AN ACT CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF VARIOUS BUDGETARY PROVISIONS

The bill eliminates a requirement that the Appropriations Committee and the committee of cognizance hold a public hearing on the governor’s recommended allocations for federal block grants. Under current law, the hearing must be held within 15 days after the committees’ receive the recommendations from the House speaker and Senate president pro tempore. The bill retains the current requirement for the committees to submit their approval or changes within 30 days of receiving the governor’s recommendations.

The bill extends, from September 20, 2005 to September 20, 2007, Sunshine House, Inc. ’s pilot program to create a comfort center for children with a limited life expectancy and their families.

The bill eliminates the 2007 deadline by which the Division of Special Revenue (DSR) must conduct its next required legalized gambling study and instead bars DSR from conducting any study before June 30, 2009. By eliminating the 2007 deadline, the bill potentially postpones the conduct of the studies indefinitely.

Under current law, the DSR executive director must conduct studies of legalized gambling’s impact on the state as often he deems necessary, but not less than once every 10 years. The last study, which cost $ 288,846, was conducted in June 1997; thus, the next study is due by June 2007. The bill bars DSR from conducting a study before the end of FY 2009, but it does not set a deadline for conducting one. Thus, the executive director may conduct the next study anytime after June 30, 2009. Once he conducts the next study, he must, as is required under current law, conduct succeeding studies at least once every 10 years thereafter.

PA 05-251 exempts tax returns and return information that the Department of Revenue Services (DRS) provides to the Business Tax Credit and Tax Policy Review Committee from statutory confidentiality requirements to allow the committee to evaluate corporation tax credits and policies. This bill changes the effective date of that exemption to July 1, 2005 from upon passage and applicable to tax years starting on or after January 1, 2005.

The bill increases the current $ 211 per diem fee paid to judge trial referees to (1) $ 215 beginning January 1, 2006 and (2) $ 220 beginning January 1, 2007.

Starting July 1, 2005, the bill requires the Department of Environmental Protection to deposit into the Conservation Fund and credit to the conservation account within it, all fees it collects for parking, admission, boat launching, camping, and other recreational uses of state parks, forests, boat launches, and other state facilities.

By law, DEP must deposit into the fund certain amounts it receives from state park and forest and fish and game fees. Under current law, DEP must deposit into the fund and credit to the account: (1) fees created, and fee increases implemented, since June 1, 1990 and (2) fees in excess of the amount of such fees DEP received in FY 89. DEP uses the account for (1) conservation and preservation programs and (2) central office administration.

The bill gives death benefits to certain survivors of Connecticut-domiciled, armed forces members and reservists who are killed in action or die from illness or accident suffered while deployed in active duty service in Southwest Asia in support of Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom between September 11, 2001 and July 1, 2006. It requires the state treasurer to make the payments and reduce payments by any amount of death benefit paid under federal law for the member’s death.

§ 9 — WAIVER OF INTEREST ON PROPERTY TAXES FOR SPOUSES OF CERTAIN MILITARY PERSONNEL

The bill authorizes a municipality, by ordinance to waive interest due on any property tax or tax installment for up to one year for real property assessed on the 2003 grand list for a resident who lives with and is the spouse of a member of the U. S. Armed Forces or of any state or reserve component thereof who was called to active service for military operations authorized by the President entailing military action in Iraq and who is serving in the Middle East on the final day that the property tax or tax installment is due.

The bill establishes the Military Family Relief Fund as separate, nonlapsing General Fund account. It contains (1) state appropriations; (2) any statutorily required deposits; and (3) gifts, grants, donations, or bequests made for the funds’ purposes. Investment earnings credited to the assets of the fund become part of the assets. Any fiscal year-end balance must be carried over to the next year.

The state treasurer administers the fund. The Military Department must use the funds for the bill’s purposes. It may take from the account an amount equal to its costs for administering the program up to a maximum of 2% of the money deposited in the account in any fiscal year.

The Military Department must use the fund to make grants to immediate relatives of Connecticut-domiciled, armed forces members on active duty, including guardsmen, to pay for essential personal or household goods or services, if paying for them would be a hardship for the relatives because of the member’s service. “Immediate relatives” are an eligible member’s spouse, child, or parent domiciled in Connecticut or other relatives living in his household. The services include repairs, medical services not covered by insurance, transportation, babysitting, clothing, school supplies, and other goods or services essential to the relatives’ well being.

The department must establish a simple grant application process and process applications within seven days after they are submitted. It cannot make grants that exceed what is in the fund.

The bill allows the department to adopt implementing regulations after evaluating the program in its first six months. The regulations may (1) establish a maximum amount of each grant, each type of grant, or grants to immediate relatives and (2) establish grant approval criteria. The department may implement the policies and procedures contained in the proposed regulations while in the process of adopting the regulations. To do so, it must publish notice of intent to adopt regulations in the Connecticut Law Journal no later than 20 days after implementing the policies and procedures, which are valid until the regulations take effect or one year after the notice of intent to adopt regulations is published, whichever is sooner.

By October 1, 2005 and by the 15^th day following the close of each calendar quarter thereafter, the department must submit a report to the Veterans’ Affairs Committee for the previous quarter showing (1) the number of applications received, (2) the number of members whose relatives received grants, (3) the amount they got and for what purposes, and (4) any recommendations for the fund, including proposed legislation. It must not include the names of eligible members or recipients in the reports, and any information the department gets with their names and addresses or that could be used to identify them is confidential and exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The bill allows taxpayers filing returns for tax years starting on or after January 1, 2005 to contribute all or part of their personal income tax refund to the Military Relief Fund by indicating this on their tax returns, in a manner provided by the revenue services commissioner.

If the amount of refund due to the taxpayer is at least as large as the contribution, the contribution must be for the full amount designated by the taxpayer. If the actual refund is less than the indicated amount the entire refund must be contributed to the fund. The revenue services (DRS) commissioner must certify to the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) secretary and state treasurer (1) the amount of the refund initially owing to the taxpayer, (2) the amount of the contribution, and (3) the difference. For purposes of any subsequent determination of the taxpayer’s net tax payment, the contribution must be considered a part of the refund paid to the taxpayer.

Contributions are irrevocable once the return is filed. Filers must make contributions in a manner the DRS commissioner prescribes.

The DRS commissioner, after notifying the OPM secretary and with his approval, may keep up to 4% of the amount collected in any fiscal year for administrative costs. The balance goes into the fund.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2005 and applicable to taxable years commencing on or after January 1, 2005.

The bill requires the National Guard’s Family Program to establish a volunteer service program for armed forces members, including guardsmen, on active duty and residing in Connecticut. The services may include repairs, gardening, transportation, babysitting, tutoring, cooking, or other services the recipient finds helpful.

Under the program, a volunteer service coordinator works with towns and local organizations throughout the state to provide volunteer services to the members and their families. Local organizations include nonprofit organizations that serve members, veterans, and their families and other organizations that seek to volunteer their services to such people. The volunteer services coordinator must identify and help towns and organizations that provide volunteer services to members and their families in communities throughout the state.

By January 31, 2006, and annually thereafter, the National Guard must report to the Veterans’ Affairs Committee on the services and level of services the volunteers provide in different geographical areas.

The bill prohibits anyone from volunteering any service for which a license, certificate of registration, permit, or other credential issued by a state agency is required unless such person holds the pertinent credential.

The bill requires the National Guard’s Family Program to publicize to all members of the armed forces, including guardsmen, and their families the availability throughout the state of therapy support groups for them. The publicity must include contact information for referral to support groups in locations that are convenient for them.

Under the bill, current or former guard members (1) called to active service on or after September 11, 2001; (2) who were in active service for at least 90 consecutive days; (3) deployed in active service in a combat zone and, if discharged, were honorably discharged or discharged because of a line-of duty injury are entitled to a $ 50 bonus for each month or major part thereof, up to a maximum of $ 500. The member has three years after the date when the operation in which he served ends to apply for the bonus.

The adjutant general, in consultation with the veterans’ affairs commissioner, must adopt regulations, including application, eligibility verification, and payment procedures.

The bill requires the veterans’ affairs commissioner, in conjunction with the adjutant general, to award a ribbon and medal to wartime veterans who lived in Connecticut when they were called to active-duty service or are domiciled here on the date of the award. They cannot make awards posthumously.

The commissioner, in conjunction with the adjutant general, must adopt implementing regulations, setting out the process for designing the ribbon and medal, identifying eligible veterans, and establishing procedures for distributing the ribbons and medals to eligible veterans. The Military Department must pay for the ribbons and medals from funds appropriated to its military assistance account.

The bill makes domicile, rather than residency, a qualifying criterion for tuition waivers available at Connecticut state colleges for wartime veterans’ and active members of the Connecticut National Guard. The bill does not define “domicile” but specifies that it includes domicile for less than one year, notwithstanding the law that requires “domicile” for at least one year for in-state tuition purposes. The bill retains the residency criterion for seniors age 62 or over, dependent children of prisoners of war or servicemembers missing in action, and dependent children and surviving spouses of terrorist victims.

By law, tuition is waived at the University of Connecticut, Connecticut State University campuses, and community-technical colleges for certain groups. Generally, the laws granting the waivers require that applicants be Connecticut residents, but they do not define resident. In the absence of a definition, the colleges require one-year residency. Apparently, the basis for this interpretation is CGS § 10a-30, which, with some exceptions, requires students to be domiciled in Connecticut for at least one year to qualify for in-state tuition.

Domicile is a “person’s true, fixed, principal, and permanent home, to which that person intends to return and remain even though currently residing elsewhere” (Black’s Law Dictionary). “A person may have more than one residence at a time but only one domicile” (Black’s Law Dictionary).

The bill requires the Veterans’ Affairs Board of Trustees to also submit copies of its annual reports to the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, instead of just the governor and Public Safety and Security Committee. The reports describe board activities and make recommendations for adding new programs and improving the delivery of service to veterans.

The bill provides a two-step increase in pay rates for members of the state Board of Mediation and Arbitration which hears and resolves disputes involving state and municipal employees and their employers. The board consists of two three-person panels, each of which includes an employer and union representative and a public member.

The bill requires the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to provide a toll-free number that military personnel, including guardsmen, and their families can call every day, including holidays, for information about, and referrals to entities that provide, benefits and services available to them. The number must be staffed by trained volunteers or department employees working on weekdays during regular business hours and on weekends and holidays from 9 a. m to 5 p. m.

The bill requires the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DOVA) to create a registry of veterans and armed forces members to facilitate notification of listed persons about benefits and services available to, and legislation affecting, them.

The bill requires DOVA to develop and maintain a contact list of armed forces members, including guardsmen, and honorably discharged veterans living in Connecticut. The list must include only their names and mailing addresses. DOVA must compile the list from its own records and information it gets from the Military Department, town assessors, service members, and veterans.

By September 1, 2005, the Military Department must give DOVA a list of the names and mailing addresses, but no other information, of each resident service member in its record. By the 60th day after a veterans’ property tax exemption takes effect, the town assessor must give DOVA the name and mailing address of each individual who has such an exemption. Veterans and service members living in Connecticut may get listed by submitting their names and addresses to DOVA in person or by mail. The former must provide a copy of their military discharge document (DD 214); the latter, their military identification card.

DOVA and the Military Department may use the list only for notifying listed people of benefits, proposed or enacted legislation that affects them or their families, or other information that the departments believes will help them. DOVA must give a copy of the list to the Military Department upon receipt of a written, signed request from the adjutant general. The bill prohibits disclosure on information in the contact list except as it provides. The list is not subject to FOIA disclosure.

The bill transfers, from the adjutant general to the Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (DEMHS) commissioner, several powers and responsibilities regarding the nuclear safety emergency preparedness account within the General Fund. Specifically, it:

1. requires the Department of Public Utility Control to assess nuclear power plants to fund the account at the request of the commissioner rather than the adjutant general;

2. allows the commissioner, rather than adjutant general, to spend the money in conjunction with the Department of Environmental Protection, including expenditures for administrative purposes; and

3. requires the commissioner, rather than the adjutant general, to submit an annual plan to the Office of Policy and Management for carrying out the nuclear emergency preparedness program.

In addition, the bill allows the account to be used to fund three staff positions in the DEMHS rather than the Military Department. It assesses all Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensees that own or operate nuclear power plants, rather than just licensees that operate such plants, for funding for the account.

For FYs 06 and 07, the bill exempts WACE Technical Training Center in Waterbury from adult education grant requirements and allows it to spend up to $ 300,000 of the grant money it receives for technical training.

This section transfers $ 18 million of the federal money credited to the state’s Unemployment Trust Fund out of the fund and appropriates it for the following uses:

1. $ 10 million to the Labor Department to improve the 20-year-old information technology infrastructure for the unemployment compensation program;

2. $ 2. 5 million to migrate data and improve the CTWorks Business System that links three program: One-Stop-Jobs First, Workforce Investment Act, and the Wagner-Peyser Act;

3. $ 3. 5 million to improve linkages between employers and potential employees;

4. $ 2 million to expand electronic storage for employer tax forms.

These amounts will be spent to the extent allowed in federal law (Sec. 903 of the Social Security Act, as amended by Sec. 209 of P. L. 107-147).

The bill postpones for two years, until July 1, 2007, the requirement that all licensed drivers undergo a vision screening performed by Department of Motor Vehicles or by a qualified licensed health care professional prior to every second license renewal. Screenings performed by health care professionals must have been performed within the 12 months preceding the renewal.

§ 27 — TRANSFERS FROM THE SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION FUND TO THE EMISSIONS ENTERPRISE FUND

Currently, $ 1,625,000 collected from the $ 10 Clean Air Act fee (collected at time of registration renewal) and the emissions inspection late fees must be transferred from the Special Transportation Fund to the Emissions Enterprise Fund on the first day of each calendar quarter. For the four transfers required in FY 06, the bill reduces the quarterly transfer from $ 1. 625 million to $ 400,000. For the four required transfers in FY 07, the bill reduces the quarterly transfer from $ 1. 625 million to $ 1. 0 million. Thereafter, beginning on July 1, 2007, the quarterly transfers return to $ 1. 625 million.

The bill requires the state fire administrator, within available funds, to administer a supplemental grant award remittance program to support volunteer fire companies that provide emergency response services on any limited access highway or section of that highway. It specifies the areas covered. Eligible fire companies may get direct payment of grant funds or may use the funds as credits for fee-based services the Commission on Fire Prevention and Control provides. Departments must use credits in the fiscal year in which they get them.

In FYs 06 and 07, the bill requires $ 165,000 per year to be transferred from DAS’ appropriation for personal services to the Comptroller’s appropriation for fringe benefits for state employee health services costs.

§ 30 & 35 — LEADERSHIP, EDUCATION, ATHLETICS IN PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AND NEIGHBORHOOD YOUTH CENTERS

The bill requires applicants to provide a match of at least 50% of the grant amount to be eligible to receive funds from OPM for (1) the Leadership, Education, Athletics in Partnership (LEAP) Program or (2) the Neighborhood Youth Centers Program. It requires the cash portion of the match to be at least 25% of the grant amount.

LEAP is a mentoring program matching children age 7-14 from high poverty urban neighborhoods with trained high school and college student counselors. It provides programs and services to help children develop academic skills, develop self-esteem, improve their ability to succeed in school, and be involved in their community.

The Neighborhood Youth Center Program is designed to increase the range and extent of positive experiences for at-risk youth. If focuses on supporting neighborhood youth centers that serve youth age 12 to 17 in Connecticut’s seven largest cities.

The bill appropriates $ 1,000,000 to OPM, for Neighborhood Youth Centers, for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2006, and June 30, 2007, which must be used for a grant to the Boys' and Girls' Clubs, which must provide a 100% cash match.

The bill also appropriates $ 200,000 to OPM for Neighborhood Youth Centers for FYs 06 and 07, which must be used for a grant to San Jose Cooperative Youth, Hill Cooperative Youth, and Central YMCA in New Haven. The organizations must provide a match of at least 50% of the grant amount, and the cash portion of the match must be at least 25% of the grant amount.

This section transfers $ 300,000 from the Labor Department for the Spanish-American Merchants Association for FYs 06 and 07 to the Office of Workforce Competitiveness for the same fiscal years for the Spanish-American Merchants Association.

The bill requires OPM to make an annual $ 500,000 payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) to New London for the United States Coast Guard Academy, which is exempted from municipal property taxes. OPM must pay the amount before September 30 from the general fund appropriation for PILOTs.

OPM cannot adjust the amount. By law, the PILOTs reimburse towns for a statutorily specified percentage of the taxes the town would have collected from a property if it had not been tax-exempted. But it also requires OPM to proportionally reduce each town’s PILOT if the budget does not have enough funds to pay all towns their entitled amount. The bill exempts the Coast Guard PILOT from this requirement.

Beginning October 1, 2005, the bill requires the adjutant general and the veterans’ affairs commissioner to help eligible guardsmen and veterans get federal treatment services, including a best practice health screening test for exposure to depleted uranium, if they (1) are assigned a risk level I, II, or III for depleted uranium exposure by their branch of service; (2) are referred by a military physician; or (3) have reason to believe that they were exposed to depleted uranium during service. The best practice uranium test must use (1) a bioassay procedure involving methods sensitive enough to detect depleted uranium at low levels and (2) equipment capable of discriminating between different radioisotopes in naturally occurring levels of uranium and the characteristic ratio and marker for depleted uranium.

The bill prohibits the use of state funds to pay for the tests or other federal treatment services.

By October 1, 2005, the adjutant general must report to the Veterans’ Affairs Committee on the scope and adequacy of training guardsmen receive on detecting whether their service has exposed them to depleted uranium. The report must include an assessment of the cost and feasibility of adding predeployment training on exposure to uranium and chemical substances and recommended precautions in a combat zone.

The bill establishes a task force to study, within available appropriations, the health effects of the exposure to hazardous material, including depleted uranium, as it relates to military service. The task force must, within available appropriations, (1) commission a study to consider the health of service members who may have been exposed to hazardous materials since August 2, 1990 and conduct a scientific conference on those health effects; (2) initiate a health registry for veterans and military personnel returning from Afghanistan, Iraq, or other countries in which depleted uranium or other hazardous material may be found; (3) develop a plan for outreach to, and follow-up, of military personnel; (4) prepare a report for service members about potential exposure to depleted uranium and other toxic substances and precautions recommended in combat and noncombat conditions while in a combat zone; and (5) make any other recommendations. The task force must report by January 31, 2006 to the Veterans’ Affairs Committee. It dissolves after it files this report.

The task force must commission the study with the approval of the Senate president pro tempore and the House speaker. The person retained to conduct the study must disclose to these officials any research he has conducted (1) on matters related to depleted uranium or (2) that was funded by an entity engaged in manufacturing processes that use depleted uranium.

1. the veterans’ affairs commissioner or a designee;

2. the public health commissioner or a designee;

3. six legislators, one each appointed by the Senate president pro tem, House speaker and the House and Senate majority and minority leaders;

4. two veterans who have experience or knowledge of hazardous material, one each appointed by the Senate president pro tem and the House speaker; and

5. four doctors or scientists who know about, or have experience in, the detection or health effects of exposure to depleted uranium or other hazardous material, appointed one each by the House and Senate majority and minority leaders.

Appointments must be made within 30 days after the bill takes effect. Appointing authorities are responsible for filling vacancies. The Senate president pro tem and House speaker must select one senator and one representative to be chairpersons. The chairpersons must schedule the first meeting no later than 60 days after the bill takes effect. The administrative staff of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee serve as administrative staff of the task force.

The task force must submit a report on its findings and recommendations to the Veteran’s Affairs Committee by January 31, 2006. The task force terminates when the task force submits its report or on January 31, 2006, whichever is earlier.

PA 05-251 allows the revenue services commissioner to disclose tax returns and return information to the Business Tax Credit and Tax Policy Review Committee to allow the committee to evaluate corporation tax credits and policies. This bill specifies that the tax return disclosure authority does not cover copies of tax returns filed with the commissioner, which must remain confidential.

The law requires hoisting equipment operators to be licensed as crane operators or hoisting equipment operators. The bill subjects hoisting equipment owners and operators to the same standards as crane operators and operators with regard to accident reports, license discipline penalty for violations, Department of Public Safety (DPS) enforcement, and makes related changes. Specifically, it:

1. requires hoisting equipment owners or operators immediately to report accidents involving hoisting equipment to the Examining Board for Crane Operators, which may investigate and inspect the equipment to determine the cause of the accident and may take any action it deems appropriate, if, after notice and hearing opportunity, it determines that a violation occurred;

2. allows the board to suspend or revoke a hoisting equipment operator’s license, after notice and hearing, for demonstrated incompetence or negligence;

3. allows the board to impose civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 on hoisting equipment owners and operators who violate the hoisting equipment laws or regulations; and

4. allows the DPS commissioner and employees, at all reasonable hours, to enter premises where a hoisting equipment is located to enforce the law.

The bill extends to October 1, 2005 the deadline by which people who were engaged in operating hoisting equipment on October 1, 2003 must be licensed. The previous deadline was October 1, 2004. It also extends from October 1, 2004 to October 1, 2005 the period during which the board must issue a hoisting equipment license to anyone who presents a notarized statement from his employer showing “the dates and duties of employment operating such equipment or proof of ownership and control of a company using such equipment. ”

§§ 38 - 40 & 115 — DIVISION OF SPECIAL REVENUE VENDOR, AFFILIATE, AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES

The bill expands the requirements and specifies the procedures for the Division of Special Revenue (DSR) to issue (1) vendor licenses to Connecticut Lottery Corporation primary contractors, (2) affiliate licenses subcontractors of the primary contractors, and (3) occupational licenses to certain of their employees. Current law establishes one procedure for primary contractors and a second procedure for employees of Connecticut Lottery Corporation.

The bill requires an individual or business organization awarded a primary contract by the Connecticut Lottery Corporation (CLC) that provides facilities, components, goods, or services necessary for, and directly related to, its secure operation to hold a vendor license issued by the Division of Special Revenue (DSR). It defines “primary contract” as a contract to provide CLC with facilities, components, goods, or services by a person or business (1) that provides any lottery game or any online wagering system-related facilities, components, goods or services and that receives or, in the exercise of reasonable business judgment, can be expected to receive, more than $ 75,000 or twenty-five per cent of its gross annual sales from CLC, or (2) that has access to CLC’s facilities and provides services in them without CLC supervision. Under prior law, the organization awarded the primary contract to provide goods, components, or services for necessary CLC operation was required to be licensed.

The bill requires each applicant for a vendor license to pay a nonrefundable $ 200 application fee.

A “business organization” is a partnership, association, firm, trust, or any form of business or legal entity. “Control” means the ability to exercise authority over or to direct the management or policies of a licensee.

The bill requires an individual or business, other than a shareholder in a publicly traded corporation, to hold an affiliate license issued by DSR if it (1) has a subcontract with a primary contractor to provide facilities, components, goods or services necessary for, and directly related to, CLC’s secure operations or (2) exercises control in or over a vendor licensee. The bill requires each applicant to pay a nonrefundable $ 200 application fee.

The bill requires each vendor or affiliate employee who has access to CLC facilities and provides services without supervision or performs duties directly related to CLC’s activities to obtain a Class I occupational license.

The bill requires each officer, director, partner, trustee or owner of a business licensed as a vendor or affiliate, and any shareholder, executive, agent or other person connected with one, who, in the judgment of the executive director, will exercise control in or over the business to obtain a Class II occupational license.

It requires each CLC employee to obtain a Class IV occupational license if he, in the DSR executive director’s judgment, will exercise authority over or direct CLC’s management or policies or a Class III occupational license if he will not do so.

It requires applicants for Class I or III occupational licenses to pay $ 10 nonrefundable application fees and applicants for Class II or IV occupational licenses to pay $ 50 nonrefundable application fees. The fee must accompany the application.

The bill authorizes the DSR executive director to require applicants to provide information relating to: (1) financial standing and credit; (2) moral character; (3) criminal record; (4) previous employment; (5) corporate, partnership or association affiliations; (6) personal assets; and (7) such other information he deems pertinent ensure the lottery’s integrity. It requires the DSR executive director to require all applicants to submit to state and national criminal history records checks and allows him to require them to submit to an international criminal history records check. It requires him to issue a license to each applicant who satisfies these requirements and whom he deems qualified. It allows him to reject an applicant for good cause.

The bill makes vendor, affiliate and Class I or II occupational licenses valid for one year. It makes Class III or IV occupational licenses valid through the employee’s term of employment. It allows the executive director to require each employee issued a Class IV occupational license to annually submit information concerning his financial standing and credit. The bill authorizes the executive director to prescribe the form and manner of the applications.

The bill authorizes the executive director to suspend or revoke licenses for good cause after a hearing held according to the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act. It also allows him to summarily suspend licenses if public health, safety, or welfare requires emergency action. It allows an applicant aggrieved by the action of the executive director to appeal to the Gaming Policy Board within fifteen days after the decision. Anyone aggrieved by the board’s decision may appeal to Superior Court.

The bill allows the executive director to impose, after a hearing, a civil penalty of up to $ 2,500 on any licensee for violating the law concerning the Connecticut Lottery Corporation or regulations related to the lottery.

It allows the executive director to require a vendor’s or affiliate’s books and records be kept in a way that he deems best and that any financial or other statements based on them be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. It authorizes him, or his designee, to visit, investigate, and place expert accountants and other necessary people in their offices or places of business to satisfy himself that the licensee complies with DSR regulations.

It requires the Gaming Policy Board to work in cooperation with DSR to administer the licensing provisions.

The bill increases the appropriation for FY 07 to towns from the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan Fund by at least one-third of the amount of the increase in estimated state revenue from Indian Gaming Payments for FY 06 and distributes one-ninth of the increase to towns that are members of the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments and to distressed municipalities that are members of the Northeastern Connecticut Council of Governments or the Windham Area Council of Governments. The distribution must be proportional based on the payments each received in FY 06.

The bill also allocates $ 250,000 for FY 06, to Ledyard, Montville, Norwich, North Stonington, and Preston from the fund. It increases this allocation to $ 750,000 for FY 07 and following years.

Both of these payments are in addition to the grants already paid to the municipalities from the fund, are paid before other grants from the fund, and must not be reduced proportionately if the total payable to each municipality is more than the amount appropriated for the grants the year. Beginning in FY 07, it terminates the annual $ 500,000 additional grants these towns currently receive.

The fund is a separate, nonlapsing fund that receives revenue derived from casino gaming and provides grants to towns based on different criteria. It provides:

1. $ 20 million based on the criteria for making payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) for state-owned property,

2. $ 20. 1 million based on the PILOT criteria for private hospitals and colleges,

3. $ 35 million based on the formula for providing property tax relief grants, and

4. $ 5. 47 million to certain designated municipalities distributed according to the property tax relief fund.

These four types of grants and the impact grants the five towns currently receive must be proportionately reduced when the total grant for all towns exceeds the appropriated amount.

The member towns are: Bozrah, Colchester, East Lyme, Franklin, Griswold, Groton, Ledyard, Lisbon, Montville, New London, North Stonington, Norwich, Preston, Salem, Sprague, Stonington, Voluntown, and Waterford.

Killingly, Putnam, and Windham have been designated as distressed municipalities and are members of the Northeastern Connecticut Council of Governments or the Windham Area Council of Governments.

§§ 44 - 46 — QUALITY OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN CHILD PROTECTION PROCEEDINGS

The bill establishes the 11-member Commission on Child Protection, which must appoint a chief child protection attorney. The bill requires that this attorney establish a system to deliver 1) legal services to indigent respondents in family contempt and paternity matters; and 2) legal services and guardians ad litem to children and indigent parents in proceedings before the Superior Court for juvenile matters concerning uncared-for, neglected, or dependent children and youth; termination of parental rights of children committed to a state agency; matters concerning families with service needs; contested matters involving termination of parental rights or removal of guardian transferred from the Probate Court; the emancipation of minors and youth in crisis; and appeals from probate concerning adoption, termination of parental rights, and removal of a parent as guardian. (A guardian ad litem is a person the court appoints to protect a child’s best interests in a legal proceeding. ) The bill specifies that the system would not cover representation of children in delinquency matters.

The bill requires that the system the child protection attorney establishes also ensure that attorneys providing such services are assigned to cases in a way that will avoid conflicts of interest, as defined by the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The attorney serves at the commission’s pleasure and the commission fixes his compensation.

1. the chief justice of the Supreme Court appoints two Superior Court judges, or a Superior Court judge and a retired Superior Court judge;

2. the House speaker, the Senate president pro tempore, and the House and Senate majority and minority leaders each appoint one member; and

3. the governor appoints three members one of whom serves as chairperson.

Each member serves three years and until the appointment and qualification of his successor. No more than three of the members, other than the chairperson, may be members of the same political party. At least two of the nonjudicial members, other than the chairperson, may not be lawyers.

If any vacancy occurs, the appointing authority appoints a person for the unexpired term. Members serve without compensation but are reimbursed for their actual expenses. The bill prohibits commission members from being employed by the commission, or the agencies that provide legal representation under the bill, and from being on the list of attorneys to provide such services.

The commission is assigned to the Division of Public Defender Services for administrative purposes only.

The training must be designed to ensure proficiency in relevant procedural and substantive law, and to establish a minimum proficiency level in relevant subject areas, including family violence, child development, behavioral health, educational disabilities, and cultural competence.

The bill requires the judge before whom a juvenile or family matter is pending to determine eligibility for having counsel appointed for a child or indigent parents and guardians. In order to determine eligibility, the judge must require the child’s parent or guardian to complete a written statement under oath or affirmation setting forth his liabilities and assets, income and sources, and whatever other information that the commission on Child Protection designates and requires on forms adopted by the Commission on Child Protection. If the judge finds that a party is unable to afford counsel, he must appoint the Chief Child Protection Attorney.

If a judge appoints counsel, he must notify the Chief Child Protection Attorney, who must assign the case to an attorney under contract with the Commission on Child Protection to provide representation.

The bill requires that payment of any attorney who was appointed prior to July 1, 2006, to represent a child or indigent parent in any case the bill covers, who continues to represent the child or parent after July 1, 2006, must be processed through the Commission on Child Protection and paid at the rate that was in effect at the time of the appointment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2005 except for the provisions regarding the appointment and payment of counsel for indigent litigants, which become effective July 1, 2006.

This bill exempts plumbers who have served apprenticeships that included at least 700 hours of related classroom instruction from continuing education requirements. By law, the Department of Consumer Protection commissioner must adopt regulations to establish requirements for accredited continuing professional education for plumbers. They require plumbers to take at least three and as much as nine hours of continuing education per year, depending on the type of license the plumber holds.

This provision postpones from January 1, 2006 to January 1, 2007 the date on or after which any vehicle purchased for use primarily as a patrol car by a state police officer must have a manufacturer-installed fire suppression system. By law, such systems have to be integrated into the vehicle’s structure and electrical system, be able to be activated either automatically or manually, and use sensors that measure post-impact vehicle movement to determine the best time to deploy chemicals to extinguish or suppress the spread of fire resulting from a high-speed rear-end collision.

PA 05-251 eliminates succession tax liability for estates of those who die on or after January 1, 2005. This bill makes conforming changes in procedures for releasing succession tax liens on real property, making them apply only to estates of those who die before January 1, 2005.

The bill also deletes a redundant provision in the effective date of the section of PA 05-251 that eliminates succession tax liability for estates of people who die on or after January 1, 2005.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon passage. The conforming changes apply to estates of those who die on or after January 1, 2005.

During 2004, Connecticut had two estate taxes. The regular estate tax, which under PA 05-251 applies to estates of those dying before January 1, 2005, was equal to 100% of the maximum federal credit for state inheritance taxes paid. A temporary estate tax, which under PA 03-1, June 30 Special Session, applies to taxable estates of more than $ 1 million of people who died between July 1, 2004 and December 31, 2004, was 1. 3 times the maximum federal estate tax credit, excluding the 75% credit reduction applicable in 2004.

This bill reconciles these taxes by specifying that the regular 2004 estate tax does not apply to resident and nonresident estates subject to the temporary estate tax for deaths between July 1 and December 31, 2004.

PA 05-251 imposes a new tax on taxable estates of more than $ 2 million. That act also requires all estates, regardless of taxable value, to file a Connecticut estate tax return if the decedent (1) died on or after January 1, 2005 and (2) was a Connecticut resident or owned real or personal property in the state when he died.

For taxable estates of more than $ 2 million, this bill requires the estate tax return to be filed with the Department of Revenue Services (DRS) commissioner with a copy filed with the probate court in the district where the decedent lived when he died or, if the decedent was a nonresident, with the probate court where the person’s Connecticut real or tangible personal property is located.

For taxable estates of $ 2 million or less, the bill requires returns to be filed only with the probate court in the district where the decedent lived, or if a nonresident estate, in the probate court district where the estate’s Connecticut property is located and not with the DRS commissioner. The bill requires the probate judge for the district where the return is filed to review it and to issue a written opinion to the estate’s representative when the judge determines the estate is not subject to the estate tax.

The bill also requires each probate court to report to the DRS commissioner, in a form the commissioner may prescribe, concerning the estate tax returns filed with it during each calendar quarter. Courts must file the reports by the last day of the month immediately following the end of each calendar quarter, starting with the quarter ending September 30, 2005.

The bill changes the basis for establishing the base probate court costs for settling an estate to conform to PA 05-251. Currently, those costs are based on, among other things, the gross estate for succession tax purposes. Under the bill, the basis for the costs must be either that amount or the Connecticut taxable estate under the PA 05-251, whichever is greater.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon passage and applicable to estates of those who die on or after January 1, 2005

By law, a person who does not owe, or who has paid, the estate tax receives a certificate releasing the lien on his interest in real property in the estate. Under current law, the certificate may be issued either by DRS or the probate court where the decedent lived or where the property is located. This bill requires probate courts to issue all lien release certificate for taxable estates of $ 2 million or less.

The bill requires the statutory provisions of the estate, gift, and personal income taxes to apply to parties to a state-recognized civil union as if the federal estate, gift, and income tax laws also recognized the civil union. All of these Connecticut tax laws incorporate federal tax provisions by reference and require taxpayers to use those provisions to calculate their state tax.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon passage and applicable to tax years starting, gifts made, and estates of those who die, on or after January 1, 2006.

The bill modifies Section 88 of PA 05-251, which required certain insurers to (1) notify the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) when they receive liability or workers’ compensation claims so DAS may determine if the claimant has a potential liability to the state and (2) delay any claim payment by 25 days after notifying DAS. The bill removes the applicability to workers’ compensation insurers and limits the affected liability claims to those for bodily injury or death. It adds requirements for the DAS commissioner, including (1) forms and process development and (2) compliance expense reimbursement to insurers. It expands the hold harmless provision for compliance with the notification requirement. The bill also eliminates from the hold harmless provision reference to an insurer’s withholding of claim payments.

The bill requires an insurer authorized to issue liability policies in Connecticut to notify DAS when it receives a claim for damages because of a state resident’s bodily injury or death to determine if the claimant owes a collectible debt to Connecticut. The bill requires DAS, in consultation with the affected insurers, to determine the notification method and process, which must allow insurers to submit notice to DAS directly or through a central reporting organization. The state must keep the reported information confidential. It is prohibited from storing or maintaining any of the information unless it determines that the claimant has a potential liability to the state.

Under the bill, the DAS commissioner must reimburse insurers or central reporting organizations the reasonable documented costs of complying with the notification requirement. The commissioner determines what is a “reasonable” cost.

The bill holds (1) an insurer, its directors, agents, and employees and (2) a central reporting organization, its agents, and employees acting on an insurer’s behalf harmless for any alleged or actual damages that result from complying with the notification requirement. It exempts from the hold harmless provision damages caused by intentional, willful, or wanton misconduct.

The bill also specifies that compliance with the notification requirement does not subject (1) an insurer, its directors, agents, employees, and insureds and (2) a central reporting organization, its agents, and employees acting on an insurer’s behalf to claims of unfair and deceptive insurance or trade practices, violations of the Connecticut Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act, or market conduct examination penalties.

The bill exempts the information contained in the required notification from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

The bill requires the Department of Administrative Services, rather than the Department of Correction (DOC) commissioner, to contract for ombudsman services and annually report the name of the person under contract to the Judiciary Committee. By law, the ombudsman receives complaints from inmates in the custody of DOC

§ 63 — COSTS OF ADMINISTERING THE FARM LAND PRESERVATION, LAND PROTECTION, AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION BILL

The bill requires that the costs of administering Public Act 05-228, AAC Farm Land Preservation, Land Protection, Affordable Housing and Historic Preservation, be paid from the land protection, affordable housing and historic preservation account that the act creates within the General Fund. Such costs include fringe benefits.

The bill reduces state matching grants to the UConn, Connecticut State University (CSU), community-technical college (CTC), and Charter Oak College endowment funds from one state dollar to every two dollars in private donations to one-to-four. The reduction affects donations made after December 31, 2004. But the match remains one-to-two for multiyear gift commitments made before that date and that are scheduled to end before December 31, 2012. By law, the matching grant program ends on June 30, 2014.

1. No funds can be appropriated to the Department of Higher Education for the grants until the budget reserve fund equals 10% of the net General Fund appropriations for the current fiscal year.

2. The grants must be reduced proportionately if the amount available is less that the amount required for the grants.

3. The appropriation for any fiscal year cannot exceed $ 25 million.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2005 except the provision imposing conditions on the matching grant is effective upon passage.

Current law requires OPM to give $ 50,000 of $ 6 million appropriated in section 35 of Special Act 00-13 to the Budney Museum and Visitors Cultural Center. The bill instead requires OPM to distribute the $ 50,000 as follows: to the Deming-Young Farmhouse restoration, $ 10,000; Lucy Robbins Welles Library cultural programs, $ 20,000; and Newington Public School cultural programs, $ 20,000.

The bill requires the higher education commissioner to convene a textbook summit along with the Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges; the community college, CSU, and UConn boards of trustees; higher education faculty representatives; textbook publishers; and campus bookstores. The summit must be convened by October 1, 2005. The group must look at the factors contributing to the cost and use of textbooks and supplemental instructional materials required at postsecondary schools. UConn, CSU, and the community colleges must develop recommendations for the use of textbooks and report on them to the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee by January 1, 2006.

The bill requires that funds appropriated to the Judicial Department to deliver civil legal services to the poor by nonprofit corporations whose principal purpose is delivery of legal services, be deposited in a separate account and distributed to the organization administering the IOLTA program. That organization must make grants-in-aid to nonprofit organizations providing civil legal representation to poor people in Connecticut, using the same criteria as the law requires for IOLTA.

PA 05-245 makes permanent the education commissioner’s authority to provide, as she determines and within available appropriations, supplemental operating grants to interdistrict magnet schools, which must be used for enhancing educational programs in the schools. This bill specifies that grants may also be used for summer school programs at the schools.

The bill allows the education commissioner, within available appropriations, to give grants to RESCs providing summer school educational programs for students who participate in the statewide interdistrict school attendance program known as Open Choice. To be eligible for a grant, the summer school programs must be approved by commissioner.

The bill restores a provision, eliminated by PA 05-245, allowing the State Department of Education to retain a percentage of the appropriation for magnet school operating grants for program administration and evaluation. But it reduces the maximum amount the department may retain from 1% to . 0. 5% of the total magnet school operating grant appropriation.

§ 80 — CHANGE IN EFFECTIVE DATE OF MODIFICATIONS TO STATE CLAIMING WELFARE RECIPIENTS’ DISCRIMINATION SUIT OR SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS

The bill changes the effective date, from October 1, 2005 to July 1, 2005, of Sections 44 and 45 of HB 7000, which:

1. prohibit the state from claiming or applying a lien against welfare recipients’ settlements or awards in housing or employment discrimination cases and

2. exempt payments welfare recipients receive as a result of a human rights complaint under state or federal antidiscrimination law, either as a claim settlement or judicial or administrative award, from being considered as income, resources, or assets for welfare eligibility purposes either in the month the money is received or in the following three months.

The bill amends § 68 of HB 7000 by adding the commissioners of consumer protection and social services, or their designees, to the working group that must study whether the state should contract for development of a prescription drug purchasing program or enter into an existing program, that allows Connecticut residents to purchase drugs through pharmacies in Canada or other countries. The working group’s membership includes the public health commissioner, the Public Health Committee chairpersons or their designees, the Attorney General or his designee, an OPM representative, and any other person the health commissioner and Public Health Committee chairpersons deem necessary.

The law makes it illegal for any person, firm, or corporation to sell or deliver body armor to another person unless the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the sale or delivery. The bill makes this law inapplicable to the sale or delivery of body armor to (1) a sworn member or authorized official of the Division of Criminal Justice, (2) the Department of Administrative Services that purchases it on behalf of the State Police or the Division of Criminal Justice, or (3) an authorized official of the Judicial Branch who purchases it on behalf of a probation officer.

“Body armor” means any material designed to be worn on the body and to provide bullet penetration resistance.

HB 7000 § 39 allows the DSS commissioner to deny an applicant eligibility for DSS’s security deposit guarantee program if he has made more than two claims in a five-year period.

This bill makes it clear that the commissioner’s ability to deny program eligibility applies to an applicant for whom the commissioner has paid two or more claims by landlords in the immediately preceding five-year period.

Generally, the law allows qualifying people who are on welfare or have a demonstrated financial need and are in emergency shelters or do not have permanent housing to apply to DSS and receive a security deposit guarantee for a rental apartment no more than once in an 18-month period without the DSS commissioner’s express authorization. If the tenant does not fulfill his obligations, the landlord claims the appropriate amount of the security deposit from DSS.

The bill establishes a 21-member council to coordinate, within available appropriations, a GIS capacity for the state, regional planning agencies, municipalities and others as needed. In doing so, the council must consult with these parties. The capacity must guide and assist state and local officials involved in transportation; economic development; land use planning; environmental, cultural, and natural resource management; delivering public services; and other areas as necessary.

In coordinating the GIS capacity, the council specify how the GIS must created, maintain, and disseminate geographic information or imagery that (1) precisely identifies certain locations or areas or (2) creates maps or information profiles in graphic or electronic form about them. The council must also promote a forum where GIS information can be centralized and distributed.

The council may apply for or accept and spend federal funds on the state’s behalf through OPM.

As the table shows, the council consists mostly of state officials and specific GIS users appointed by legislative leaders. The council can add more members, as it deems necessary. The appointing authority must fill any vacancies. The members are not paid for their services but are reimbursed for necessary expenses they incur while working on the council.

The bill requires the governor to select the council’s chairman from among its members. The chairman must administer the council’s affairs.

The council must meet at least once a month and may hold additional meetings as its rules require. The chairman or any three members can call special meetings if they notify the other members in writing at least 48 hours before the meeting.

The council must, within available appropriations, provide technical assistance to towns and regional planning agencies for developing GISs. It must recommend how the GIS it developed can be improved.

Beginning January 1, 2006, the council must report annually on its activities to the Planning and Development Committee.

The bill requires the Office of Policy and Management secretary to report on the land use training and education programs available to members of local land use agencies and the extent to which members participate in them. He may include any recommendations for improving or expanding the programs, including recommendations for changing state law.

1. environmental protection commissioner,

2. Council on Soil and Water Conservation District,

3. regional planning agencies,

4. regional councils of governments,

5. regional councils of elected officials,

6. UConn’s Agricultural Extension Service,

7. Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association,

8. UConn’s Center of Land Use Education and Research, and

9. Rural Development Council

5. requires hoisting equipment owners or operators immediately to report accidents involving hoisting equipment to the Examining Board for Crane Operators, which may investigate and inspect the equipment to determine the cause of the accident and may take any action it deems appropriate, if, after notice and hearing opportunity, it determines that a violation occurred;

6. allows the board to suspend or revoke a hoisting equipment operator’s license, after notice and hearing, for demonstrated incompetence or negligence;

7. allows the board to impose civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 on hoisting equipment owners and operators who violate the hoisting equipment laws or regulations; and

8. allows the DPS commissioner and employees, at all reasonable hours, to enter premises where a hoisting equipment is located to enforce the law.

§§ 89 – 96 & 114 — REVISIONS TO THE COMMERCIAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM

The bill revises the commercial Underground Storage Tank (UST) clean-up program. Major changes include:

1. authorizing an inspection program of commercial USTs, and permitting private licensed environmental professionals (LEPs) to evaluate USTs for compliance with the law and regulations;

2. authorizing the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to stop deliveries to, and operation of, non-compliant commercial USTs;

3. expanding the categories of people eligible for reimbursement from the UST account ("responsible parties");

4. allowing UST owners and operators to assign their claims;

5. requiring applicants to submit requests for reimbursement by certain deadlines, and to achieve remediation milestones;

6. requiring a compliance report before the board acts on a request for reimbursement, and allowing the commissioner to deny or reduce payment if she finds an applicant is not in compliance with UST regulations;

7. allowing the commissioner to create a price schedule that limits the amount the board can reimburse applicants for the costs of labor, equipment and material;

8. authorizing the UST review board, with an applicant's consent, to pay up to 90% of certain requested costs in exchange for a review of the claim within 90 days;

9. limiting the amount of legal fees the board may reimburse;

10. requiring LEP or DEP commissioner approval of expenditures made after October 1, 2005;

11. requiring UST owners and operators to reimburse the board if they receive payments for leaks from insurance or other sources;

12. authorizing the attorney general to recover damages from owners of property on which there is a leaking UST if certain conditions are met, and changing some of the conditions under which he may sue.

The bill authorizes the commissioner to adopt regulations establishing inspection requirements for tanks for compliance with laws and regulations concerning their design, construction, installation and operation. She also may adopt regulations authorizing people to inspect them; to determine if violations that caused them to be removed from service have been fixed; barring deliveries to noncompliant tanks; and prohibiting tank owners or operators from placing a noncompliant tank back in service.

The inspection regulations must include requirements for the minimum frequency, method and content of inspections, the maintenance and disclosure of results, education and training requirement for inspectors, and address whether inspectors may be employed by the owner or operator of the tanks they inspect.

Noncompliant USTs. The bill authorizes the DEP commissioner to require a tank owner or operator to (1) (a) pump out the tank and (b) place on it a plainly visible notice indicating it is not in compliance and cannot be used or accept deliveries, or (2) install a device that prohibits deliveries and renders the UST unusable. She may do so if she find that a tank (1) is not designed, built, installed or operated according to law or regulations; or (2) does not have, or operate, proper (a) release detection equipment or (b) overfill and spill protection measures or equipment. She cannot take such actions for violations solely of reporting or record-keeping requirements.

No one may deliver any product to a tank with such a notice or on which the commissioner has placed a disabling device until the commissioner or someone she authorizes determines the violation has been corrected. The UST owner or operator must ensure it does not dispense any product or receive deliveries, and people and towns must not remove, alter, deface or tamper with a notice or disabling device. By law, the DEP commissioner may fine violators up to $ 25,000 a day.

The commissioner must provide the UST owner or operator with an opportunity for a hearing within two business days of placing a notice or disabling the UST. The hearing must deal only with the question of whether a violation occurred, and if it is continuing.

A UST may be returned to service only when the violation has been corrected to the satisfaction of the commissioner or a person authorized to make such a determination under the regulations the commissioner may adopt. The commissioner must determine if a violation has been corrected within 24 hours of receiving notice that such a correction has been made. If she fails to make a determination within 24 hours, and until she authorizes inspectors to make one, the UST owner or operator may return the UST to service if he provides the commissioner with a written affidavit (1) certifying he has corrected all violations and (2) fully describing all corrective action he has taken. He must provides this information the same day he returns the UST to service, or the next business day if the UST is returned to service on a weekend or holiday.

The commissioner may adopt regulations that establish additional or different requirements than the bill.

Under current law, a “responsible party” is anyone, including the state, which owns or operates a UST from which a release occurred. The bill expands this definition for applications received before and after July 1, 2005.

For applications the board received between the bill's effective date to July 1, 2005, a responsible party is any person who owns or operates a tank from which a release or suspected release takes places. The bill defines person to include individuals, firms, partnerships, associations, syndicates, companies, trusts, corporations, LLCs, towns, state agencies and all other legal entities.

For applications for payment received by the board after July 1, 2005, the bill defines a responsible party as: any person who, at any time (1) owns, leases, uses, operates, or has an interest in a UST from which a leak or suspected leak occurred; or (2) owns, leases, uses or has an interest in property on which such a tank is located. These people are responsible parties whether or not they had such an interest in the tank or property when the leak occurred. Under the bill, a responsible party also includes anyone related to anyone in the first two groups through a family, contractual, corporate or financial relationship.

The bill does not affect any determination the board makes before July 1, 2005 about an applicant's status for reimbursement purposes.

Reimbursement, Assignment, and Price Schedule Changes in Reimbursement (§ 91)

By law, the commissioner may reimburse responsible parties and parties supplying goods or services for costs, expenses, and other obligations incurred as a result of leaks and suspected leaks, and the costs of their investigation. The bill authorizes the commissioner to also reimburse them for the costs of remediating leaks or suspected leaks. Under current law, the board may reimburse third parties for claims for bodily injury, property damage and damage to natural resources. The bill limits reimbursement for these claims to claims that have been finally adjudicated, or settled with the board's consent.

Under current law, the board may reimburse an applicant for the cost of remediating or monitoring to a level more strict than that established by DEP only if the commissioner directed him to. The bill requires that the commissioner's order be in writing.

Starting June 1, 2005, the bill prohibits the board from reimbursing claims for (1) lost property value or interest, and (2) attorneys' fees or other costs of legal representation (a) of more than $ 5,000 to any responsible party (b) of more than $ 10,000 to any other party, or (c) by a responsible party for defending against claims brought by another party.

Assignment of Claims. Responsible parties may assign their claims. The bill authorizes the commissioner to pay assignees from the account, providing: (1) the assignor has not yet been paid, (2) the assignor directs the commissioner to pay the assignee on a form the commissioner approves, (3) the account does not bear any of the assignment costs, and (4) neither the state nor any state agency bears any liability with respect to the assignment.

Pay for Performance Subaccount. The bill establishes a subaccount in the clean-up account called the “pay for performance subaccount. “ She may use this subaccount for a program to pay applicants who achieve environmental milestones or results, and may enter into contracts to implement the program.

Application Deadlines. The bill creates deadlines by which applicants must request payment. An applicant whose initial application is received by the board before July 1, 2005 cannot submit any supplemental request after September 30, 2009. An applicant whose initial request is received by the board after July 1, 2005 has five years from the board's receipt of the request to submit any supplemental requests. These deadlines do not apply to requests for reimbursement for annual groundwater remediation, including the preparation of annual progress reports.

Deadline Extensions. Under the bill, the above deadlines must be extended by six months if the board fails to decide on a request for payment within six months of receiving it. However, the deadline for a particular request cannot be extended by a total of more than two years. And if the commissioner determines a request was ready for a decision by the board but was not placed on its agenda because the board was unable to meet or act on it, the deadline can be extended only for the length of time the board was unable to meet or act.

Insurance Coverage Reimbursement. Under the bill a person may apply to the board for reimbursement even if he has insurance or another agreement to reimburse him for costs incurred in response to a leak. But, he must (1) notify the board, in writing, of the payment or expected payment, and (2) repay the account all the money he receives from such other sources within 30 days of receiving these payments. Another provision of the bill allows for payment from the account only if the applicant's insurance or contract has been denied or is insufficient to cover the costs for which the applicant is seeking payment. If the board finds an applicant is seeking reimbursement from the account, and that the reimbursement is available to him from another source, it may impose any conditions it deems reasonable on the amount it pays from the account.

Under the bill, the board no longer reviews applications to determine if a release has occurred and the amount of damage it caused, but must decide whether to order reimbursement based on applicable laws and regulations affecting USTs.

Under current law the board includes a member representing the Connecticut Gasoline Retailers Association, appointed by the House minority leader. The bill replaces this member with a representative of the Gasoline and Automotive Services Dealers of America, Inc.

The bill authorizes the commissioner to prepare a price schedule of the maximum or range of amounts the UST clean-up account will reimburse applicants for costs incurred as a result of a leak or suspected leak. The schedule is not to be considered a regulation subject to the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act.

The amounts in the price schedule must be no more than the usual, customary and reasonable amounts charged for these services or materials, as determined by the commissioner. Once the commissioner adopts the schedule, the board cannot pay more for services or materials than the schedule allows. The prices set in the schedule may serve as a guide for costs paid or incurred before its adoption.

Anyone may ask the commissioner to adopt, revise or revoke the schedule. If the commissioner decides to do so, she must, after consulting with the board, publish notice of intent in a newspaper of substantial circulation in the affected area, and allow 30 days for submittal of written comments. The commissioner must then publish notice of the schedule's adoption, revision, or revocation in a newspaper of substantial circulation in the affected area. The bill bars the commissioner from having to review the price schedule more than once every two years, but authorizes her to do so more often if she believes it necessary. She may revise or revoke the schedule, in whole or in part. Once she adopts a schedule that includes a price for a particular service, the bill supersedes a regulatory requirement that applicants obtain three written bids for such a service. The bill requires LEPs to use a seal, as provided in regulations, to provide the required written approvals the bill requires.

By law, responsible parties who are not liable for a release may apply to the board for the costs of investigating the release. The bill authorizes them to also apply for the costs of remediation. Under current law, third parties who claim to have suffered damage or personal injury because of a release may apply to the board for reimbursement, if the responsible party (1) denies there was a release, or (2) does not apply to the board for payment of a claim.

The bill instead requires that a person who claims to have suffered bodily injury, property damage or damage to natural resources make a reasonable attempt to notify the responsible party in writing. If the claimant cannot provide such notice, or if the responsible party does not apply to the board for payment within 60 days of receiving the notice or such other time as the parties agree to, the third party may apply to the board for payment.

Prior Written Approval of Claims. The bill requires prior written approval of claims made for payment for the costs of labor and materials provided after October 1, 2005, and for services and activities begun after that date. For such costs that total $ 250,000 or less, the board cannot order payment unless the commissioner or an LEP has given written approval. For such costs exceeding $ 250,000, the commissioner must give written approval or authorize, in writing, an LEP to give written approval. The applicant must submit the required written approvals with his request for payment.

The fees an LEP charges may be (1) established in the price schedule the commissioner devises, and (2) included in an applicant's request for reimbursement. Providing it is true and accurate, the LEP must submit the following statement concerning any approval he gives: “I hereby agree that all of the labor, equipment, materials, service and activities described in or covered by this certification was appropriate under the circumstances to abate an emergency or was performed as part of a plan specifically designed to ensure that the release or suspected release is or has been investigated in accordance with prevailing standards and guidelines and remediated consistent with and to achieve compliance with the remediation standards adopted under section 22a-133k. ”

Conditions for the Board to Order Reimbursement. Under current law, the board reimburses responsible parties and others (third parties) who suffer damage or personal injury because of a UST leak. The board must order reimbursement when these applicants meet certain conditions. The bill modifies some of the conditions and adds new ones.

It eliminates a requirement that the board find a leak to be the proximate cause of the damage for which reimbursement is sought. The board must instead find that the expense for which reimbursement is sought is reasonable, and that the applicant has not violated certain notification or compliance provisions.

Under current law, a responsible party must notify the board of (1) a release as soon as practicable, and (2) any resulting third-party claim. The bill instead requires responsible parties to notify the commissioner of a release according to regulations or as soon as practicable, and to notify the board as soon as practicable of any claim made by someone other than a responsible party resulting from the release.

The board must determine what, if any, reductions should be made to the amount sought, based on the compliance evaluations the bill requires.

The board must also find that the responsible party has completed a milestone the bill establishes. If there is no operating UST on the property when a request for payment is made, the board must find that the leak was not caused by (1) failing to comply with UST laws and regulations, or (2) reckless, willful, wanton or intentional act or omission, or negligence that constitutes noncompliance with UST laws or regulations.

• he did not remediate the UST to a more stringent standard than DEP requires, except at the commissioner's written direction;

• he does not have insurance, or a contract or other agreement to provide payment or reimbursement for costs, or that such insurance or contract has been denied or is insufficient to cover the costs for which the applicant is seeking payment.

The bill requires the board to reimburse a third party who suffered bodily injury, property damage or damage to natural resources as the result of a leak, if such a party can show (1) the cost was incurred after July 5, 1989, (2) the responsible party is subject to federal UST laws requiring financial responsibility, (3) the remediation for which reimbursement is sought is no more stringent than remediation standards require, unless the commissioner has directed the responsible party otherwise in writing; and (4) the responsible party does not have insurance or another agreement to pay the requested costs, or the insurance has been denied or is insufficient. The board must also determine that the party seeking damages (1) has suffered bodily injury, property damage, or damage to natural resources, (2) the costs are reasonable, (3) the party submitting them has provided or tried to provide written notice of its claim to the responsible party, and (4) the responsible party has not asked the board to pay the claim.

Compliance Evaluations. Under the bill, for applications received starting January 1, 2006 where a UST is dispensing oil at the time of a request, the board cannot consider an initial or supplemental request for payment unless it includes a summary of the compliance status of all tanks on the applicant's property.

The compliance summary must be prepared by an independent consultant on a form the commissioner accepts or prepares. It must include an evaluation of compliance with regulations concerning the design, construction, installation, notification, general operating, release detection, system upgrading, abandonment and removal date requirements. The consultant must base the summary on an evaluation conducted no more than 180 days before the board receives the payment request, except for the evaluation of record-keeping, monitoring or testing, which must be based on a one-year period ending not more than 180 days before the board receives an application. The summary must fully describe all steps taken to correct any noncompliance the evaluation identified.

The above provisions apply to initial applications received after January 1, 2006, and to supplemental applications submitted after that date, regardless of when the initial application was submitted. However, the board cannot require a compliance summary in a supplemental request if a request submitted in the prior year included one.

The board may reimburse an applicant a maximum of $ 1,000 per evaluation for the cost of hiring an independent consultant to perform a compliance evaluation, provided the evaluation is conducted according to law and includes all USTs on the property. If the price schedule the commissioner adopts includes an amount for performing a compliance evaluation, the amount eligible will be the amount the schedule prescribes.

The bill does not affect any board decision to deny reimbursement or provide only partial payment from the account. The board cannot reconsider or reevaluate such a decision.

If there is no UST dispensing oil when an application is submitted, such application must show the leak was not caused by (1) failing to comply with UST laws and regulations, or (2) reckless, willful, wanton or intentional conduct or negligence constituting noncompliance with UST laws or regulations, regardless of whether a previous application provided such information. This provision does not apply to a request for annual groundwater remediation actions, including the preparation of a groundwater remedial action progress report.

Reduction of Reimbursements. The bill authorizes the board to reduce payments if the compliance summary shows the applicant failed to fully correct a violation when he requests payment. The board may completely disallow the payment if the applicant did not (1) meet tank or piping construction requirements, or (2) properly report a leak. It may reduce the payment by 75% if it finds the applicant did not have proper (1) cathodic protection, (2) spill or overfill prevention, or (3) release detection. The board also may reduce payments for other violations of UST laws or regulations. In addition, the commissioner can take other enforcement actions against someone who failed to comply with applicable laws or regulations regarding ownership or operation of a UST.

Deadline Extension For Request For Payment. Under current law, the board cannot order payment from the account for work performed or services provided after October 1, 2004 unless it receives an application or preauthorization request within 180 days of the time the work was performed or material provided. The bill changes the deadline to one year after the completion of most or all of the work needed to prepare the plan or report required by the milestones the bill creates.

Current law prohibits the board from ordering payment for preauthorized work or services performed or provided before October 1, 2004 unless it received an application or preauthorization request by April 1, 2005. The bill instead allows the board to order such payment if it received an application or any submission regarding preauthorized work, services or material by that date.

Attorney General's Actions for Damages. The bill expands the attorney general's power to sue for certain damages. Under current law the attorney general may, at the board's request, file suit in Hartford Superior Court to recover damages from responsible parties. The bill authorizes the DEP commissioner to also make such a request. It allows actions against anyone who (1) owns or operates the UST when the leak occurs, or (2) owns the land where the UST is located at the time or after the leak occurred until a final remedial action report is submitted and approved as the bill provides. The bill changes several of the conditions under which the attorney general may sue such people:

• Under current law, the attorney general may sue if the responsible party knowingly and intentionally failed to notify the commissioner of a leak, and the leak was the result of the responsible party's reckless, willful, wanton or intentional conduct. The bill instead authorizes the attorney general to sue where the leak resulted from any person's reckless, willful, wanton or intentional act or omission, or negligence that constitutes noncompliance with UST laws and regulations.

• Current law authorizes the attorney general to sue in cases where a UST leaked as a direct result of its non-compliance with either a commissioner's order or UST laws and regulations. The bill eliminates the need for the attorney general to prove that noncompliance was the direct cause of the leak, but limits lawsuits to instances of noncompliance with a final order of the commissioner or a final judgment of a court.

• Under the bill, the attorney general cannot bring a legal action unless the board paid money from the account to a party (including the commissioner) other than the person being sued.

• The bill allows the commissioner, as well as the board, to recover all payments made from the account and by the commissioner concerning the leak or suspected leak, interest on the payments at an annual rate of 10%, and the costs of recovering the payments, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

• The bill bars anyone whom the attorney general has sued, or to whom the commissioner has sent a demand letter, from requesting reimbursement for the amount the attorney general or commissioner is seeking, and prohibits the board from acting on such a request.

Hearings on Board Decisions. Current law requires that the board render a decision on an application from a responsible or third party within 90 days of an initial request and 45 days of a subsequent request. It requires the board to hold a hearing when one is requested by the commissioner or a party aggrieved by the board's decision. The bill requires the board to notify all parties, rather than just the applicant or responsible party, if it has affirmed or modified its decision following a hearing. The bill bars an applicant from resubmitting a request for payment if he did not request a hearing after the board issued its decision.

Refusal of Responsible Party to Pay Third Party Claim for Deductible. By law, responsible parties must pay the first $ 10,000 of clean-up expenses. Third parties are not required to pay this deductible. With certain exceptions, responsible parties and third parties are responsible for costs in excess of $ 1 million. The bill eliminates a provision authorizing the commissioner, at the board's direction, to pay the first $ 10,000 of third party claims directly to a third party claimant if the responsible party (1) refused to do so, and (2) did not pay the $ 10,000 deductible. Under current law, the board can seek to recover this money.

Discounted Payments. The bill authorizes the board to speed up consideration of a request for payment for certain activities, costs or expenses in return for paying less than the full amount when considering a supplemental application or request for payment based on an initial application it received before June 1, 2005 and found eligible for payment.

Under the bill, the commissioner may identify categories of activities that cost less than $ 100,000 for which the board may approve payments of less than the full amount in return for expediting a decision on reimbursement. In making her recommendation to the board, the commissioner must consider amounts previously paid, and other information she believes relevant. The board may approve payments of up to 90% of the average amount previously paid for these categories.

The board can approve or disapprove, but not modify, payment of the percentage the commissioner recommends. This apparently refers to both the percentage agreed to in an individual case and to a percentage recommended for a particular category of activities. The commissioner also may recommend changing any percentage the board previously approved.

A party who agrees to accept a percentage approved by the board must do so in writing. He must sign the acceptance and acknowledge he is agreeing to accept less than the full amount requested. He must use any forms the commissioner prescribes. The board has 90 days from receiving the applicant's acceptance to determine whether to order payment from the account for the specified activity. It must only consider whether the costs are those for which the board has approved payment of a percentage.

The percentage the board pays is considered full payment, and the applicant cannot seek additional reimbursements for such costs. The categories or activities the commissioner identifies may represent all or a portion of the amount sought in a supplemental application.

Under the bill, an applicant who notifies the commissioner of a leak according to regulations she adopts is considered to also have notified the board.

For applications the board receives starting October 1, 2005, the board can reimburse an applicant only when he meets a milestone the bill creates. Six of the seven milestones require one report. For the seventh milestone, annual groundwater remediation progress reports, the bill allows a responsible party to file a maximum of four requests for payment per year. The milestone requirements apply to applications received as of October 1, 2005 regardless of when the release or suspected release took place, whether action has been taken in response to the release, or whether prior applications have been submitted to the board. The bill authorizes the commissioner to adopt regulations establishing these or other milestones, including milestones that differ from those in the bill. The milestones set out in regulation will supplant those in statute upon adoption of the regulations.

1. all initial response actions taken to prevent a release and to mitigate a resulting explosion, fire or other safety hazard;

2. the results of an initial site investigation that determines the presence and extent of free product from the release, the potential for or existence of groundwater pollution that threatens the quality of drinking water wells, and whether the release threatens the public health;

3. all interim actions taken and proposed to:

a. remove such free product to the extent technically practicable;

b. provide potable water to anyone whose drinking water has been polluted by the release to a level above the groundwater protection criteria or above a level the public health commissioner determines poses an unacceptable risk of injury to people drinking the water or using it for other personal or domestic uses, whichever is more stringent; and

c. mitigate any public health risk from polluted soil vapor or indoor air resulting from the release.

The following reports must be approved in writing by (1) the commissioner, or (2) an LEP and submitted to the commissioner.

1. remove free product to the maximum extent technically practicable;

2. ensure that all people whose drinking water was polluted by the release have been provided potable water; and

3. ensure that soil vapors that pose a public health risk are prevented from migrating into any buildings overhead.

An “Investigation Report and Remedial Action Plan,” including a detailed description of an investigaton that determines the existing and potential extent and degree of soil, surface water, soil vapor and groundwater pollution, on and off-site, resulting from the release, and describing all actions proposed to remediate soil, surface water, air or groundwater polluted by the release according to regulations governing remediation of hazardous waste sites.

A “Soil Remedial Action Report” describing in detail the extent of soil pollution resulting from the release, all remedial actions taken to abate such soil pollution, and all documentation that demonstrates that such soil pollution has been remediated according to regulations regarding remediation of hazardous waste sites.

A “Groundwater Remedial Action Progress Report” including a detailed description of the remedial actions, the results of groundwater monitoring or any other monitoring conducted, an analysis of the effectiveness of the remedial actions, and a proposal for any changes in the groundwater remedial actions and monitoring that may be needed to comply with the hazardous waste site remediation regulations. This report may only be submitted after the completion of all construction needed to implement the approved groundwater remedial actions, and the actions have been operating and monitored for one year.

An “Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Progress Report,” including a detailed description of the remedial actions, the results of groundwater or any other monitoring conducted for the year covered by the report, an analysis of the effectiveness of the remedial actions, and a proposal for any changes in the remedial actions and monitoring that may be needed to comply with the hazardous waste remediation regulations. A responsible party may submit to the board up to four separate applications or requests for payment or reimbursement per calendar year for costs, expenses or obligations paid or incurred concerning annual groundwater monitoring or compliance.

A “Final Remedial Action Report” documenting the release has been investigated according to prevailing standards and guidelines, and that the soil, surface water, groundwater and air polluted by the release has been remediated according to the hazardous waste remediation regulations.

The commissioner may adopt regulations establishing these or other milestones for investigation and remedation of releases and suspected releases. The milestones set out in regulation will supplant those in statute upon adoption of the regulations.

Within 180 days of the bill's passage, the commissioner, after consulting with the board, must develop and implement a plan to process applications submitted to the board, emphasizing applications submitted before June 30, 2005. The plan may include expedited procedures for processing certain categories of applications, identifying, providing notice and processing incomplete applications, and helping applicants complete their applications. The commissioner must update the board regarding the plan's implementation every six months until July 31, 2007, and must, by that date, prepare a report, apparently for the board, describing (1) progress in processing applications submitted before June 30, 2005; (2) estimated results achieved by using the new procedures, (3) the number of pending applications, and (4) her recommendations for improving the application process. The commissioner must seek public comment before implementing the plan.

By law, the Underground Storage Tank Review Board could not accept applications for reimbursement between September 1, 2003 and June 8, 2004. Under current law, the moratorium on applications resumes July 1, 2005 and ends October 1, 2005. The bill repeals those moratoria, allowing the board to consider applications submitted during those periods.

The bill repeals the requirement that certain pasteurizing plants be equipped with an automatic controller and an automatic recording thermometer to regulate and register the temperature of milk or cream as it is pasteurized and follow related rules.

The bill requires the DMHAS commissioner, in consultation with DCF and DSS, to report on any Medicaid reimbursement the state received for providing coverage of optional rehabilitation services for children and adults. He must submit the report by February 1, 2006 to the Public Health, Human Services, and Appropriations committees.

The bill removes an erroneous reference to the Board for State Academic Awards in a special act requiring the higher education commissioner and the Office of Workforce Competitiveness to review and report to the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee on the inclusion of nanotechnology, molecular manufacturing, and advanced and developing technologies at higher education institutions.

The bill adjusts the priority school district grant fund allocations specified in PA 05-245 for priority school districts and school readiness grants for FY 06 and FY 07 as follows:

Funds allocated to early reading success, extended school building hours, and school accountability grants remain unchanged.

The bill amends the memorandum of understanding and debt servicing provisions of HB 7000 (“DSS Implementer,” §§ 32 & 33) dealing with supportive housing.

HB 7000 requires the OPM secretary and Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS) commissioner to enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Social Services, Children and Families (DCF), and Economic and Community Development (DECD) departments to effectuate the Next Steps initiative to create 500 additional units of supportive housing. Under HB 7000, the MOU is to require (1) DMHAS and DCF to provide annual grants for support services and (2) DECD and the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) to provide grants, mortgage loans, and tax credits for projects. This bill makes these agencies’ actions optional. And it allows CHFA and DECD to combine the types of assistance they provide. It also specifies that the rent subsidies DSS can provide to project under the MOU can include payments to fund reasonable repair and replacement reserves.

The bill permits the MOU to contain any provisions the parties (1) find necessary to implement the Supportive Housing Initiative (which includes an earlier 650-unit pilot program) and (2) appropriate for repaying state assistance (see below) if CHFA receives mortgage payments from federal or other sources. It eliminates a provision that the MOU provide for the state treasurer and OPM secretary to enter a debt service agreement with CHFA to pay debt service on tax-exempt bonds CHFA issues for the units, but it explicitly authorizes them to contract with CHFA to provide state assistance on bonds it issues.

HB 7000 requires CHFA, by January 1, 2006, to issue requests for proposals to participate in the Next Steps Initiative. This bill requires it to give priority to applicants that include organizations DMAHS, DSS, and DCF deem qualified to provide services.

HB 7000 permits the treasurer and OPM secretary to contract with CHFA for the state to pay principal and interest and reasonable operating reserves on CHFA mortgages issued under both phases of the Supportive Housing Initiative. This bill broadens the types of such “state assistance” they may provide to include interest-rate swap payments; liquidity, letter of credit, and trustee fees; and similar bond-related expenses on bonds issued to provide mortgages, but it eliminates assistance for operating reserves. It also requires the state to pay up to $ 70 million for reasonable repair and replacement reserves and bond issuance costs. Under the bill, the Bond Commission must first authorize the treasurer and secretary to take action.

The bill excludes bonds or refunding bonds to which this state assistance applies from counting against the state’s bond limit. It also eliminates a requirement that the contract with CHFA include provisions the secretary and treasurer find (1) needed to assure the initiative is put into effect, (2) appropriate for repaying the state when CHFA receives mortgage payments from federal or other sources, and (3) in the state’s best interests by allowing direct payment to the bond trustee or paying agent.

The bill makes any provision of the contract that provides for annual debt service payments a full faith and credit obligation of the state. HB 7000 deems such a provision a state contract with the bondholders and, like this bill, appropriates all amounts needed to make prompt payment.

HB 7000 permits CHFA to pay off the original bonds at any time by issuing refunding bonds. This bill permits the treasurer and OPM secretary to amend their contract with CHFA as needed in connection with such a refunding without Bond Commission authorization.

The bill makes a technical correction to the title of a Mediciad program referenced in HB 7000.

Beginning January 1, 2006, PA 05-286 requires state agency contracts for legal services that will, or could reasonably be expected to, result in attorney’s fees, including contingency fees, of at least $ 250,000 to be awarded pursuant to request for proposal or for qualification and negotiation procedures.

The bill limits this requirement to contracts awarded by the attorney general only. It retains a provision in PA 05-286 for the attorney general to establish request for proposal or for qualification and negotiation procedures for state agencies to follow when contracting for legal services expected to cost the state at least $ 250,000.

PA 05-183 abolishes the State Ethics Commission (SEC) and establishes the Office of State Ethics (OSE) and a nine-member Citizen's Ethics Advisory Board as its successor. It requires the governor, Senate president, and House speaker to jointly appoint an interim executive director of the OSE to serve until the new Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board appoints the OSE executive director.

The bill permits a member of the SEC on June 30, 2005 to serve on the Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board from July 1, 2005 to September 30, 2005. After July 1, 2005, all board members, including vacancies, must be appointed consistent with the provisions in PA 05-183. Any SEC member who elects to serve on the board during the three-month period is considered to fill a vacancy and after the term expires he is eligible for appointment to one full four-year term.

If the advisory board does not have enough members from July 1, 2005 to September 1, 2005 to constitute a quorum, the governor can appoint members that the Senate president and House speaker approve. Like the SEC members who elect to serve on the board, the gubernatorial appointees are considered to fill vacancies and after their terms expire they are eligible for appointment to one full four-year term.

The bill requires the full board to be in place and serving their initial terms, which begin on October 1, 2005, before they hire the executive director.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon passage, except the provision on the executive director is effective July 1, 2005

The bill stipulates that any probable cause hearing pending with the SEC on June 30, 2005 continues on and after July 1, 2005 when the SEC ceases to exist. Once the OSE is established, it must resolve all matters the SEC started.

PA 05-183 authorizes the board to adopt regulations to carry out the purposes of the State Ethics Code. This bill specifies that the regulations do not govern the conduct of judge trial referees who determine if probable cause exists to believe that an ethics violation was committed and preside over ethics violation hearings.

By law, a state agency must obtain a building permit from the state building inspector before it constructs or alters any state building or structure exceeding one or more threshold limits and requiring an independent structural review. The bill eliminates the provisions for alterations but adds residential occupancies of 25 or more people to the types of buildings that must get a permit prior to construction. As is currently required for threshold buildings, the state building inspector must review the plans and specifications for the building or structure and verify its compliance with the State Building Code. Within 30 days, he must issue, or refuse to issue, the permit. He can also request that the state fire marshal review the plans for compliance with the State Fire Safety Code.

The bill eliminates the requirement that the state building inspector or his designee automatically inspect or cause to be inspected every building that a state agency constructs or alters. Instead it requires the inspector or his designee to inspect only residential occupancies of 25 or more, and it allows them to conduct any other inspection at their discretion.

The bill reverses the change to motor vehicle ignition interlock device requirements made by PA 05-218. That act limited the ignition interlock device requirements that apply to certain drivers only to passenger vehicles they own or operate. The bill restores the prior law’s requirement that applies the law to all motor vehicles the person owns or operates, not just passenger vehicles.

§ 113 — FARMLAND PRESERVATION, LAND PROTECTION, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT EFFECTIVE DATE CHANGE

The bill makes all the sections of PA 05-228 effective October 1, 2005. The act creates new farmland preservation programs and institutes a new document-recording fee to fund them. It takes effect July 1, 2005, except for the property tax exemption for agricultural buildings, which takes effect upon passage. The act specifies that the exemption applies to assessment years beginning on or after October 1, 2005.

By law, the board could not accept applications for reimbursement between September 1, 2003 and June 8, 2004. Under current law, the moratorium on applications resumes July 1, 2005 and ends October 1, 2005. The bill repeals those moratoria, allowing the board to consider applications submitted during those periods.

The bill repeals the 1998 law authorizing a demonstration project to establish a school- and community-based truancy prevention initiative for public school children with patterns of truancy.

*Survivor*	*Amount Payable to Spouse, Guardian, or Dependent Parent*	*Amount Payable for Dependent Child*
Spouse and dependent children under age 18	$ 100,000 payable in equal monthly installments over at least 10 years and terminating on spouse’s death or remarriage in the 10-year period	$ 50 per month for each dependent child until the child reaches age 18, payable to the member’s spouse or child’s guardian
A dependent child under age 18 and no spouse	$ 100,000 payable in equal monthly installments over at least 10 years to the children’s guardian until the youngest child reaches age 18 during the 10-year period	$ 50 monthly for each dependent child payable to the guardian until the child reaches age 18
A spouse and no dependent children under age 18	$ 50,000 payable in equal monthly installments over at least five years and terminating on the spouse’s death or remarriage during the five-year period	NA
No spouse and no children under age 18 but dependent parents	$ 50,000 payable to the parent in equal monthly installments over at least five years; if one parent dies, the payment continues for the other parent and ends with the death of the last surviving parent in the five-year period	NA

*Event/Task*	*Current rate*	*January 1, 2006*	*July 1, 2006*
End of proceedings	$ 150	$ 175	$ 225
Second and subsequent approved hearing days	75	100	150
Attendance at executive sessions	75	100	150
Write panel decision	100	125	175
Write single-member panel decision	250	275	325

*Appointee*	*Appointing Authority*
OPM Secretary	Statutory
Environmental Protection Commissioner	Statutory
Economic and Community Development Commissioner	Statutory
Transportation Commissioner	Statutory
Public Safety Commissioner	Statutory
Public Health Commissioner	Statutory
Public Works Commissioner	Statutory
Agriculture Commissioner	Statutory
Emergency Management and Homeland Security Commissioner	Statutory
Social Services Commissioner	Statutory
Department of Information Technology Chief Information Officer	Statutory
Connecticut State University System Chancellor	Statutory
University of Connecticut President	Statutory
Connecticut Siting Council Executive Director	Statutory
Public Utility Control Authority Chairman	Statutory
Military Department Adjacent General	Statutory
GIS User representing town with over 60,000 people	Senate President Pro Tempore
GIS User representing a regional planning agency	Senate Minority Leader
GIS User representing a town with between 30,000 and 60,000 people	Governor
GIS User representing a town with fewer than 30,000 people	House Speaker
GIS User	House Minority Leader


*GRANT*	*FY 06*		*FY 07*
	*PA 05-245*	*This bill*	*PA 05-245*	*This bill*
Priority School Districts	$ 34,538,308	$ 34,925,166	$ 35,862,269	$ 36,513,547
School Readiness	48,516,500	48,129,642	51,006,500	50,355,222