have agreed -- and I think this is incredible -- to all give up their raises. That saved the Town of East Haddam $75,000. The cuts we had to make on the government side were $570,000 out of a $10 million budget. That's huge. We've already made those cuts. We're barebones now. The Resident State Trooper Program works because they work in conjunction with all the agencies of the State and the local government. They're working with: local prevention council, juvenile review board, youth and family, our local constables, our board of selectmen and MCSAP. We've organized and come together with programs and using state grants. We've actually been able to create what's now called, "the party patrol," with six towns: East Haddam, Haddam, Essex, Chester, Killingworth and Deep River. All the resident state troopers, all those boards that I've mentioned, and the state police, we run a party patrol to break up under-aged drinking and drug use. So that you can calmly end a party, call the parents, have the kids picked- up. It's a fantastic program, but it's because we have a partnership. It's regionalism that the State wants us doing. We're doing it. But it has to be cost effective. If this program goes forward, which would increase my numbers $38,000 this year and $38,000 next year. I think, for $256,000, I can hire my own local police. So you have to be very careful. What would probably happen would be one resident trooper would be eliminated. And I would put in a full-time policeman to work with my part-time 47 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. constables. And I'd still have the Resident State Trooper Program. So that would be a full cost diversion back to the State. So I -- I believe that the regional programs that exist, that's Chatham Health District that we are part of that, works. That's the Resident State Trooper Program. It's Emergency 911. All these programs we agree with and we're doing. And we decide who we work with, and how we make it work for each individual town, which are all different. This program works for small towns. It's not going to work for your large cities that already have full-time policemen. But I already have three police vehicles, a police bicycle, all the vests, all the guns. I have enough to create a police force. But I don't want to. I think the resident state -- Resident State Trooper Program works. And I'd like to continue it. But it works because we're sharing with the State. We also have a K-9 dog. That K-9 dog is pulled off-duty constantly. Every time an elderly person wanders away from a home, somebody robs a bank, somebody is in a domestic disturbance with has to be extracted out of a house that dog is called in. But we're willing to work with the state and share our resident state trooper whenever needed. But if we're paying full cost, those rules go out the window. So I just caution that when you have a regional program that works great, don't mess with it. Thank you. 48 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. REP. ROLDAN: Thank you for your testimony. Any questions from the members of the committee? Representative Orange. REP. ORANGE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you, Mark. MARK WALTER: Likewise, Ma'am. REP. ORANGE: I noticed that you said that you would probably start, or go down to one resident trooper from two so that you would still have somebody in the supervising capacity. MARK WALTER: Correct. REP. ORANGE: Would you ever -- and I don't think you would be able to, actually, create your own police department, because then you'd need a lockup; you'd need a rank system. I mean you need everything. And which is virtually impossible to do for a small town. It's very costly for a small town. And I know that a lot of towns have tried and have had goals towards this. MARK WALTER: Right. REP. ORANGE: But other things always seem to get in the way of doing that. And I know, representing your town, which of course I love your town. MARK WALTER: Thank you. REP. ORANGE: That the Resident Trooper Program does work well with your part-time constables And you've always had great resident troopers down in your town. And we're quite lucky for 49 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. that. And you did say a couple of them were here today? MARK WALTER: Yes, Ma'am. In the audience we have resident state troopers Jeff Rhodes and Steve Blanda. REP. ORANGE: There they are. It seems to me that -- and the other question I wanted to ask you, though, was: If you had to pay 100 percent for the state trooper, you said the rules would be out the window. So you would then contract with the State for full coverage when your resident trooper is in your town to not leave your town. And I know that a lot of these -- the resident troopers either have -- are part of the K-9 unit. Some are part of the dive team. Troopers throughout the State of Connecticut go to work every day with whatever gear, or animal they happen to have with them. And they're on-call at all times in various parts of the State with whatever they have for a specialty. But you're saying that you then would contract differently with the state that that state trooper wouldn't be able to leave your town while employed by your town at 100 percent. Correct? MARK WALTER: The negotiations would certainly be different than they are now. REP. ORANGE: And I, certainly, would agree with that. If the program were to be taken away -- and I think that you've heard me say that I've advocated to keep the program -- if the program were taken away, I would -- if I were a first selectman, I would do the very same thing. MARK WALTER: The other challenge we'd have to seriously look at would be partnering with 50 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. another town that does have a full-time police force, the way Middletown and Portland have done. REP. ORANGE: Right. And it's kind of hard for East Haddam too, because, you know -- and for those of you in the room that don't realize it, East Haddam, you said it was the fourth per square mile, largest in the State. And I always thought it was the second. But nonetheless, in a town that's geographically large with a smaller population, there is only one stoplight in the whole town. MARK WALTER: That's correct. REP. ORANGE: And that is at the swing bridge that takes you over to East -- to Haddam to the other side of the river. And we know that every now and again the bridge -- something happens to the bridge. And it's stuck. And so, therefore, it's difficult to get to the other side of the river to partner with a town on that side of the river. And it would be very difficult to partner with even say Colchester because Colchester is quite large, as well. And you're adding more square miles. And you're adding, basically, a time delay in response just for the amount of time that it takes people to travel. And that's one of the concerns that I've always had for the police officers in these large geographical towns is backing one another up, hoping that, you know, they'll get there in time to be a backup for the trooper, or the constable that's at a scene; that's very difficult. So I certainly agree with you and I'm advocating on your behalf. MARK WALTER: Thank you. 51 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. REP. ROLDAN: Representative Thompson. REP. THOMPSON: Mr. Walter, I would like to go beyond this subject related to small towns. And you mentioned the health district. And I assume that's part of the regional district. We had a reporter in the news the other day that due to the increase in unemployment here in Connecticut, in this crisis, the number of people who have lost their health insurance has doubled. We used to think in terms of 300,000 or so residents"in Connecticut. It's well over 700,000, which multiplies with people limiting their access to health providers. I was wondering if that has hit home in your community. Are you hearing concerns from citizens; for example, who may not be able to pay their taxes because they've got health obligations and so on? MARK WALTER: The health district I referred to, with the Chatham Health District, has to do with the sanitarian health codes of the towns. But back to your related question on health care, it is a huge problem. And I think what the state's not seeing in this crisis at the moment yet -- we normally have one house foreclosure a year. We have 12 on the books right now. And according to a labor attorney that handles all those, he said there's 30 to 40 in the wings. So if that's an indication that the crisis is at the housing level that means people are losing their jobs, and health care is a huge problem. REP. THOMPSON: So that's another part of the overall picture. MARK WALTER: Right. And that's why small towns like ours -- I am not going to raise our mill 007265 52 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. rate. We can't. So that's why I had to cut $570,000 out of the budget. So this budget is already cut to the bone. There is no money anywhere. Then the next thing you have to do is start laying off people. And then the big challenge is we're supporting these large board of ed budgets, which we don't have any say in, on the government side. So it's a real challenge. REP. THOMPSON: Thank you very much. REP. ROLDAN: Just a quick question: What portion of your total -- right here, Representative Roldan -- what portion of your budget is the school system budget? MARK WALTER: Of our -- it's a -- almost $28 million budget. So 17 million of it is board of ed rounded down. And 10 million is the town. So it's, like, 10-10.5 and 27.5. So it's -- it's a much bigger percentage than I'd like it to be. REP. ROLDAN: Thank you. Any other questions for members of the committee? Thank you for testimony. Thank you for your time. MARK WALTER: Thank you. REP. ROLDAN: Kathy Osten. And Jeffrey Hamel stepped out of the room earlier. If you are still around, you will be next. Thank you. KATHY OSTEN: I also am here speaking for the Resident State Trooper Program and not raising it up to 85 percent. My name is Kathy Osten. I'm the First Selectman in the Town of Sprague. 53 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. And I'm just going to cut to the chase, because you've heard from everybody else about the same situation. We are a town of less than 3,000 people. We have 13 square miles in the Town of Sprague, with 26 miles of road. We have no stoplights in our town at all, but we do have one bank, a couple of restaurants. In two villages in town - we have three villages, but two main village areas that we count on the resident trooper to help us out. We've also been fortunate to have very professional resident state troopers there who have had a relationship with our -- our residents. And without that relationship -- we come from a very poor area in the tip of Southeastern to Northeastern, Connecticut -- this is the one positive relationship that many of the children in town have with state troopers or police forces. And we would like to maintain that. We have a budget of 8,800,000. Seventy-five percent of our budget goes to the school. We have cut everything in town. We will also not have a mill rate increase in town. And we just cannot afford a single dime in anywhere in that budget. It is impossible for us to do 85 percent. And without that program, we will not be able to have a police force in town. We don't have a car that we share with anybody. And we do share an office. The state trooper in our town - we pay 70 percent. He is not 100 percent in our town. We share him with the surrounding areas. And we're more than happy to do so. They take on additional duties as resident state troopers. They write grants for the town for DUI enforcement, for seatbelt enforcement. That is the $100 that you're talking about. It is for the additional 54 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. duties that a state -- resident state trooper has. And I think it's well earned. They bring money into town to help pay for some of the overtime costs that we incur as a result of having a state trooper in town. I just think that it's a bad decision by the State to end a form of regionalization that works well for everybody. We also participate in a health district, Uncas Health District. We work well with our COG in regards to planning. I just cannot see us disposing of a regional effort that works so well and is at an advantage for both the state and the municipalities. The resident state trooper is provided an office within our town. And he is not the only-one who gets to use it. Other troopers in the area will stop by. So I don't know if you have any questions in regards to what I've said. REP. ROLDAN: Thank you. Any questions? Representative Candelaria. REP. CANDELARIA: Just a quick question. You said you have more than one resident trooper. KATHY, OSTEN: Yes. REP. CANDELARIA: And you share it with how many other towns? KATHY OSTEN: What I mean by sharing is, is that if anything happens in the surrounding areas, he responds to those areas. In our area, he responds to: Franklin, Lisbon, Jewett City, Griswold. He's been up in Voluntown. So it is not as if the resident trooper parks his vehicle in the town and stays there a hundred percent of his or her time. They -- they are 55 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. able to respond to other areas. And that's the point of it being a regional effort. That -- that's why it's considered a regional effort. REP. CANDELARIA: And one last question. What's your mill rate? KATHY OSTEN: Our mill rate is 25.75. REP. CANDELARIA: Thank you. REP. ROLDAN: Thank you, Representative Candelaria. Representative Orange. REP. ORANGE: It's nice to see you here, Kathy, as the first selectman. KATHY OSTEN: Thank you. REP. ORANGE: I know we've seen you here in other capacities. KATHY OSTEN: Yeah. Thank you. REP. ORANGE: It's really great to see you here as a first selectman this time. And I'm so happy that you, and as well as Selectman Walter, have spoken of the regionalization, which is - - was part of the Governor's big plan to regionalize. And that both of you brought up the fact that this Resident Trooper Program is technically a regional program, as well as a benefit to the particular town that hires the resident trooper, and now pays 70 percent of that cost. And, also, I'm happy that both of you brought up the fact that you already belong to regional dispatch centers -- KATHY OSTEN: Yes. 56 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. REP. ORANGE: -- for your fire and EMS, and that you belong to health districts, because I'm sure that you've read the Governor's budget and the criteria and the money that you would be allotted should you regionalize. And that our towns have had the foresight many many years ago -- our regional dispatch center has to be 20-25 years -- KATHY OSTEN: Yes. REP. ORANGE: -- you know, in service now. And that the towns have thought of these things on their own before this budget came from the Governors desk to do these regional efforts. KATHY OSTEN: Absolutely. REP. ORANGE: So, you know, keep up the good work, Kathy. KATHY OSTEN: Thank you. I always am amazed when people talk regionalization. I know that if the Town of Franklin needs a truck and they don't have one that they need and we do, we share. We have always shared with surrounding towns, resources, both human resources and equipment and machinery. And we will continue to do so. It is just what I call common sense, not necessarily regionalization. If people want to call it regionalization, they may. But we have participated in it for years. REP. ROLDAN: Any other questions? Thank you very much for your time, First Selectman. KATHY OSTEN: Thank you very much. REP. ROLDAN: Jeffrey Hamel, are you in the room? Senator Kane would like to do recommends? 57 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. SENATOR KANE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jeffrey Hamel is the First Selectman in Bethlehem. He's also a Waterbury police officer and had to go back to Waterbury for a court case and will be returning, but is not back yet. Thank you. REP. ROLDAN: All right. Thank you for that, Senator. That brings the elected officials portion of the hearing to a close. And now we move onto the general public. It is quite a lengthy list. I'd ask you -- I will name your name and then I will go onto the next person, so that you're ready to come up to testify. Added to that, please, I'd like to remind the general public that you have a three-minute limit. So at that point, I'll ask you to wrap up your comments and we'll move on. First on the list is Michael Quinn followed by Nancy Ahern. Michael. MICHAEL QUINN: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Michael Quinn. And I am the corporation counsel for the City of Meriden. I'm also an attorney in private practice with the law firm of Mahon, Quinn and Mahon, and the vice-president of the Meriden, Wallingford, Southington, Cheshire Bar Association. I'm here this afternoon to speak to you about the Governor's proposal under House Bill 6363, to close the Meriden superior courthouse. Needless to say, I'm opposed to this closure. But there are a variety of reasons and the different hats that I wear support those reasons. 58 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. First, this will have an extremely negative effect on all of the litigants who use the Meriden Superior Court. Meriden Superior Court is a branch court of the New Haven Superior Court. However, it is both a geographic area court for criminal cases and a full superior court for civil cases. The Governor's proposal would send the criminal litigants to Waterbury, New Haven and Middletown. And I believe there's a similar proposal on the civil litigants. Meriden's courthouse is about the sixth busiest in the state. And by sending our litigants to Waterbury, New Haven and Middletown, which are also amongst the busiest courthouses, in the state, it's creating a further backlog. If anything at this time, we shouldn't be talking about closing courthouses, but rather expanding court services, because it's a system that is already stretched to its maximums. This will have a negative impact on our City. The courthouse was opened in 1989 and sits in the middle of our downtown and is a focal point of our downtown. The courthouse brings in business to our local merchants and also supports many of the other businesses that we have. It also will have an effect on our city's budget. Currently, our Meriden Police Department does not have any additional manpower or transportation costs to transport criminal defendants from the police station to the courthouse. The police station and the courthouse are right next to each other. If the courthouse was closed, and we now had to transport our prisoners elsewhere, that would be an additional cost to the city, in terms of 59 March 27, 2009 007272 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. a purchase of specialized vehicles to handle that transportation, as well as the additional manpower of two to three officers to guard those individuals who are being transported. The Meriden Superior Court, just on the geographic area side, the criminal side, can handle anywhere from 200 to 3 00 cases a day. The other courthouses that are proposed to take on this load are seeing similar, if not higher numbers. So you'd be dividing those numbers amongst some of the busiest courthouses in the state. I understand that we're in a budget crisis situation and that cuts are going to have to be made, but under this set of circumstances, closing the Meriden courthouse is not the decision to make. Thank you. REP. ROLDAN: Thank you. Any questions from the committee? Representative Dillon. REP. DILLON: Good afternoon. Thank you very much for coming. I really appreciate your testimony because I was trying to figure out the relationship between -- I live in New Haven, but for some reason every single time that I've been called to do jury duty, I've been called to Meriden. So that I actually know the Meriden court. I have never done any tour there, as a state legislator, but I've spent a fair amount of time sitting in a room with other people and then going out to lunch with them. So I just wonder -- I'm not clear on the relationship, but it would seem to me that there's a lot of spillover already and you wouldn't really be able to -- I don't think New Haven could absorb that capacity, to be frank, you know. Not that I don't care about 60 March 27, 2009 007273 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. you. I do. But some of our cases, there's some spillover there. Isn't there? MICHAEL QUINN: There absolutely is. If you have a civil cases within the New Haven Judicial District, you have the option, as a civil litigant, of either bringing it in the New Haven court or bringing it in the Meriden court. And for many years after the Meriden court first opened, Meriden was the place to bring your cases because our docket moves much quicker than New Haven. It's now pretty much evened out. And in some respects, it's -- it can be quicker to bring your case in New Haven. So as I pointed out, the proposal would spread Meriden's overloaded workload to three other courts that are also overloaded. And it's New Haven, Waterbury and Middletown. So it just may solve one problem on the dollar side, but create an entirely different set of problems on the speed of the judicial process side. REP. DILLON: Thank you. MICHAEL QUINN: You're welcome. Thank you. SENATOR HARTLEY: Thank you, Representative Dillon. Further questions from committee members? Yes, Representative Esty. REP. ESTY: Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank you, as someone from Cheshire, where my -- you know my constituents are now going to be having to if this goes -- goes through, go to New Haven, where I know there's already a considerable backlog, which can only -- we're talking about cutting some positions, certainly not adding positions. So I share your concern that this is going to lead to 61 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. further backlog, as well as confusion about where one is to present oneself under the new -- under this new proposal. So thank you. MICHAEL QUINN: Thank you. SENATOR HARTLEY: Thank you, Madam. Further questions from committee members? If not, thank you very much, Mr. Quinn, for being with us this afternoon. I would like to make this point and invite Nancy Ahem from the New Haven Preservation Trust to be with us. And then after Nancy, we are going to revert back to one of our town officials who inadvertently signed up on the wrong list. And that is the First Selectman of Andover, Mr. Bob Burbank. Good afternoon, Nancy. NANCY AHERN: Good afternoon honorable ladies and gentlemen. First, I would like to read to you testimony from John Herzan, who is the preservation services officer of the New Haven Preservation Trust. Members of the Appropriations Committee, it has come to the New Haven Preservation Trust attention that Section 1W of Senate Bill 828 calls for the elimination of financial support for historic preservation and open space projects, farmland protection and affordable housing incentives. Such a loss would negatively impact our small nonprofit historic preservation organization in New Haven. As the recipient of several operational and architectural survey grants generated by the Community Investment Act, the trust has taken giant steps in furthering its mission to honor and preserve New Haven's architectural heritage, historic building and neighborhoods 62 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. through advocacy, education, and collaboration. Among the many benefits afford by this act, state funding has enabled the trust to provide professional, technical assistance to property owners and developers undertaking historic preservation projects to hold regular committee meetings to assess threats to local historic buildings and develop preservation strategies to: maintain an accessible storefront office on State Street in New Haven; to hire a part-time office manager to maintain our membership donor database; oversee our website; and manage our financial records; and to conduct a scholarly overview of the modern architectural period in New Haven. Other New Haven area organizations also have benefited from Community Investment Act Funding for specific projects including planning, rehabilitation and restoration work. These include: the City of New Haven, the Amistad Committee, the Irish Historic Round Table, Westville Village Renaissance Alliance, and Yale University, as well as statewide groups such as the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation and the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities. Without Community Investment Act support, the New Haven Preservation Trust Community role, a preservation conscience will be silenced, and our city's architectural legacy will be at risk. Please reconsider this act, in particular Section 1W, and its adverse impact on the protection of our cultural heritage. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. My own remarks: If enacted, Section 1W of Senatev Bill 828 would transfer to the General Fund 63 March 27, 2009 007276 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. $12 million from the Community Investment Act. CIA is an extremely farsighted piece of legislation, enacted only four years ago that created the designated revenue stream for those four purposes that John articulated. This act has provided more than 35 million for these specific laudable purposes. Of that total, 16 grants, totaling 670,000 have gone to my hometown, New Haven, and 132,000 have gone to the New Haven Preservation Trust. Loss of this revenue source would be devastating to the trust. So as much as I understand and appreciate the Governor's efforts to address the increasing budget deficit and present a balanced budget without raising taxes, and as much as I sympathize with the formidable task you face today, I implore you not to decimate the Community Investment Act, but to let that valuable revenue stream continue to preserve historic homes and buildings, protect farmland and acquire open space and create affordable housing as it is meant to do. Thank you. SENATOR HARTLEY: Thank you, Nancy. Are there questions from members of the committee? Thank you very much. And now we would like to invite the First Selectman of Andover, Mr. Burbank. Good afternoon, sir. Hit the button there, if you would. Thank you. ROBERT BURBANK: Good afternoon. Thank you, Senator Hartley and Representatives of the Appropriation Committee. Being from the small town of Andover, I can reiterate all the items that you have heard from selectmen from all the small towns about the Resident State Troopers Program, but I will cut it a little short here. I'm sure that the increase for 64 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. the resident state trooper from 70 percent to eventually 100 percent would be a big mistake for the State. This, again, is an expense incurred by local municipalities with no prior notification to the towns. As the First Selectman of Andover, I am aware of the importance of this program for small towns that do not have a police force. Our resident state trooper, Trooper Rea is a factor in many ways, not just in solving crimes and traffic control. His programs for the school children, DARE, bike safety, among others, are an important part of the education for parents and children alike. Every budget hearing we hear residents that try to -- we have residents that try to eliminate the program. It's too expensive for the town. They claim the state police would still have to cover Andover, even if the resident state trooper contract was not renewed. While this is true, I'm not sure that the service would be the same because of the close-knit relationship between our resident state trooper and the Town of Andover. But with this fact -- if this was increased to 100 percent funding, we would no longer be able to afford this program. Is this a savings for the State? Instead of paying -- the State paying 30 percent, it will cost the State 100 percent of the trooper car and all the related expenses. Add to that the need for more office spaces for the returning troopers and additional items that the town supplies, such as fax and copy machines, radar guns with annual calibration, phones services and office supplies, now will be the complete responsibility to the -- for the State. 65 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. I do not know if other small towns will eliminate this program. I have spoken to some that say it is a good possibility. Some of the larger towns that have more than one resident state trooper say they may cut back on the number of troopers. It seems to me that the Governor is trying to budget the -- all the expenses as a shortfall to the small towns. The small towns cannot afford this additional burden. In the Town of Andover, 19 percent of our entire $10 million budget is appropriated for the Town. We are so slim; we have a three-man road crew for over 3 0 miles of roads to be plowed. There is no place to cut. We have already had seniors and other residents that have had to move out of town and sell their houses because they couldn't afford the ever- increasing tax burden put onto it by unplanned mandates by the State. I thank you all for your consideration. SENATOR HARTLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Burbank. Are there questions from members of the committee? Senator Prague. SENATOR PRAGUE: Thank you Madam Chairman and thank you for accommodating Mr. Burbank. I do want to thank you, Bob, for coming in. It's important for us to hear, you know, from the chief elected officials and what kind of a burden this state trooper policy would place on the towns. As you know, I live in Columbia. We have a wonderful resident state trooper. And we hope to keep him. So it's important for committee members, especially those from the larger cities who don't have to worry about something 66 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. like this. For us, it's a matter of the kind of protection that we have. And as along as we know we have a resident state trooper to patrol our roads and watch out for our homes, that's critically important to us. So thank you. ROBERT BURBANK: Thank you, Edith. And I do know the importance, myself, of the resident state troopers. And even at 100 percent funding, I, for one, would support the Resident State Trooper Program. However, in the Town of Andover, according to our Charter, residents sit up at a budget hearing and cut -- can make cuts to the budget appropriation that's approved by the board of finance. And as I mentioned, every year it's brought up that over $100,000 -- and our case, $127,000, which is spent on the resident state trooper -- our portion of the Resident State Trooper Program is a big -- not for taxpayers to pay and there are many people that don't see the importance of this program. So I do thank you for your support, Edith. SENATOR HARTLEY: Thank you. And thanks for being with us this afternoon. We'd like to next invite Maryann Amore, from HOPE Partnership. Maryann will be followed by Dennis O'Neil. Good afternoon, Maryann. MARYANN AMORE: Good afternoon. Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen of the panel. My name is Maryann Amore. I am the executive director of HOPE Partnership in Old Saybrook. We are opposed to Senate Bill 828, which would eliminate funding to the Community Investment Act. Thank you for taking the time to hear our reasons. 67 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. HOPE Partnership is a community based nonprofit developer of affordable housing. Our purpose is to address the critical need for quality affordable housing in Old Saybrook, as well as the shore and river towns of lower Middlesex County. HOPE Partnership began in 2004, as a locally driven grass roots effort of concerned citizens who saw the need for housing as a critical economic and social'issue. These individuals were trying to address a couple of troublesome trends. First, there was a growing number of families living in local motels, homeless working families who worked in the area, but could not afford to live in the town. Children playing in local motel parking lots brought a sharp focus to the lack of places to live affordably in the town. Second, many of these individuals had lived all their lives in Old Saybrook and were now watching their children and grandchildren leaving for places south and west of Connecticut, because as they began their adult working lives, they simply could not find decent housing to buy, or to rent in the towns they had grown up in. This loss was sharply felt by the founding volunteers of what would become HOPE Partnership. I will not focus at any length here on the need for affordable housing in the state. Much has been made of the news that we are losing 18 to.35 year olds faster than any other state in the nation. And as of the date that shows that in Southern Connecticut, one will have to earn about $21 an hour to afford to rent a two-bedroom apartment, 'or work 110 hours a week, if you earn Connecticut's minimum wage. There seems to be little 68 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. disagreement among policymakers that this lack of affordable housing is having a serious negative effect on the economic health of the State. What I want to focus on is how the support of the Community Investment Act actually helps to address the problem of the lack of affordable housing and how its loss will affect localities who are trying to do the right thing. HOPE Partnership began at the grass roots with concerned volunteers wanting to address the needs of their community. What began as talks in a church hall in 2004 is now an incorporated organization with staff, however small, about to build 14 units of affordable rental housing in partnership with the Town of Old Saybrook. Believe me, it took a village to get us to this point. But, unquestionably, we would not be here without the direct assistance of organizations like Housing Connections -- the Housing Connections Program, which are funded by the Community Investment Act and are here to help small communities to address the need for affordable housing. With the help of Housing Connection, HOPE sought and received help to develop its business plans, allowing us to: receive startup funding; constitute a board of directors; give well-meaning with inexperienced volunteer's guidance; selected and hired staff; helped us with public outreach, including a bus tour of quality affordable housing developments for citizens in land use boards to help counter the negative public perceptions about what it looked like; and most recently, assistance in 69 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. crafting a process to enable HOPE to select a codeveloper so that our young, new organization can actually get our houses built. These may not seem like much, but these services allowed a group of concerned citizens to move forward and address these need for affordable housing in an organic way. Without the continued support of the Community Investment Act for these efforts, many towns facing -- REP. ROLDAN: Ms. Amore. I'm sorry. Your minutes are up. You might just come to an end here. MARYANN AMORE: Okay. Thank you. REP. ROLDAN: Do you have any closing -- any closing remarks you wanted to add? MARYANN AMORE: Yes, I do. I just say that these are relatively small investments. They go a very long way in helping small towns get important work done. REP. ROLDAN: Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions? Representative Candelaria. REP. CANDELARIA: I agree with you 100 percent. And I have a quick question. Do you have any shovel-ready projects that you intend to use; do you support housing dollars for? MARYANN AMORE: We have a project. I would not say it's shovel-ready. It's getting ready for local approvals. I wish it was. REP. CANDELARIA: And how have you benefit from these funds in the last four years? 001283 70 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. MARYANN AMORE: Well, we -- the Housing Connections Program, which is funded by the CIA, really guided this group of volunteers, who had no experience with doing this, but wanted to get it done through the town, rather than an outside developer coming in and making, you know, making decisions, using the Affordable Housing Appeals Act. This was that way to do it organically; that was right in the town and for volunteers -- this is an almost all- volunteer organization. Without the support of this kind of an organization, we would not be here. And we would have opposition from the town to building these kinds of things. So the support that we've gotten from them has been very very valuable. And overall, it's -- it's a good way to get the towns going to doing their thing. REP. CANDELARIA: Thank you. MARYANN AMORE: Thank you very much. REP. ROLDAN: Thank you. And please understand that it is quite a lengthy list we're trying to get to, so we realize that you came a long way, in same cases, to spend the afternoon with us and get your three minutes to talk to us about so many important issues. But we are trying to get through every one. And we really appreciate your patience and indulgence in this matter. SENATOR HARTLEY: I let him be the bad guy. REP. ROLDAN: Next, Dennis O'Neil, please. Thanks. DENNIS O'NEIL: Good afternoon, Chairman Hartley, Chairman Roldan. It's a pleasure to be here this afternoon. For the record, my name is 71 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. Dennis O'Neil. I'm the chief legislative representative for counsel for AFSCME here in Connecticut. We represent 35,000 public employees across the state, about evenly divided between state employees and municipal employees. Here today to urge this committee to defeat Senate Bill 829. I'd like to address just a few of the issues that were raised by Secretary Genuario, and those issues which Secretary Genuario apparently forgot to mention. I'd just like to start by telling the committee that we oppose Section 1, removing longevity payments from the -- from statute and putting that into collective bargaining. This has been a statute for some time. As a matter of principle, we oppose creating second tiers of benefits and payments to those who come after us. Those who came before us built a great system. And we will be -- I'm loath to create a second tier. Secondly, Senator -- Representative -- or Mr. Genuario and the administration proposes to limit health care costs by requiring part- time employees of the State, basically, to shoulder the full cost of their health care benefits. I don't think that that will end up saving the State any money in the long run. Those folks who are working part-time will inevitably be unable to pay the cost of these health care --of the health care benefit, which mean they will miss work and which also means that they will get sicker and probably end up in uncompensated care, for which you all will have to come up with the money to reimburse our emergency room. So I hope you'll give that some consideration, as well. 72 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. Then we go on to the Governor's and the administration's positions on binding arbitration. I'd first like to remind this committee that binding arbitration is something of a misnomer. Arbitration is binding on the employee or organization. Once an arbitrator makes a decision, we are, in fact, bound by that decision. However, the State is not. The State may reject an arbitrated award by a two-thirds majority vote of either chamber. And for those of you who were not here in 1997, the Senate did just that, it rejected a contract for Connecticut's corrections officers. So binding arbitration, in fact, is not binding on us and the State does have the ability -- the General Assembly has the ability to deal with these contracts. I'd just like to point out quickly, that the State would like to only to remove from binding arbitration conditions of employment, and only negotiate issues of wages and hours. But if we negotiate or allow the arbitrator to consider that -- but if we negotiate over an issue, and then can't go to arbitration on that issue, then how do you resolve that issue other than having it dictated to you? So -- and I understand you want me to wrap this up, Representative Roldan. I will tell you that the one thing that there was not mentioned by the Secretary, was this bill's freezing for two years of binding arbitration, which freezes collective bargaining. We are, obviously, adamantly opposed to that. And I find it somewhat disingenuous that the administration and Secretary Genuario failed to mention this to you all. So unless you have any questions, I won't take any more of your time. But I would urge you all, in 2006, 73 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. program review and investigations did a complete and thorough study of binding arbitration. I urge you all to take a look at it. It's how binding arbitration works for all parties. REP. ROLDAN: Dennis, thank you. You've put up some very good points that I think are not lost upon members of the committee. DENNIS O'NEIL: Well, again, I thank you for your time and for your patience. And I'd be delighted to answer any questions if I might. REP. ROLDAN: Questions from the committee members? Senator Hartley. SENATOR HARTLEY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dennis, I just wanted to know, because I understand that this is a pretty far-reaching bill, if there are any other major points that you were unable to make? DENNIS O'NEIL: Just quickly look at my notes. Well, to require that -- yes, the one other, sort of thing, I would really like to mention is that this bill would require that all subjects of bargaining be bargained in coalition through SEBAC. Currently, as you may know, pensions and health care benefits are required -- all the state unions are required to negotiate in concurrence for those two -- in those two areas. That makes some degree of sense. Pensions and health care are pretty much across the board and equally done. But how does one negotiate the wages of a bursar or a dean in the CSU administration and a corrections officer, for instance, who works on a three shift? You know, they must work 24 74 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. hours a day. They're open 24 hours a day. The shifts are different. And then how do you negotiate those hours, for instance, in concert? I don't know how you do that. So I think that the system, as it stands now, makes sense. We negotiate in concert for benefits that are universal, if you will. But those that are much more pedestrian and demand a different kind of look: wages, hours, conditions of employment, are different in each circumstance for each bargaining unit, for each job classification. And those differences, I believe, make it virtually impossible to negotiate the wages of a hundred thousand dollar a year administrator and a twenty-five thousand dollar a year clerical. So I would urge this committee to keep these issues in mind and to understand, as you heard from first selectman after first selectman after first selectman, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And Senator Hartley, I'm grateful for the opportunity to finish my testimony. SENATOR HARTLEY: If I might just follow up then -- DENNIS O'NEIL: Yes, ma'am. SENATOR HARTLEY: --on that last point. And I, unfortunately, missed Bob Genuario's testimony here. What would be their perspective in trying to, supposedly, kind of bundle these negotiations? DENNIS O'NEIL: You know, frankly, I don't know. Because you would think -- I mean the one thing I would think is, you know, sort of, the larger the group, the less individual negotiations you have to go through. And if 75 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. there are 11 different unions representing different classes of working jobs, then the State must negotiate each of those contracts separately. For instance, we represent corrections officers. We represent clericals. We represent DCF and DSS, social workers. So each of those contracts are negotiated separately. I suppose the idea is that you put them all together and you only have to go through one negotiation, which would save the State -- SENATOR HARTLEY: -- time. DENNIS O'NEIL: -- time and money. But I don't believe that -- that it would be any faster because you still have to negotiate different wages, different hours. Again, the 24-hour services that are open -- the corrections facilities are, state hospitals and so forth. They require completely different kinds of schedules and wages. So I don't think this would benefit -- save the state any money at all. And that's -- I try not to look any deeper than -- in this particular case, I'm not looking for any hidden agenda. I think that it's pretty straightforward. I think that they're just trying to figure out a way to save money. And I don't think this will do it. I don't think it makes sense to do it this way. SENATOR HARTLEY: Thank you. Mr. Chairman. REP. ROLDAN: Do you have just -- I mean obviously this is an interesting proposal, not an uninteresting proposal. Any suggestions to this committee about how we may consider this a little differently? 76 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. DENNIS O'NEIL: The suggestion I have for this committee on -- on this proposal is not consider it at all. I mean to reject it. We stand ready -- and you know that -- that SEBAC is in negotiations with this administration to help resolve the terrible difficulties that the State of Connecticut finds itself in at this time. I find it disingenuous, at best, if you want to have good faith negotiations going forward, to be suggesting while we're sitting at the table negotiating concessions that you're going to strip binding arbitration and collective bargaining away from us. I mean I don't know how one would consider that we would be willing to necessarily go forward as you do this kind of thing. Not you, but as the administration makes these kinds of proposals. Good faith negotiations are meant to be carried out in good faith. And I would characterize this as being somewhat on the disingenuous side of that. If this is what you want, put this on the table or at the table. We can -- we can negotiate these things or not. But I don't think these should be -- they should be legislated. And I think that the binding arbitration system in the State of Connecticut works quite well. REP. ROLDAN: I would agree. DENNIS O'NEIL: And thank you. And I think that, again, I would urge you to take a look at the report done by the -- the Nonpartisan Program Review and Investigations Committee in 2006. That, amongst other things, indicates that overall, the committee found no evidence that arbitration has driven up costs. You know, I can read from this for hours. But why don't you do that on your own time. 77 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. REP. ROLDAN: Thank you. Thank you, Dennis. REP. ESTY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I just want to follow, quickly, with the -- on the uncertainty element, which I'm troubled by on the binding arbitration suspension for two years. I'm looking at town contracts that run three years. How would that work if you have -- I mean I've gotten questions from the chief executives from three towns I've represented. Well, what would that mean if we are -- have a contract that's unique that were in negotiation, but it's a two-year suspension but it's a three-year contract. Do you have any sense how that -- DENNIS O'NEIL: First of all, let me say that this bill addresses state binding arbitration. There was a bill, I believe, 8388, the Governor proposed, that dealt with municipal mandates and municipal binding arbitration is part of that bill. That was heard in P&D. REP. ESTY: Right. But the equivalent for the State. I mean we're looking at it, scratching our heads trying to understand how that works. DENNIS O'NEIL: Our corrections officers just had a binding arbitration award. So -- and that's a three-year contract. So the terms -- and as did P4, the engineers over in -- in DOT. Those -- those contracts are enforced. And -- and the conditions of those contracts will -- will be in place. I mean this isn't suspending salaries and wages. This is just suspending the process. So those who are currently with contracts, those contracts have to be honored. 78 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. So over the next three years, our corrections officers will get those improvements in their contract that the arbitrator and the General Assembly agree they should get in this end with the engineers. But if you do not have a contract at this point in time, what you end up with, sort of by default, are two years of hard zeros. And I really find it hard to believe that, you know, 15,000 State employees who are being asked to vote on concessions on health care and pension stuff, are going to agree to that, when they're being told, you know, some of you guys are going to get your raises. And then some of you guys are going to get zeros. And those -- how -- how do you expect that people reasonably expect that people will be able to do that given human nature? I don't think it's a reasonable expectation. But -- so to answer your question, again, those contracts that are in place, all those conditions will be honored. And those that are not, you're essentially getting a hard two-year freeze. REP. ROLDAN: Any other questions from the members? Thank you, Dennis. Thank you for your time. DENNIS O'NEIL: Representative Roldan, Senator Hartley, thank you very much. REP. ROLDAN: Christopher Wigren followed by John Ivers. CHRISTOPHER WIGREN: Good afternoon. I'm Christopher Wigren. I'm the deputy director of the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation. This is a statewide nonprofit preservation organization established by Special Act of the General Assembly. So I'm here as your representative in a way. 007292 79 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. I'm here to oppose portions of H.B. 6363 and S.B. 828. You have my written testimony, so I'll just try to summarize it. The portion of H.B. 6363 that implements the Governor's proposal to merge the Commission on Culture and Tourism into the Department of Economic and Community Development. Our concern is with the CCT's Historic Preservation and Museum's division, which serves as Connecticut's federally mandated state historic preservation office. Also know as a SHPO. The State Historic Preservation Office has a lot of important responsibilities, but several of them do reflect on economic activity. It processes nominations to the National Register of Historic Places, which is how sites qualify for federal rehabilitation tax credits, an important part of funding for many rehabilitation projects. It administers those tax credits. And it has to review federally or state funded projects for their effect on historic resources, not just overtly preservation projects, but any kind of project: road building, school construction, library expansion, et cetera. With federal stimulus funds coming to Connecticut, these projects will have to be reviewed under this law for their effect on historic resources. And burying the State Historic Preservation Office in DECD, that always requires a lot of time to reorganize, to think about how the new agency will work, and that will take their time and efforts away from actually doing this important work. It will delay stimulus projects. And also, it can set up conflicts of interest because the State Historic Preservation Office has to 80 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. review projects that DECD, itself, will be carrying out. This kind of conflict of interest can lead to a loss of federal funding. Three times in the last 35 years proposals to merge the State Historic Preservation Office with agencies like DECD have been voted down for just this conflict of interest reason. And I urge you to make it four. And I'd also like to speak to S.B. 828 about the Community Investment Act. This really does serve as sort of a stimulus program for Connecticut, particularly preservation projects. You'd be amazed how often a small grant, $200,000, will make in whether or not a multimillion dollar project really does happen or not. And for preservation projects, the larger portion of the money frequently goes to labor, which stays in the state, rather then to new products. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. REP. ROLDAN: Just a quick question to you. How many -- and again, people think of preservation, sometimes, as a -- oh, you know, it's expensive. Do we need it? You know, obviously, it's important from the perspective of heritage and maintaining the heritage of the state. How many of these projects, on an annual basis, would you say there are across the State of Connecticut, preservation projects of this type? CHRISTOPHER WIGREN: Oh, gosh. I think there have been some on the -- with the CIA, there have been on the -- something on the order of $5 million in grants a year. Some of those go 81 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. out for construction projects. Some are for surveys, like you've heard about, or education programs. But, you know, I don't know of a construction grant that's been more than 200,000. So that -- somebody from the State office could probably answer the question with much more specificity. REP. ROLDAN: But for the most part, these dollars leverage significant dollars from the other side. CHRISTOPHER WIGREN: It's a question of leverage. Absolutely. Like I said the -- one example is the Katharine Hepburn Cultural Center in Old Saybrook. That's the old town hall, which is being renovated as an arts and performance center. It's a $3.4 million project, I believe. And the State grant to that was 200,000. REP. ROLDAN: So the effect of this is employment, meaningful employment for many Connecticut residents. CHRISTOPHER WIGREN: Yes, it creates jobs. REP. ROLDAN: Okay, Any questions from members of the committee? Thank you. Thank you very much, Chris. CHRISTOPHER WIGREN: Thank you. REP. ROLDAN: John Ivers followed by Stacey Zimmerman. JOHN IVERS: Good afternoon, Chairpersons and mi members of the committee. My name is John Ivers. And I am a life-long resident of Meriden. And I'm also an attorney with an office on Broad Street in Meriden. I'm here 82 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. in opposition to the Governor's proposal to close the Meriden Courthouse. As an attorney, it's -- I believe it's the wrong move to close any courthouse. I believe it hampers the ability of the average citizen to obtain access to the --or convenient access to the judicial system. However, as a taxpayer, I am aware that it's imperative, at this point, given the financial situation in the world today, that this committee makes some difficult decisions, as far as which programs and which facilities to close. Meriden is an extremely busy courthouse, as you heard from earlier people who testified. The geographical area, which handles the criminal matters, is very very crowded every day. And the civil docket is also very crowded on a regular basis. It's very clear that citizens of New Haven County utilize the Meriden courthouse on a regular basis, as an alternative to utilizing the New Haven courthouse. There are other jurisdictions that I visit in my practice that are not nearly as busy as the Meriden courthouse. And from my perspective, the issue of any potential closure of any courthouse should be looked at as a business decision. And from a business perspective, I think the State's interest should be in providing facilities where citizens can go to the courthouse and obtain access conveniently and efficiently to the judicial system. The State has, historically, placed courthouses in population centers because of; obviously, the great number of people in it provides more efficient and easier access to the greatest number of people. For many -- 83 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. from -- from that business perspective, any courthouses that should be closed should be the ones that are least utilized. In this way, the greatest number of people are given the greatest number -- greatest amount of access to the judicial system. There are several courthouses that I visit on a regular basis where I observe that their dockets are done by roughly 1:00 in the afternoon, whereas Meriden's, on a regular basis, continues until 5 p.m. Another reason for not closing the Meriden courthouse is that it would have a very large impact on a population least able to absorb it. I practice primarily in the areas of criminal law and personal injury, and a sizeable percentage of my clientele are from Meriden; are members of a minority; and are also on the lower end of the economic spectrum. For this population -- and as a generalization, I would say people who make $12 an hour or less at their jobs, having to travel to a different city to attend court would be a tremendous burden. Many don't have access to an automobile. And in many cases, I believe you've heard it cited earlier, that the transportation between Middletown and Meriden, and New Haven and Meriden is lacking in many many cases. The last point and I'll wrap it up. The last point, I would ask the committee to consider is that Meriden has invested millions of dollars in infrastructure based upon the courthouse in its present location. About approximately 20 years ago when the courthouse was moved to the downtown location, the city spent several million dollars creating infrastructure, so that businesses could move in around it. And that has, in fact, 84 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. happened. And to move the courthouse or close the courthouse, would have a tremendous negative impact on those businesses' ability to survive. So being out of time I'll -- I'll just end by asking very respectfully that this committee not act on the Governor's proposal to close the Meriden courthouse. REP. ROLDAN: Thank you, Attorney Ivers. Any questions? Yes, go ahead. REP. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm curious. There was testimony that there was a backlog of cases in the Meriden courthouse. Do you see this having -- this impacting our prisons at all, if they move the Meriden courthouse to New Haven, they close the Meriden courthouse? JOHN IVERS: I can't speak to whether it would have an impact on the prisons. Whether -- I think it would have a tremendous backlog. Meriden is so busy that the monstrous caseload that • Meriden does have being moved to different courts, even if it was interspersed among different courts, would place a tremendous burden on any courts where those cases were transferred. It would result in a backlog of existing cases in all of those courthouses. And I suppose, from a prison perspective, people that were in on bond that couldn't make bond would necessarily have a longer time to wait between court dates. So, therefore, their cases might not be resolved as quickly. And as such, Hartford Correctional and Whalley and the jails that are kind of holding facilities for people who are in on bond, I think they would become very very overloaded 85 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. if the system became any more backlogged than it presently is. REP. ESTY: Thank you. That's what I was kind of -- had it. And so with that being said, then that's an added cost to the State. Correct? Because now you have more people in prisons that -- or jails that you have to take care of. JOHN IVERS: I think the State would have to change the way they do things, as far as where people are held while in on bond. I think, at the very least, another facility would have to be added. And if one was not added, I think the State is open to many many civil rights lawsuits being filed from inmates who are in cells with 2, 3, 4 other people because there's no other facility to place them in. REP. ESTY: Right. I hate to put you on the spot here -- JOHN IVERS: No, not at all. REP. ESTY: -- because I'm just -- you're an attorney. I'm not. And I'm not that familiar with our judicial system. So I get arrested. I can't post bond. It's a Saturday night. Normally, the cases go to court on Monday. There's a backlog in New Haven. So they can't hear my case. So do they leave me in the holding cell, wherever I am for that weekend, or do they transport me to -- and our area is Bridgeport. JOHN IVERS: If you're arrested on a Saturday, the law states that you're supposed to appear before a judge for arraignment within a certain period of time. So from a pragmatic standpoint, would it be difficult to have the 007299 86 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. case heard? Yes. But my sense would be that the presiding judge at that particular courthouse would ensure that -- at least that case were arraigned -- REP. ESTY: Okay. JOHN IVERS: -- but probably to the neglect of other cases that are on the docket for that particular day. REP. ESTY: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. REP. ROLDAN: Any other questions from this committee? Attorney Ivers, thank you very much. Stacey? Or not. STACEY ZIMMERMAN: Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the committee. My name's Stacey Zimmerman. I'm with Service Employees International Union Connecticut State Council. I'm here to oppose Governor's Bill 828. SEIU is opposed to a number of the cuts in the Governor's bill, but finds the gutting of the Clean Elections Fund extremely disturbing. Section 1A, the transfer of $12 million from the Clean Elections Fund would, in essence, end the ability of the Public Financing Program here in Connecticut. In theory, the program would still exist. In practice, it would have no way to effectively fund at 2 010 cycle, a system that had a 75 percent candidate participation rate, which seemed to be its success. And yet this bill would doom it to failure. Having run and volunteered on a number of campaigns over the past 11 years, I can say, firsthand, the ability of candidates to 87 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. actually interact with their constituents during the election season was greatly enhanced with this bill. And we believe that this is actually what democracy is for, to actually talk to your constituents, as opposed to talk to folks raising money. It's deeply concerning that at a time of financial turmoil, when the public is outraged at the influence of big money and politics that we would actually destroy a system that was built to encourage trust in our government. Once, again, we hope that we can actually maintain this system to move forward. And, in fact, Connecticut has been a leader in clean elections, not only with passing this law, but also our participation rate far exceeded any other state that had passed this law. We hope we can continue that and that the program does not fade away into a footnote in history. There are better choices to actually fund these types of programs. One would be asking those that have the wealth and the ability to pay a little more in their income tax. I've included in the Better Choices for Connecticut tax plan in your packet. So we hope you can take a look at that. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. Just for the record, SEIU is also opposed to829 in the binding arbitration proposal that the Governor has put forward. REP. ROLDAN: Thank you, Stacey. Any questions from members of the committee? Representative Dillon. 88 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. REP. DILLON: Hi, Stacey. It's good to see you. I'm so sorry you didn't participate in the haircut part thing the other day to raise money for charity. But we're all going to -- we' re A VOICE: That's cold. REP. DILLON: No, it's not cold. It's fun. And we're going to start a whole new round. We're all going to take a haircut this year. So I just wanted to either challenge or modify one of the comments you made, in a positive way, I think. You said that some of us were talking to people instead of just, you know, whatever lobbyist who raised money. For my part, I very often found it very difficult to raise money, on the ground, because people would say, you don't need it. And being able to go back door-to-door, where there are a lot of people who had said that in the past, and I could say, no, I need X amount from X number of people. They would say, oh, good, you know, because then they had a reason to believe that their donation meant something. Sometimes when you're an incumbent they don't want to. They're more -- it's not because of any quid pro quo or anything. It's because sometimes people give where they think their money will matter. So they might send money to a North Carolina senate race, or something, but they wouldn't necessarily give to their own legislator if they thought they were relatively safe, even though we all think we're not. So that I think it had a very very positive effect with me, any way, in being able to go to people and say, you have a reason to give now. It's not -- it's a different system. 89 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. And we're all going to be participating. And I found it to be a very very positive experience. There were a lot of things in there that I think were unnecessarily detailed; that I think, you know, administratively were difficult. And that's a separate conversation. But I just want to say it made it better. It gave people, at least in my district, more of a motive to say, it means something if I give, no matter how much it is, you know, $5, $3 0. And so I think that's been -- that was good for all of us, whether we were challengers or whether we were incumbent. STACEY ZIMMERMAN: I would tend to agree. REP. CAMILLO: Thank you. Hi, Stacey. How are you? STACEY ZIMMERMAN: Doing well. And you? REP. CAMILLO: Good, thank you. Before I ask my question, I will say I'm probably one of the few people here that opposes this program, for quite a few reasons. But I did see a report. And I don't know if it was OFA. I'm trying to dig up the email. I had it a couple of days ago. It said there were actually more candidates in 2006 than in 2008. It was close. Originally this program was supposed to -- the money was supposed to come from, I guess, the sale of abandoned properties. However, it more than tripled in size as we were going along, so the money started coming out of the General Fund for this. So I would want to know if you have that -- what I saw the other day? If not, I'll dig it up for you and hand it to you. But something about where 90 March 27, 2009 pr/cd APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. the actual candidates that were fielded were actually a little bit less than in 2006 when we didn't have this program. Have you seen that at all? STACEY ZIMMERMAN: I have not seen that. I know that from my experience on the campaigns, I saw, once again, that the candidates actually could more spend time talking to voters, as opposed to raising money, which is the reason we think this is a great idea. REP. CAMILLO: I found it the opposite. But I appreciate your -- and I'll try and dig it up for you. STACEY ZIMMERMAN: All right. REP. CAMILLO: Thank you. REP. ROLDAN: Representative Walker. REP. WALKER: Thank you, Stacey. And I didn't go to the haircut. So don't worry about it. So you have the -- any information on how many other states are looking at increasing taxes to support them out of the fiscal situation that they're doing that? STACEY ZIMMERMAN: Off the top of my head, I don't have the actual number of different states that are looking at. I know New York is very close, from what I've read in the New York Times, to actually coming up with a deal to raise another three brackets. REP. WALKER: You don't know about any other of the New England states at all? STACEY ZIMMERMAN: I have not.