Connecticut Lawmakers; 214

The following is a CVT be original. I mean Connecticut lawmakers municipal leaders or the people are money lawmakers vote on cable TV and a tax on beverage containers. Lloyd Webber's reports on a special study. And members of Congress focus on the Long Island Sound. I'm Bob Douglas and welcome to this week's edition of Connecticut lawmakers municipal leaders came to the state capitol this week to urge their state lawmakers not to tanker with a proposal that would use the Mashantucket we quote drive money of 130 million dollars that was supposed to be distributed to cities and towns. Several city and town leaders representing the Connecticut conference of municipalities spoke out this week against using peak watt money to balance the state budget. They want lawmakers to make sure the funds go to the cities and towns as

promised by Governor Weicker municipal leaders you heard today speak for mayors of Connecticut and expressing our opposition to proposals that would raid the peak what 130 million dollars in new funding to cities and towns for local property tax relief to finance state programs and not the governor's budget proposal that would cut one hundred forty seven million dollars from 16 programs of state aid to cities and towns. If the Peke want funding is cut and these other state aid program for cities and towns are sliced state a permissive now would be disseminated. One represents a special opportunity provided just a die hard price of a disability. It should not be considered just another revenue source to be drawn into the general fund. For years now the municipalities of the state have sought to get a fair share of the revenue from its from the state to help revitalize sustain local programs. This

year the governor through an innovative approach has generated the revenue to direct one hundred thirty million dollars to the cities and towns of the state of Connecticut. We have been ravaged by this recession. All of our urban centers are experiencing very high unemployment very dramatic increases in the demand for social programs for police services. And these funds are badly needed. I don't think there's a member of this legislature who if you asked individually as to their support for urban aid. Cities and towns with supporters here the governor has put it forward. Now the rumors are circulating that other state.

One of my major concerns for the City Hartford is if we continue to look at the budget projections of revenue loss that we currently have this year 93 94 the budget gap is about thirty three point seven million dollars. I asked for a projection about three more years for the on down the line just to give me an idea of where we are we would actually fear if we continue on the same path that we are now for 94 95 with the current loss of revenues and increasing expenditures. We could possibly look at point three million dollar budget gap. If we take this further to 95 96 we'd be looking at possibly a hundred million dollars. Hartford has a real severe and grave problem that is we have a loss of revenue by either the loss of our ability to collect taxes on properties in the city or the loss of properties that have become state properties and with the current As you know the segment that we have in

terms of a pilot of 20 percent. We are in real dire straits. I'm here to just say that even with the government's whole 17 million under that proposition we'd still be faced with cuts of actually 27 million twenty seven point four million. That would leave us in a situation where we still had a deficit of 9 million. We don't like being placed in a position of where we're always begging as a city with a capital city. We represent not only ourselves but the state of Connecticut. Someone has to begin to care about the capital city. You have to start to care about the fact that we will be a graveyard. The subject matter is pilot payments payment in lieu of taxes and I hope there's truth in advertising because that's all we're asking for payment in lieu of taxes. We don't get justifiable relief on the number of facilities that we have in our communities.

I know I don't compare to Harvard and I really don't want that honor in having state facilities but Middletown 300 million dollars of a grant list is tax exempt property. Fifty percent of our grand list. We not only have these facilities which we provide services to but they have caused a problem on a general basis. You all know about 1989 tragic stabbing and just the short and the impact it had on our community and possibly on the growth of our community and people's impressions of Middletown on this pile of money. We're not even getting just justifiably 100 percent reimbursement. We're getting 90 percent of the value of property. But I'll take it. Since the agreement was announced with the Mashantucket Pequot tribe and the governor in a civil leaders have been concerned about reports that they won't get the money and that it may be used to balance the state budget. The state House of Representatives this week voted out of a bill that would mandate that the state's cable television companies would have to give notice for any proposed

changes in programming or rates. The state House voted for a bill that would call for a 60 day notice from cable television companies if they plan to make a program or rate changes. This bill is in response to a problem regarding the proposed removal of five Connecticut based broadcast stations from two southwestern Connecticut cable systems. Specifically the bill would extend from 45 to 60 days the notice period. To subscribers for programming and rate changes. It would also allow cable advisory councils to hold a public hearing to a solicit comment on the proposed changes and then make recommendations and requires the Department of Public Utility control to establish regulations regarding the hearing such hearings and recommend the recommendation process. It also requires that the Departments of file with the Federal Communications Commission for certification to carry out the provisions of the 1992 Cable Act.

During the debate an amendment was offered to review women eat rate hikes for utilities including another measure that would have eliminated the Department of Public Utility control. Connecticut's utility rates or. 44 percent higher. The rates in the rest of the country according to. Maryland. We have homeowners. That are faced with the prospect of losing their homes. With electric rates gas rates telephone rates. Keep going up. We have businesses. That are teetering on the brink of. Bankruptcy. If we don't stop the. Ever increasing cycle of cost being imposed. On them. Connecticut is. And face is going to carry a situation where in a very bad recession. And we're still heading down. We need to at some

point. Revive really. For the people the homeowners and the businesses. Public Utilities are regulated by the Department of Public Utilities. This agency is costing the state of Connecticut nine million dollars a year in regulating these utilities. The net result of this department of public utilities is that our rates are 44 percent higher. Something is amiss. Oh so you know I am a freshman here. I'm not quite sure what is. Just based on comparison with Connecticut to the rest of the states. I feel that something is amiss. It's clearly not a legislative body. Right to decide right. We have the expertise the knowledge nor the

drive to take over the powers of the people you see. Once again I urge rejection of this amendment. You'll do nothing but harm the state of Connecticut thank you. Those amendments were killed and the cable-TV bill now goes to the state Senate for a vote. House Bill 7 1 7 8 as amended by house a total number voting 145 necessary passes 73 those 45 days or absent of voting since. The bill passed. Now Lloyd when she has this report about a special study underway from an urban specialist and a former political leader. During the 1970s city government here in Hartford was dominated by former deputy mayor Nicholas Carbone. He was controversial at times but he also had a statewide reputation for dealing with urban problems. Carbone is involved in a new government program that also deals with the cities. He is the president of the Connecticut

Institute for municipal studies. The Connecticut institute in a simple studies is going to try to deal with how do we more effectively use our existing resources. And that's tax dollars to provide appropriate services to people in need. The Connecticut Institute for municipal studies was created last year by the legislature to do research and make recommendations and a number of areas that include state funding of local governments regional approaches just state and local issues economic recovery of urban centers and review of the relationship between government and business. We have to find a different way of doing business. That allows these cities and communities to survive. One of the fundamental changes I believe that has to be made is we have to look at our governance systems figure out how to reform them so that most of the waste that comes in government is

system driven rather than people driven. Carbone has an office at the state capital but he spends a lot of time attending committee meetings and lobbying lawmakers. Senate majority leader Leon develop hard for it as a long time friend and political ally. Carbone says the institute is pushing for some legislation this year to help deal with the crisis facing cities. He says crime and public safety must be a priority to move on economic development and other urban problems. The institute is calling for the creation of a regional anti-crime Council. One of the things we're advocating is that we create as a test program in Hartford New Haven Bridgeport public safety councils which involve the inner city and the news. Media. A bloody suburban communities from the superintendent schools to recreation leaders the chiefs of police mayors and the court system corrections and probation to look at a holistic approach to how do we deal with crime.

Carbone says the juvenile detention centers in Hartford Bridgeport and New Haven are filled to capacity. Another recommendation calls for an alternative incarceration policy for minors. What we're recommending is that we have the chance of probation period. We have community service and we give them skills and say to them that your behavior is not approvable And when you commit a crime against the community have to pay back. And we intervene with the youth very early on and we use jail as a last resort. Another goal of the Institute is a develop a long range plan to revitalize cities in crisis and what to move Connecticut forward to save our cities and towns in our rural communities. We have to have a comprehensive plan that's all inclusive that looks at all the pieces. Housing in Connecticut is more expensive than anywhere else in the country. If we're going to be competitive with other parts of the country we have to bring our housing

costs down so they're in line with the rest of the country. That means we have to create affordable housing. The institute is also planning to establish a consortium comprising the state's major colleges in universities with expertise in government and Urban Affairs. This program will help the institute develop strategies and work on reports and recommendations. Our universities have to become the training ground. To prepare people for the twenty four centuries in local government boards of education in state government have to look at how do we develop the capacity of our people to do things better to look at systems which allowed and be responsible creative efficient and effective the board of directors for the Connecticut Institute for municipal studies is asking the legislature for an additional 1 million dollars to fund the program for two more years. Carbone says if he gives it to can successfully deal with some of the problems facing the cities

it could last beyond that period. At the Capitol Lloyd Wimbish for Connecticut lawmakers. From Washington members of the state's congressional delegation. Take time out to focus on problems and the future of Long Island Sound. Long Island Sound. The government has spent 12 million dollars over the last seven years studying the causes of its decline and help to protect and restore its water quality. So the Long Island Sound caucus is holding hearings now to see if the comprehensive conservation and management plan or CC MP will do the job. Many fear that in its present form it won't. It has to set out clear instructions for what we have to do. That's what the demand it here really the statement of goals is not enough and a partial roadmap is not going to help us get to where we want to go in a political environment we're cutting the budget is the first thing on most voters lips.

We better have a serious effort laid out with a blueprint that explains what needs to be done and why it needs to be done in very direct manner. We're not going to succeed if we're kind of kind of interested in cleaning up Long Island Sound with a plan that has very kind of loose structure to it will be a way down the list of items that get funded. The clean up plans lack of details is due partly to the fact that. Pewter model on water circulation in the sound isn't yet finished. It was due out in 1989. Connecticut's top environmental official told the panel that Governor Walker wants it completed by July. This three dimensional hundred dynamic model obviously is tremendously important to fulfill the total study and we see it as vital to potentially saving hundreds of millions of dollars because it will give us some much better information about the actions that need to be taken to improve the water quality of the sound. Commissioner Keelty though insisted delays in the MP don't mean nothing has been done to clean up the sound.

A lot of people are focusing now on the fact that she things are complete. We can't get started on this or that and I think the important point I'm trying to make is that there has been an awful lot that has been done in light of the fact that the study has been going on. The commitment has been made by Congress and by the states by the local governments. But environmental groups say that's not enough. We want to make sure that there's an equal commitment to explaining to the residents of New York in Connecticut what is going to happen and why individual citizens should feel comfortable about spending some of our precious resources on restoring Long Island Sound. We believe it's a great investment because the sound really contributes over five billion dollars to the area's economy and it contributes an incalculable amount to the quality of life in Connecticut New York. The citizen campaign for the environment adds specific goals timelines and dollar figures are also vital. What specifics we don't know how well we're doing in terms of implementing the plan without specific timelines we don't know what we're doing without specific funding needs. It's again hard for us to go and ask refundable how much is going to cost is the first question we get. We don't have that answer that it's hard to ask for specific money so without

specifics. Again it's a plan that it has the potential to sit on the shelf and have nothing happen. Commissioner those are real concerns. Anything that is rather general like that does make people nervous because it doesn't so-called Hold Their Feet to the fire. And I think there are progress that we made and particularly this document I think can be greatly improved as a document that the public can better understand right now it is very bureaucratic. It's very sort of fundamental. I think it needs it needs better explanation. The Environmental Protection Agency to make clear the clean up plan is not set in stone. I would like to emphasize underscore that this is a draft living document that will be subject to changes. And as we go through this process we will take into consideration all of the public comments that have been received as we look towards finalizing this document to make it readable understandable and technically competent competent document.

Lawmakers urged those finalizing the plan to give environmental not political concerns a top priority. Let the elected officials decide what is politically possible given our limited resources. But tell us what we have to do to save this deal or award the consequences could be serious if drafters of the c c m p don't improve the plan as it now stands. Otherwise we're going to be in the same situation that we have feared we would be ended all of that work. All of that effort and then we will see the federal government in particular walk away from this project. In Washington Kathleen Koch for Connecticut lawmakers. Next comments from key members of the Environment Committee on a proposed energy tax beverage containers hotly debated. It is a bill that levies several different fees some of which currently exists but most of which are new. The largest fundraiser within that is a penny container tax on every day of rage that is sold in the state of Connecticut. We estimate that somewhere between two and two and a half billion containers. So that alone will

raise for the state between 20 and 25 million dollars. The other parts include a tax on the purchase of tires up front a second tax on what we call regulated waste which is things like the motor oil when we get our oil changed the Jiffy Lubes and such places. And the other is a slight increase in the hazardous waste tax. Well unfortunately we're sort of what we view a continuation of the governor's shell game which was to say that we had to raise taxes to fund the environment. And what the governor had proposed was we have a new tax on five cents that would raise 60 million dollars. Then he would take 16 million dollars to sixty three million dollars of general fund that was going to fund the environment and use that somewhere else. And then people would be told that the reason their tax went up. So it was because it was funny in the environment when in fact it was going up on soda so we could fund something else probably you know welfare or whatever. And this was sort of that same theory that I think the Democratic leadership were saying is that we

need some more revenue. So what we'll do is we take the most one the most politically sensitive areas an area that obviously has not has been underfunded and will raise taxes and dedicate more funding for the environment. And then the money that we used to raise for the environment that used to come out of the general fund will be available to spend somewhere else and people will be told that their taxes are going to tax and containers and tax and tires to fund the environment. And really it's a tax and these things so that we have more money available spend elsewhere and we just think that's a shell game. There was nothing that was done yesterday that will add one additional dollar for the environment. It's simply giving them more money to spend elsewhere. I do not buy into the idea that somehow we should have to fund the department separately from the rest of the state. Given the budget proposal that we were given the reality is that the Department of Environmental Protection and other related programs were zeroed out in that budget and also given the realities of the budget debate here and the many programs that serve support. It was clear to me that we needed to go back

and look at ways to raise additional revenue. Our goal in doing that in the environment committee was to say that within that mix of things that we should consider. We want to give you what we think are the best suggestions from an environmental perspective to have some kind of environmental rationale to them. We are going to think that's going to your constituents. Well I would say that that really won't show up in the same kind of way. Certainly people make the connection because of the governor's proposal to remove the bottle deposit the container tax it's really on the container not on the beverage itself. And my anticipation is that that will it will be charged at the point of sale in state rather than at the checkout counter. You're not going to go buy a Coke and pay a 5 cent deposit and then have an additional penny tax raised on it. That will be built into the price. And while I certainly don't. Think anyone wants to look at greater prices on anything.

One of the real I think benefits of the way that we chose to impose this is that it's so broad based that it can be very very small and does not really impact anyone a great deal in Ally's what they did is they put a tax effect on food the major tax was on all food container or beverage containers. They're putting a tax and milk containers soda containers water containers you name it. And we just went through a tremendous fight last year to put an income tax in place which we felt was a progressive tax. Now you put in probably the most regressive tax you can have which is the tax on food as a new form of taxation and I don't think that's appropriate I don't think it's appropriate to fund any one of our needs or vital services with a tax on the Public Health Committee has approved a bill that would curtail the expansion of nursing home facilities. It had bipartisan support. General Assembly two years ago enacted a moratorium on new nursing home construction. At the time that we did that there were

4000 approved certificate of licenses for developers to build new beds. What we have found since that moratorium is that despite our best attempts to try and control the growth of new beds and therefore new Medicaid costs there are still a large number of new additional class coming onto the system. The bill that we passed yesterday was an attempt to try and buy back a chunk of those 4000 ones that were still out in about two years ago and we feel that it's just a sensible course of action based on what we know about the growth of that whole area of state government. And you know the owners of those licenses will be fully compensated so that there will be no I think undue unfairness to those individuals and it will protect the state from being exposed to just huge growth in that area of the budget that would allow those that meet certain areas right now to be completed

and those that haven't reached that they would stop it because apparently a year after me. Last year opened it up and a moratorium we now have a situation where we have too many beds in the state of Connecticut and our nursing homes now unfortunately those nursing homes that are near the border of New York state are being utilized by New York state because of our structure. And that so they don't have empty beds but the rest of the state. Has plenty of empty beds are overbuilt. And a year ago as I say we we passed a bill that stopped a moratorium allowed some of these people a pick up and build more nursing home beds. It's great you know I look at least at times like that. And look for that star because I think it's a second coming of Christ. We realize a year after we should've done that we shouldn't have done it but that's the way we operate up here. What's the potential revenue savings for the state here. Are there any.

Well we run into the millions on this one because you see when they build a new hospital bed around nursing home that the rate is based on a current cost. You have people who are nursing homes. Let's say 25 30 years ago. And based on that time now with us escalated you have a fantastic differential. It has a major impact and in fact many of the nursing homes out there have been very concerned over this. But they didn't last year in terms of access. What will this do to those getting into a nursing home. Well right now what we're seeing actually is unprecedented vacancies in existing nursing home beds that are operating right now and many of the operators that we've been talking to have been reporting vacant beds in unprecedented numbers. That combined with the governor's attempt to try and focus more resources into home based services we feel certainly in the

short term. Leaving us in a position where there's adequate resources to address long term care needs. Are you going to be able to address the home. Are more funds going to be available to you. That probably would help that area. There is some growth in that area. I personally feel that we should be thinking about expanding it even more. I think we should also be looking at developing assisted living facilities which is a trend that's going on in many other states which is sort of a halfway point between home health care and a full skilled nursing nursing home treatment or institutionalization for patients. And you know that's something that a lot of developers have sort of figured out is where there's potential for you know real profit and growth because of the fact we have an aging population so you know I think there's a lot of trends that are going on right now which hopefully will put the state in a position or doesn't have to rely on the most

expensive kind of housing namely some nursing homes for a growing number of seniors. And that's this week's edition of Connecticut lawmakers. I'm Bob Douglas and we do thank you for joining us.