Aging Committee

JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT

Bill No.:

HB-6396

Title:

AN ACT CONCERNING LIVABLE COMMUNITIES.

Vote Date:

3/7/2013

Vote Action:

Joint Favorable

PH Date:

2/26/2013

File No.:

SPONSORS OF BILL:

Aging Committee

REASONS FOR BILL:

To foster the design and development of livable communities in which Connecticut residents can age in place.

RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:

Nancy Shaffer, State Long Term Care Ombudsman

“This proposal again underscores the State of Connecticut's commitment to provide supports and services to residents to enable them to age in place. The bill requires the Commission on Aging (CoA), a vital component of Connecticut's modernization efforts, to serve as a forum for best practices and a clearinghouse for resources. This initiative will help municipal and state leaders design livable communities which in turn will enable individuals to age in place. The Ombudsman fully supports this proposal.”

Roderick Bremby, Commissioner, Department of Social Services

“…The Department supports the philosophy and principles of 'livable communities' which are consistent with both consumer choice and rebalancing efforts. “

Deborah Migneault, Legislative & Community Liaison, Commission on Aging

“The CoA is most willing and eager to continue the work of the Aging in Place Task Force (SA 12-6) to establish a long-range initiative focused on livable communities and aging in place. This bill seeks to establish a mechanism to formerly report the work of the initiative to the CGA and maintain a formal connection on the subject matter between the CGA and livable community stakeholders.”

NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:

Mag Morelli, President, LeadingAge Connecticut

“The State's Strategic Rebalancing Plan encourages aging services providers to work with their community leaders to address the aging service needs of that community. We support this legislation which would offer municipalities a source of additional information and resources to help plan and meet the needs of their aging residents. “

Jane L. Jervis, President, HomeHaven Inc.

“…The existence of a forum and clearinghouse for information about resources and best practices would have been and will be of enormous value to us. The model of Livable Communities promises the kind of coordinated effort that will be both efficient and effective. As we face the rising tide of elders who will need support of various kinds as they age, we surely cannot afford to duplicate efforts and to waste scarce public or private resources.”

Marie Allen, Executive Director, Connecticut Association of Area Agencies on Aging

“…The anticipated growth in Connecticut's 60+ population makes a convincing argument that each municipality will need to do more to promote aging in place for its senior citizens that have, and will continue to be a tax payers, volunteers, civic leaders and valued community members.”

Dianne Stone, Director, Newington Senior and Disabled Center

“…Municipalities have the potential to reach people where they live, to mobilize community resources and to provide programs, services and activities that reflect the needs and culture of our unique communities. In the broader context of long term supports and services, we are in a position to create tremendous impact by providing low cost programs, activities and services that prevent or delay more costly interventions. With this expanded view we must look at just what it means to age in place. Transportation, zoning, housing, recreation, social and civic engagement, prevention, wellness, nutrition, fraud and abuse prevention; all are vital to successful aging and all have municipal impact.”

AARP

“…The proposal would make it easier for local town leaders to learn from successful efforts in Connecticut and implement those strategies in their local communities.

…A key element to supporting consumer preference to age in place, however, depends on the ability of towns and cities to accommodate aging residents by creating livable communities. This means adapting and building upon existing programs, services, and infrastructure (and oftentimes within existing budgets) to make them accessible and safe for residents with varying needs and capacities.”

NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:

None expressed.

Reported by: Amy Linskey & Art Mongillo

Date: 3/13/13