PD Committee Hearing Transcript for 02/24/2014

REP. ROJAS: Okay, we are going to begin this public hearing of the Planning and Development Committee. All right, we got to (inaudible). Okay, we're going to secure the first hour for elected officials, agency representatives, and other elected officials. And the first person on the agenda today is Richard Paoletto and/or Senator Musto. If you want to come up together, you're welcome to do that.

SENATOR MUSTO: Thank you to the Chairs. Mr. Paoletto is here. With the Chair's indulgence we also have Anne Lenz from the -- she's the Finance Director for the City of Bridgeport. She would like to say a few words, if that's okay? Okay, thank you.

RICHARD PAOLETTO: Good morning. My name is Richard Paoletto. I sit on the City Council for the City of Bridgeport. Currently I'm the Deputy Majority Leader, Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee, Contracts Committee, and also Public Safety.

I did prepare something but I feel I'm just going to ad lib and talk to you from the heart today. And first of all I want to thank you again for all the help that you all do here for the City of Bridgeport in way of funding, between Steelpointe, the new train station, downtown housing, and the city has really taken off. And there's so many little projects going on, there's so many big projects going on that your indulgence and this option of giving the cities the option to use the reval or not use the reval I think is something else that we need your help with.

And I really, from the heart, from the people that I represent, want to ask your indulgence to vote for the option to let the city choose to reval -- use reval or not this year. So that way we won't hinder or we won't have people afraid to invest their own dollars in the city.

And unfortunately if this doesn't pass our mill rate will go up. And our mill rate will affect our taxpayers because of the some of the businesses that want to come into Bridgeport won't have the opportunity or the people who are in Bridgeport; they won't be able to stay in Bridgeport. I'm going to defer all the technical stuff to our Finance Director. But again I want to thank you for the opportunity; I want to thank you for your time, and thank you for your consideration.

ANNE KELLY-LENZ: Good morning. My name is Anne Kelly-Lenz; I'm the Finance Director for the City of Bridgeport. First of all, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the proposed option to delay this revaluation.

The city is seeking a two year delay for the current statistical revaluation which is performed at the midpoint of a ten year cycle. This request is based on an historic economic recession which has had such an effect on the entire United States economy resulting in corresponding record high levels of subprime lending defaults and foreclosures that impacted Connecticut cities, particularly Bridgeport.

Between 2008 and 2013, Bridgeport has consistently held a position of recording the highest rate of subprime loans, loan defaults, and foreclosures in the State of Connecticut. During this time frame Bridgeport has experienced more than 5,000 subprime loans, 3,400 lis pendens filings, and 2,800 foreclosures. This far exceeds any other municipality in the State of Connecticut.

As you all also may know, Bridgeport has the highest rate of home ownership in the state's three largest cities. Implementing the results of the statistical revaluation would have a serious negative impact on our home ownership rate and draw much needed economic development out of our city.

The city is on the cusp of large scale economic revival with millions of dollars in state funding having been invested in brownfield cleanups, housing, job programs, and economic development that would be seriously compromised by the negative impact of this revaluation.

Implementing this revaluation at this time would also likely result in the significant mill rate increase which would have increase in personal tax -- property tax burden on motor vehicles and business tax.

The personal property increase and the corresponding major hike in mill rate would encourage businesses to leave the city and discourage new businesses from locating -- relocating here. This would have a devastating effect on the commercial tax base which would squelch investment and expansion in the city.

So in light of the facts presented here, the city respectfully request your support of the legislation that would delay the revaluation process in Bridgeport and in other municipalities throughout the state for a period of two years to avert the insurmountable economic hardship that the revaluation process would -- would bring if it was conducted as scheduled.

Due to the time-sensitive nature of this request, we are hopeful, if this committee is in agreement, that this proposal would move forward for consideration by the entire State Legislature, and from a personal aspect as well, I would like to just say that it is a very exciting time to be working in Bridgeport with all the businesses and all the projects that are in the works especially supported by the state as well. That we're very excited to be involved in them, and we just need that option to be able to keep it static for the next couple of years. Thank you.

SENATOR MUSTO: And thank you to the Chairs for -- for hearing these folks and for letting me bring them up with me. I think that their testimonies expressed are extremely important, probably more so than mine. These are the folks who are going to be living with this. You got the Finance Director and the City Council. The City Council is going to be the one in the legislation that would make the decision.

And I do want to stress that I'm in support of all of these proposals in this bill. I thank the Governor for raising them. This one particularly affects my constituents in my district, Section 2. And the fact that it's an option to delay it for up to two years, that the municipality won't be forced to reval for up to two years. Could be 18 months, could be a year, and that they have to get back on schedule after that.

It really does two things. It gives the municipalities the option and the breathing room that they need to make the decisions they need for themselves. This is what -- believing in municipal mandates, this bill is all about in general. And we're always talking about home rule, giving municipalities the benefit of letting them run their own budgets. This is something that, you know, we understand the property tax in Connecticut have not done this in the past years. The system is very hard, especially on the cities.

But it also gets them back online right after that. And that's, I think, is also an important part of this legislation. So thank you very much. I'm certainly available for any questions, and I'm sure our guests are as well.

REP. ROJAS: Well thank you for coming in to testify. Representative Aman?

REP. AMAN: Yes. I do have a couple of questions, and just so you know where I'm coming from, having sat on this committee through the horrors of Waterbury and their revaluation problems, which weren't two years, but many years, it is one of the reasons I'm hesitant for revaluation changes. Because of the experience we had there.

So I guess I just have two questions that you can address. If this bill goes through, who is going to pay less and who is going to pay more since Bridgeport, the amount of money you raise isn't going to change. It's just which taxpayers write -- write the checks.

And the other question that ties into that, why will the problem go away two years from now? Then why in two years will it be better than it is now and are all we doing is delaying things for two years, at which point Bridgeport will be coming in saying, yes, we thought we were going to straighten it out in two years. We haven't, we need two years more to do it. So if you can just address those two issues for me.

ANNE KELLY-LENZ: Your issue in regards to why the two years, we see, as you can tell in the markets, there is an uptick in markets, and the real estate market is rebounding, but obviously it hasn't rebounded to where we need it to be.

The last reval was done at the height of the market or as it was coming down slightly. So the values have not come back yet. So with having that instability of those values, that's where the problem is causing, because there are historically low values for it, so it would cause the mill rate to -- to increase.

We're hopeful that within that two years we have so many projects in the works right now that we're hoping that some of those projects will be done and completed or in the midst of being completed within that two year span. So we have a bigger business base coming in as well, so that will help equalize the taxes when we do go for reval, hopefully the market has risen slightly, plus then we keep the businesses we have and we continue to bring in the business that are in the works right now.

REP. ROJAS: Represent -- oh, I'm sorry.

REP. AMAN: And if you could also address the who pays more and who pays less. Because it's value times mill rate equals revenue and the revenue number is fixed.

ANNE KELLY-LENZ: It's going to be based on, as you know, personal property taxes are pretty much fixed, other than a depreciation every year. So you're going to have an increase, a large increase as the mill rate goes up significantly, you're going to have a large increase in the business tax.

You will also, depending on the value of different homes, because it's a statistical not a full reval, based on the home revals, those houses can go up because we're going to have a significant mill rate increase because of the houses that have gone down. So cars, cars are also a fixed value because of -- they're set at the state level and they just depreciate slightly every year. They will go up significantly as well.

REP. AMAN: If I am speaking as a homeowner of a home in a neighborhood in Bridgeport that has dropped significantly in value, how do you answer the question of my house taxes are staying high even though my house is worth considerably less than it was, but even though my car tax to the advantage of the person who is renting or paying property taxes or business taxes, because I believe that's what the shift would be.

ANNE KELLY-LENZ: I'm sorry?

REP. AMAN: You're putting a greater -- with the revaluation the way it's done, what you're talking about doing, I would see that the home owner in a home that has the market has depressed the value significantly, if revaluation goes through as scheduled, they will be paying less.

The person who is paying business taxes or property taxes or the renter, because the property taxes are included in the rental in some form, will be the beneficiary of the delay versus the homeowner who will not be the -- who will be paying more.

ANNE KELLY-LENZ: We would still have a -- a large spike in the increase of the mill rate. So even though their value -- some parts may go down, the mill rate is going to go up. So if anything, it's going to be equal or higher. It's not going to be significantly lower because we're going to have such a disparity in the values.

So the mill rate is going to go up. So you're kind of bringing it in maybe on an even level. We're trying to keep the businesses so that long-term we can keep those, the taxpayers, so when we do the reval and the shift of that tax base is taken off the taxpayer, that's what we're trying to do.

Because right now it still will be on the taxpayer because it's going to be, their value may go down, but their mill rate is going to come up. So they're still going to be taxed close to the same amount.

SENATOR MUSTO: If I may, Representative Aman, thank you for that question. I think that question really goes to the heart of what we're trying to do here today. These decisions about who should be taxed at the municipal level or what the differences will be at the municipal level are going to be made by the City Council.

The City Council is the one who has to approve this delay. And again it could be for any period of time. I'm not sure under the legislation it has to be for two years. They won't be forced to do a revaluation until two years from now. But these are the kind of questions that should be answered at the local level giving the local officials the option and the responsibility, frankly, for those decisions.

If it turns out that those residents, say you voted for this reval, and now we're overly taxed, then those representatives will be responsible for that, and will have to pay that price. Or the residents could say thank you very much, and those representatives will be responsible, the city councilman will be responsible for answering those constituents.

Here at the capital it's been my feeling for a long time, and I know I've had some of these conversations with you. I don't think we give enough power and consequent responsibility over property taxes to our municipalities. I think they should have both. And this is one step in the right direction. It's a -- granted it's a small step and it's a very contained step, I guess. You know, it's a specific issue.

But I think one of my beliefs is that these are the responsibilities that should fall on the local representatives and that when they do the numbers it may turn out that, you know, the numbers aren't what they thought they were going to be. Property taxes for residents would have gone up much more. Property tax for business would have gone down or vice versa, or maybe around even. Maybe they decide not to do the reval.

But giving them the option, making them responsible for it, and also giving them that opportunity, I think, is what is important about the legislation, which is why I'm supporting it, along with the rest of the bill.

REP. AMAN: As you well know my idea is that the municipalities know much better what they're doing than the -- than the state. And so it's, I guess my next question tied in to that is why does Bridgeport decide that this is a better solution to a real problem than a phase-in which, current statutes allow on a rising market.

I believe we passed something on a decreasing market last year, and then it was -- or repealed, so I'm not really sure if a decreasing market. But I know we had passed that. Why would a phase-in not -- to go moving forward with a revaluation, but phasing it in over the next two or three years not address or do the same problem -- or address the same problem?

SENATOR MUSTO: I don't know what would happen in Bridgeport specifically. Again, if it's one more tool in the tool box, it might be that a reval -- excuse me, a phase-in is -- is a better option. But again, I think that's a decision that is best made at the local level. This may just be another tool in the tool box. I don't know what would happen specifically in Bridgeport. I'll let, probably the Finance Director is the one to answer that.

REP. AMAN: And I'm sure that the Bridgeport officials have looked at the phase-in and have decided this is a better way to go. And my question is why is this a better reason -- way to go, and my question is why is this the better way to go because it might be for other municipalities a better way also.

ANNE KELLY-LENZ: A phase-in would mean that the tax is still increasing, which we would be phasing in that tax increase, whereas right now we'd be keeping the tax base stable to where it is right now.

So that when we do a reval in two or whatever years -- the years that are involved, we would be doing it hopefully with the economy two years down the road, and house values have changed, and we have got those businesses into Bridgeport that we're -- that those projects are in the works right now.

So that's why the choice of saying -- delaying it for two years as opposed to phasing it. Because the phasing does an increase. We're trying to keep that tax base stable.

REP. AMAN: I hope you're right about -- that for me personally that home values start to go up. It would make my life a lot easier. Thank you very much.

ANNE KELLY-LENZ: Thank you.

REP. ROJAS: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Senator Osten.

SENATOR OSTEN: Hi, how are you? There is another section of the same bill that you are testifying to that's changing, and that is tax collector of a city/town borrow or of the taxing district shall notify the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles each month on the first day of each month of a delinquency of that. Have you weighed in on that at all or looked at that to see what impact it would have on your city?

ANNE KELLY-LENZ: I have not done that yet.

SENATOR OSTEN: Okay. And I also have the same concerns. I'm hoping that the market comes back, but I have the same concerns that Representative Aman had regarding delaying the reval, because it is fair to say that even if the mill rate went up, taxes may not go up for people. Would you not --

ANNE KELLY-LENZ: They may not, they may a stay the same. But the basis of trying if the mill rate is going up, their cars are going up. Plus also the business tax is going up, and that's what we're trying to keep in. We're on the cusp of businesses coming in, we're trying to get those businesses in to keep the tax base stable.

SENATOR OSTEN: So, so you think that by keeping -- without doing the revaluation that the mill rate that, even if it would stay flat for houses, even if the mill rate went up and the taxes would stay flat for houses, the consequence of that would be the increase in both personal property and motor vehicles.

ANNE KELLY-LENZ: Definitely.

SENATOR OSTEN: Okay, thank you. Appreciate it.

REP. ROJAS: Any other questions? Representative Diminico.

SENATOR DIMINICO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have very similar concerns on -- at one time the revals were for ten years, then they went down to three, then they went back up to five. I heard the word catch up, which really made my eyebrows kind of raise. And that's the concern I have. That eventually when you do catch up that you're going to have some sticker shock.

I have a quick question for you on your grand list. You may not know it, your assessor may, but in relation to your grand list, what is -- what is the dollars on the business side and what is the dollars on the residential side?

ANNE KELLY-LENZ: I'd have to get that information, I apologize.

SENATOR DIMINICO: I'd be curious if they're kind of equal or if they're kind of lopsided. Because that definitely will affect how you do your reval. And you know, and on the phase-in -- and the phase-in basically is a shift as well. It's really a shift from the business of, in this case, it'd probably be a shift from the residential to the business, to benefit the business side. And I would think -- I think it's -- it's very difficult to kind of keep kicking the can down the road and trying to get a game plan that comes to fruition. I think it could have a blue ring effect in doing that.

And I realize two towns -- probably if towns had other bullets where they could work around trying to -- to be amenable to the business side or whoever is getting hurt in the reval, that would be nice. Maybe someday should have a conversation what can be provided to the town so they don't have to get put in the position where they have to come and try to defer a reval.

But I think, I'm very curious about the size of the grand list, and how it's balanced out there. I will say this, on the personal property side particularly, which also hurts businesses, it's just not just the motor vehicle. I can understand that, those are kind of fixed costs.

But the reval is when it's all about assessments, and those assessments can change. And the concern, again, I have, you're trying to promote the business side so the business of -- group comes in, takes a -- rehabs an old building. Brings the value up, and then the reval gets prolonged. They're still going to get a considerable tax because they've improved the property. So I really kind of have some reservations about the whole process. Thank you.

REP. ROJAS: Representative Sear.

REP. SEAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So in a very simplified case, okay, if your budget stayed stable year to year and the grand list or the assessed value of properties throughout the town went to 50 percent where they were. With the budget fixed amount, the mill rate would double, is that --

ANNE KELLY-LENZ: Possibly, yes.

REP. SEAR: Okay, so there's kind of a fixed relationship between that. So in terms -- a specific homeowner would be paying double the mill rate, but they would be paying that at a rate on a reduced value so they would end up at a fixed number. I know this is very simplified of a complicated issue.

But basically what you're saying is if your last reval was at the -- when the market was high, inflated, whatever. It was up there. It was in much more prosperous times. What you're trying to do is simply have a delay to a point where the market has had a chance to come back where values are at least closer to where your last reval was.

ANNE KELLY-LENZ: Yes.

REP. SEAR: In terms of the stability. It just gives a little bit more stability, excuse me, to the big picture rather than this great kind of change from where you were then to where you are now. And obviously you place a value on that stability. It's not like -- I don't see it as anybody making out really strongly money-wise or whatever. It just brings a lot more stability to the reval process and maybe some more understandability on people's part. Am I correct?

ANNE KELLY-LENZ: Yes.

REP. SEAR: Thank you.

REP. ROJAS: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

ANNE KELLY-LENZ: Thank you very much.

REP. ROJAS: Next up will be Fillmore McPherson.

FILLMORE McPHERSON: Thank you Mr. Speaker, and thank you all for allowing me to come before you today. My name is Fillmore McPherson, I am the First Selectman of the Town of Madison. I'm here to speak on behalf of the proposed changes to the statutes of Section 1433 as contained in the Governor's Bill 5055. As currently written without this change that's on your table, the statutes impose a burdensome tax on virtually every municipality in the state.

To refresh your memory, Section 1433 requires the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to withhold vehicle registration renewals for individuals who have not paid their annual vehicle property tax to the appropriate city or town. And this is an excellent tool for enforcing the property levied tax bills.

Unfortunately, the entire cost of DMV's operation for this service is billed back to the individual municipality based on their population. This cost, which covers ten employees plus benefits, totals $858,000 and change for the entire -- for the current year.

Our cost in Madison is $4,374, but the cost can be much bigger for the larger cities and towns. I did check our largest City of Bridgeport. By my calculations it's something like $31,000 that Bridgeport gets charged. The people who spoke before me can change -- can correct me if I misspeak.

Now the Governor's Bill would eliminate this chargeback for what should be a routine DMV service. And I urge you to support and pass this change for the benefit of all of our strapped cities and towns.

Moving on, I view this change as one small step in the ongoing review of unfunded mandates imposed on our municipalities. I've been pleased to serve for the last year on your Mandate Subcommittee for the MORE Commission. This subcommittee has approved a number of changes. These include sweeping reforms, such as requiring a supermajority for any new mandate all the way down to individual items such as financial relief for providing seven day advance voting.

And again, I notice another bill that you all are taking up right now, and that is the -- to ease up on the requirements for the notices that you put in the paper. And I would urge your support of that bill as well, because that, again, is an unfunded mandate on our municipalities.

And again, I urge your positive consideration on all these MORE Commission recommendations as a means of helping our hard-pressed cities and towns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. ROJAS: Sure, thank you. Since you've promoted me to Speaker, I'll make sure this bill gets done. Are there any --

FILLMORE McPHERSON: Whatever it takes.

REP. REED: Are there any questions there? Representative Kokoruda.

REP. KOKORUDA: Representative -- I mean, First Selectman McPherson, I welcome you to Hartford today, and I want to thank you for representing small towns and on the MORE Commission. And I know you've worked -- you know, I'm amazed at all you selectmen that come up month after month, if not week after week.

FILLMORE McPHERSON: Week after week these days.

REP. KOKORUDA: Week after week in taking time away from your duties in your municipalities. I'm glad to see there was some recommendations. Now, I understand all these recommendations, though, have not been put forward, is that true?

FILLMORE McPHERSON: That is correct. We've -- at the last session we put forward a number of recommendations. The subcommittee passed a number of recommendations which did not make it to the final report, I'm disappointed to say.

Not that I expect every one of our recommendations to be approved by the Legislature, I am not that naive, but I would have hoped that what the subcommittee passed would have made it onto the final written report for the subcommittee.

REP. KOKORUDA: Well thank you. About this bill with DMV, the money right now that the $858,000 just goes into the general fund, is that where it's going? Or is it going to DMV?

FILLMORE McPHERSON: The exact bookkeeping I'm not aware of, but I know that we get a bill -- every town gets a bill in January that says please remit these dollars. I'm not sure exactly which pocket it goes into. This came to my attention a year ago when I got the bill. It came across my desk and for some reason it clicked, because it said $858,000 and change. I said how can something pretty mundane like this cost that much money.

I had it in my mind that we must have been paying part of the Commissioner's salary, part of the heat and light for the building, you name it. So I made inquiries and found that it was this ten man department, or ten person department that administered this, and that by statute as currently written the costs get prorated, passed back to all the towns and cities.

REP. KOKORUDA: And the cost is set by population, not by how much you use the service?

FILLMORE McPHERSON: Yes, that is correct. Prorated by population.

REP. KOKORUDA: And the last thing, the other bill you mentioned, the publication, municipal notices.

FILLMORE McPHERSON: Yes.

REP. KOKORUDA: I remember last year knowing this number. Do you know how much Madison spends a year on this?

FILLMORE McPHERSON: Several thousand dollars. I don't have that -- I didn't come prepared. I happened to see it on your list of bills, so I thought I would --

REP. KOKORUDA: I remember thinking it was significant for a small town.

FILLMORE McPHERSON: Yes, it's several thousand dollars. Because you have to -- as currently written you have to put the whole verbiage into the newspaper, rather than just saying we're going to hold a town meeting, see our Web site for the details or whatever it might be.

REP. KOKORUDA: Okay, thank you, and it's good to see you today.

FILLMORE McPHERSON: Thank you.

REP. ROJAS: Are there any other questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

FILLMORE McPHERSON: Thank you.

REP. ROJAS: Mayor Bill Finch, who I understand is running late and looks like he still is. So we'll move on and come back to him. Karen Buffkin from OPM.

KAREN BUFFKIN: Good morning Senator Osten, Representative Rojas, Representative Aman, and members of the Planning and Development Committee. My name is Karen Buffkin and I'm the Deputy Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management. I'm here today to testify in support of Governor -- Senate Bill 33, AN ACT TO CREATE -- ESTABLISHING THE NEW HAVEN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.

This bill creates a quasi-public authority to stimulate investment within the development district within the City of New Haven to promote and encourage economic development and tourism in -- both within the city and development and redevelopment within the city and the greater New Haven region, which involves the towns contiguous to the City of New Haven.

We believe this Authority will complement and strategically leverage anticipated investments in transit-oriented development in the region.

The Authority would have the authority to issue revenue bonds. It proposes a partnership with the City of New Haven to provide administrative support to the Authority, and it is modeled on the very successful operations of the Capital Region Development Authority in Hartford whose mission was expanded by the Legislature in, I believe 2012.

The development district is an area that borders on Union Station in New Haven and up to and the area around Yale New Haven Hospital and towards the downtown district. And we continue to have discussions with the City of New Haven to further refine that. So this bill is a beginning of what we think will be a very successful partnership between the state and the City of New Haven and its contiguous towns to promote development in that area of the state. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

REP. ROJAS: Certainly, thank you for coming to testify today. Are there any questions or concerns from committee members? It can't be that easy. So I guess -- Representative Belsito.

REP. BELSITO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Why hasn't the -- why is it coming under the state and not under the specific New Haven, the city? Why aren't they pursuing this on their own? Why are they putting the burden on the state?

KAREN BUFFKIN: This came out of discussions with the City of New Haven, and similar the Hartford Authority, we believe that the partnership between the state and the city is an advantageous one.

It enables there to be planned and coordinated development that best leverages the city's resources as well as the state's dollars that we place into economic development and housing and allows a strategic view, strategic overall plan.

REP. BELSITO: Is this the area that is right around Yale? Is that the one?

KAREN BUFFKIN: It's between Yale and Union Station.

REP. BELSITO: Okay. And the city couldn't handle this themselves by bonding it and making monies available to do this project, that they're coming to the state? Because that's what they're coming to the state for is because we're going to fund part of it, is that correct?

KAREN BUFFKIN: We certainly would propose putting resources in. We have not yet at this point finished those discussions. But I don't think it's a matter of whether or not the City of New Haven could do it on its own.

We believe that this is a strategic partnership and is the best way to handle investments by both the state in transit-oriented development, which will be in and around, you know, has been identified as one of the potential areas for transit-oriented development in and around Union Station as well as other potential projects in that area.

REP. BELSITO: So the -- the state or the people who wrote this bill have determined that it would be best for the state to really step in front of this?

KAREN BUFFKIN: Yes. We believe that a partnership is the best way to strategically invest in that area.

REP. BELSITO: Is there any amount of money that the citizens of Connecticut can expect to see go in there? Because it is their money.

KAREN BUFFKIN: Well, the Authority would have the ability to issue revenue bonds. So let's say they decided to build a parking garage. The bonding would be supported by revenue from the garage. And any other type of -- of investment in that regard.

REP. BELSITO: Okay, thank you.

KAREN BUFFKIN: You're welcome.

REP. ROJAS: Senator Cassano.

SENATOR CASSANO: Yes, I find this intriguing simply because maybe I don't understand it. This is only within the city? It doesn't go beyond the boundaries of the city?

KAREN BUFFKIN: The -- where the Authority would have specific development authority would be within the district that is described in the statute, and roughly that covers the area from Union Station to Yale New Haven Hospital and over towards the downtown area of the central business district in New Haven.

In addition, at the request of the mayor of New Haven, and presumably the New Haven City Council, the Authority could assist in development within the city that is outside of that development district. And then the towns that are contiguous to the City of New Haven, similar to what the Capital Regional Development Authority does, by request of those towns, the Authority consistent -- can assist, excuse me, in development and redevelopment in those towns as well.

SENATOR CASSANO: The reason I ask is over the last few years, we've created other districts within New Haven. Some of those districts involve other towns. You mentioned TOD as an example, which obviously needs development and assistance. New Britain will have major TOD issues, as we look at Springfield through New Haven as for the train lines.

So am I to assume that we may have 50 towns or 30 towns or some number of towns all creating redevelopment authorities because they have a train stop or they have a project? I mean, I don't understand where it goes.

Plus we've tried to redesign regions to do things on a regional basis. I would have thought it might make more sense for a regional approach to doing some of these kinds of things. Where do we draw the line?

KAREN BUFFKIN: Well, this is -- this is a regional approach. And it happens to be in --

SENATOR CASSANO: But it's a regional approach within some neighborhoods in the city. When I look at a regional approach, I look at cross-border, multiple towns. The CRCOG here is 38 towns. The CRCOG in our area is 15-20 towns. That to me is a regional approach. If you're telling me that a few neighborhoods have gotten together, I don't define that as a regional approach. That's a city approach that is using subsections of the city.

KAREN BUFFKIN: In this particular case, Senator, it is both, because it does permit development and redevelopment in the towns that are contiguous to the City of New Haven at their request.

SENATOR CASSANO: But they're not part of the bill yet.

KAREN BUFFKIN: Um, they are.

SENATOR CASSANO: They are part of this?

KAREN BUFFKIN: Yes.

SENATOR CASSANO: From the beginning. And they're signed on. And what are those towns again?

KAREN BUFFKIN: They are -- I'm not sure that I will name all of them.

SENATOR CASSANO: Okay.

KAREN BUFFKIN: Those that touch the borders of New Haven, which would be presumably East Haven, West haven, North Haven, Camden, Woodbridge.

A VOICE: Orange maybe. I counted six towns on my little map here.

SENATOR CASSANO: Six towns, yeah, okay, that's right.

KAREN BUFFKIN: Okay, I'm not sure that off the top of my head I could remember each and every one of them.

SENATOR CASSANO: And they are all -- those six towns are all part of the CRCOG in that region as well.

KAREN BUFFKIN: Correct. And we propose that the chair of the CRCOG would serve on the New Haven Region Development Authority Board. So again it's to further coordinate the efforts that are going on in the area, and to provide the specific expertise and sort of big picture view that this type of partnership between the state and the region can provide.

SENATOR CASSANO: All right. And finally, I just -- why can't it be one organization? Why can't it be the CRCOG or whatever, the CRCOG, I don't understand why we're duplicating -- we're telling that CRCOG that we want them to do exactly what you're talking about together.

To do things on a regional basis, to work with us in partnership with the state label at the state level and so on. And we're creating another layer on top of that layer that we've just created. Why we -- we're trying to get away from multiple layers, I thought.

KAREN BUFFKIN: I think these efforts are complementary, Senator. And I think they are -- they look at some of the same things, but also different things. And this is really centered around economic development, housing, and tourism in the area. Development and redevelopment in those specific areas.

SENATOR CASSANO: Which should be part of the CRCOG goals. And so -- there's only so much of a pie out there. And I'm just concerned that there's going to be battles between the two different groups over as to how much of the pie are they going to get. I mean, and you have to have a manager for each one. You have to have staff for each one.

I just, I don't know why we're duplicating. We're trying to get away from the duplication. That's what bothers me. I'll look at it again. I'm not saying I'm against it at this point, but I am really concerned that it's -- it should be part of the efforts of the CRCOG. It would make that CRCOG stronger. It would make more people be part of the process. It would centralize the dollars. It would make back room costs cheaper.

There are a whole variety of reasons why it should be shared as well as making changes in this region to do exactly the same thing.

We have too many organizations, too many groups all looking for a piece of the pie. And so that's my concern. Not that I'm opposed to what you're trying to do with something like that. We just -- we're a very small state, and we seem to have an awful lot of organizations in a very small state. Thank you.

KAREN BUFFKIN: Thank you.

REP. ROJAS: Representative Aman?

REP. AMAN: Yes, the Senator asked quite a few of the same questions that I had down, but just to clarify in my own mind, the current Development Authority in New Haven or the Redevelopment Authority, if they just worked within the boundaries of the city, is there anything in this bill that they couldn't currently do?

KAREN BUFFKIN: I -- they certainly -- the Redevelopment Authority or the Authority within the City of New Haven has the legal authority that they have to operate.

This is a proposed partnership between the state and the city that will leverage strategic investments that the state will be making in transit-oriented development in that -- so that there is a -- more of an over -- greater strategic overview in terms of those investments.

So could -- you'd have to ask the City of New Haven more specifically what their goals are with regard to their Development Authority. But this is, again, what we view as if the state is investing significant dollars in these areas, that this is a way for us to be able to partner with the City of Hartford and have one vision as to how best to use those dollars.

REP. AMAN: I think that ties in with the Senator's comments of, we've already got the regional organizations.

Further on as this public hearing goes on today, are we going to have representatives, do you know, from the six adjoining towns testifying in favor of this bill?

KAREN BUFFKIN: I have not looked at your sign up speaker list, sir, however I do know that the City of New Haven is here. Again, I haven't spoken directly with them.

REP. AMAN: Okay. Thank you very much.

REP. ROJAS: Representative Reed.

REP. REED: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm just sort of wondering, does this dovetail with the amping up of the of the biotech sector in New Haven and the Alexion headquarters that is going right above Route 33? It feels like it's sort of circling what we're talking about.

And it feels as if maybe this is part of invigorating the transportation, you know, attributes and that kind of thing to bring more small companies in and to keep more small companies there. Is that part of the thinking?

KAREN BUFFKIN: It certainly is, Representative Reed, and we're, you know, obviously aware of those efforts. And again, you know, this is to sort of provide that strategic view of all of those efforts that are going on and tie them in together within that region and that district.

REP. REED: I wonder if you would go over, just if you happen to have those numbers at the ready of how much the state is already invested in that complex? Because I know you want to see it developed with full potential.

KAREN BUFFKIN: I do not have those numbers on hand, but I would be happy to get that for you.

REP. REED: Okay, thank you. I mean, I think it's really important to sort of paint a picture of where we're going and how the region benefits from that and how the region is interested also in -- in making sure that, you know, we create a really vibrant sector and take advantage of these opportunities.

Also with the West Campus and all of that, you know, to sort of paint a bigger picture and see how, to the point of the prior questioners, you know, if we can resolve some of these issues and make it, you know, kind of -- make it -- in other words, talk for itself better, you know, and how it's going to interact with the surrounding communities.

Transportation is one of the big hurdles to get over, and it's one of the issues that we always encounter when we're trying to bring companies here or keep companies here. They find it all a little bit difficult and want to make sure that they've got the maximum optimal transportation available.

REP. ROJAS: Any other questions? No? I guess I'll ask you some. So having been very familiar with CRDA that seemed to come out of an entity that already existed, we were simply recalibrating what it was going to do. Is this proposal replacing some entity that already exists as well that's doing similar work?

KAREN BUFFKIN: No.

REP. ROJAS: This is a completely new entity?

KAREN BUFFKIN: Correct.

REP. ROJAS: Okay, good. So in Section -- I guess we might have to work a little bit on clarity in terms of, when it describes in Section 2 about Greater New Haven means all the contiguous towns, but it seems that most of the work, at least throughout the rest of the bill seems to be really focused on the City New Haven proper without the entire area. So that's maybe something we can talk about, I don't think we need to clarify that.

So in Section 2, Subsection C, Number 2 it talks about, “In consultation with the mayor of the City of New Haven to condemn properties that may be necessary or desirable to effectuate the purposes of the Authority.” Does that mean that in consultation with the mayor to condemn properties within the City of New Haven or within the Greater New Haven region as defined in Section 2?

KAREN BUFFKIN: Not within the Greater New Haven region which would mean the contiguous towns would be specifically in New Haven.

REP. ROJAS: Okay, and there might be language in the rest of that section that clarifies that. I only ask that because it became an issue for me in East Hartford where there were a number of folks asking the question.

Why did we allow this entity to have that kind of power in East Hartford and whether the town had any say as to whether the Authority could condemn properties. So I just wanted to make sure we were clear on that before people's hair is on fire about what the authority of this organization is.

In Section 5 or Subsection 5 of that same area it talks about, “To fix and revise from time to time and to charge and collect fees, rents, and other charges for the use of occupancy specific to packing rates.”

Now, are there lots in this area in which in terms -- in which revenues are being collected from parking lots or a parking garage? I guess what's the intent of that section of the bill?

KAREN BUFFKIN: If the Authority were to, in conjunction with development within the district create a parking garage, they would need that authority that would go along with that.

REP. ROJAS: I got it. So it's more kind of enabling, kind of getting ahead of the game so that later on they develop a parking lot, they don't have to come back to us for that authority?

KAREN BUFFKIN: Yes.

REP. ROJAS: Got it. Now under Section 5, it talks about, “Any person, including but not limited to a state or municipal agency requesting funds from the state.”

Would -- if they want to get those funds from the state for some kind of project in the Greater New Haven region, the way I'm reading it, they would then have to go back to the Authority for some kind of recommendation, and the Authority would have 90 days to prepare and adopt an economic development statement summarizing its recommendations.

So just giving authority -- giving the Authority authority over projects that are going to take place in any of the contiguous six towns?

KAREN BUFFKIN: It's similar to what we did, again, with the CRDA. And it's so that -- frankly so that the right hand knows what the left hand is doing. If you have the Authority that is working on these types of strategic investments in the area, you would want them to know what else is being sought to be invested so that the efforts are coordinated.

REP. ROJAS: Okay. And given the 90 day window, it's not that things move all that quickly in government. Is there any concern that that has a potential to perhaps slow down a potential project or impact a project in another town?

KAREN BUFFKIN: We have not -- no, we don't believe that that time period would create any kind of a problem or a slowdown in that regard.

REP. ROJAS: And in terms of the Authority, is the state basically going to be responsible for the total costs of this entity? And is it going to be providing kind of the funds? Up to the point that the Authority starts to develop their own revenue stream? Is basically state going to be funding this thing?

It talks about implementing the governor's budget, and I'm not on a probe, so I don't know if there's some number in the budget that is related to this bill.

KAREN BUFFKIN: There is not yet, sir, but we -- and we are still working on that. But if -- you'll see that it also provides for a partnership and it allows the Authority to enter into management agreements which presumably would generate some of their operating funds. And it also partners with the City of New Haven to provide some administrative support. So there are a number of mechanisms that we believe will enable it to become a self-sustaining entity.

REP. ROJAS: And going back to that Section 2 about the definition of the region, you know, given that there doesn't seem to be any representatives from the six contiguous towns, how aware are they of becoming part of this Authority given that it's kind of a brand new bill from the Governor's office?

KAREN BUFFKIN: I have not personally had those discussions and I apologize that I did not follow up to get a status on those, but I certainly would be happy to provide those.

REP. ROJAS: Yeah, and I just get concerned about getting down the road in a short session, and suddenly people get wind of what we're creating here. And there's all sorts of folks about concerns about what it actually means for their town, and given some of the powers that we're given to the Authority, I'm sure there's going to be concerns.

And everybody knows me, I'm all about doing things on a regional basis as well, but I just want to make sure that at the same time we don't engage in policymaking that hurts us in the long run as people begin to rebel because they're not exactly sure about what this means. And I would echo Senator Cassano's comments.

At least I'm interested in reducing the number of entities that we have, and here we're creating a completely new one. And perhaps the CRCOG isn't the right place to do this, although I think it might be. I know there are other towns in the CRCOG that wouldn't be impacted directly by this, so maybe that is part of the problem with doing it through the CRCOG.

It seems that here we are creating a whole other entity that is going to have some kind of cost, even though there's been a lot of discussion about reducing that kind of fragmentation that exists here in the state. So I guess that is something for us to discuss as we continue to move forward. Are there any other questions? Seeing known, thank you.

KAREN BUFFKIN: Thank you very much.

REP. ROJAS: Is Mayor Finch here yet? No? Not seeing him. Gian-Carl Casa from OPM.

UNDERSECRETARY GIAN-CARL CASA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Osten, Members of the Committee, it's nice to be here before so many old friends and a couple new ones. I am Gian-Carl Casa, Undersecretary for Legislative Affairs at OPM. I'm here to speak in support of the Governor's Proposal, Bill 5055 AN ACT ELIMINATING MUNICIPAL MANDATES.

Some of the items in the bill have been discussed already today before -- with you. I don't want to repeat anything that's been said, but I will just point out that this bill contains three portions.

The first is to remove the charge from DMV, actually it goes through OPM from the state to municipalities for DMV's program by which it helps municipalities collect parking -- delinquent taxation. That provision also says that if a town is not timely, if it doesn't every month file its list with DMV of who is delinquent, that the DMV Commissioner may suspend the program for that particular community.

What happens often, far too often, is that towns are less than timely in reporting to DMV who is delinquent. Men and women go to DMV to try to register their vehicle, they're told they're delinquent. They get angry. They go back to their town. They yell at their town. They come back to DMV, they yell at DMV, and it adds to the lines. We think this proposal has two benefits, it saves municipalities money, and makes it more convenient for the taxpayers.

Secondly as was discussed by the folks from Bridgeport earlier, the bill would also allow municipalities to delay implementation of revaluation. There is a problem, a drafting error in the bill that you have before you. The intention is to allow municipalities to delay implementation in FY15 for revaluations of the October 2013 grant list. It was just drafted incorrectly. We will get you the correct language, hopefully by the end of the day today.

And thirdly, there is a requirement in statutes that towns annually report to the Citing Council the location, type, and height of antennae and towers. So in the community, what we're told by municipal folks is that they just look at the Citing Council Web site, write down what the Citing Council says, and report it back to the Citing Council. It seems like an example of something that is completely unnecessary for government to be doing. And we propose to eliminate that requirement.

We look forward to working with you to correct the language in the bill and to favorably report it. Thank you.

REP. ROJAS: Senator Osten.

SENATOR OSTEN: Good afternoon. How are you today?

UNDERSECRETARY GIAN-CARL CASA: I am great.

SENATOR OSTEN: So some of the things that you're clearing up here would assist DMV in regards to not having angry people come back and forth on delinquent taxes that they may or may not have already paid.

Is there a mechanism that DMV could actually reach out and help the towns in regards to when people are turning their plates in, rather than have the constituent have to drive back, turn in the plate receipt to the tax assessor using the same mechanism?

Is it not something that there could be some more interfacing between the two pieces of software that we would not have to have angry people coming to the municipalities saying to the municipalities, I turned my plates in two years ago, how come I still, you know, am hearing from you on this tax bill that I shouldn't have any longer?

So that we wouldn't have to affirmatively do something all the time with the tax assessor.

UNDERSECRETARY GIAN-CARL CASA: You're talking about a different issue, if I understand you correctly.

SENATOR OSTEN: I am, but it's the same agency. Same state agency. Tax assessor difference and tax collector, but same state agency, Department of Motor Vehicles. And you know, the fact is that they take in all of the plates that people turn in.

There must be a way for the tax assessors to be informed that someone has sold the vehicle so that we wouldn't have to deal with the angry people coming in. Because the essence of the tax collector and the untimeliness of some municipalities on letting the DMV knows to stop angry constituents to going into the DMV. So conversely there are many towns that have angry constituents that come in to the tax assessor saying, you know, I did this two years ago, I don't have this, and isn't there a mechanism that we can come up with that would, you know, perhaps, fix two problems with one.

One we acquiesce, and say this is something we should do for tax collectors, but I'm saying can we do something to help out with the same state agency the lack of interfacing between that state agency and tax assessors different than tax collectors.

UNDERSECRETARY GIAN-CARL CASA: Sure. I'm not familiar with what DMV's software can and can't do in that regard. If it's possible, it's something we should certainly be able to talk about. We're all about make things more convenient for the citizens.

SENATOR OSTEN: That's all I had. Anybody else have any questions? Representative Reed.

REP. REED: Thank you, Madam Chair. Hi, Gian-Carl. Nice to see you. I just have a quick question. So I was expecting, for some reason, when I saw the Governor's Bill, and I saw AN ACT ELIMINATING MUNICIPAL MANDATES, I thought it was going to be thicker and bigger, there was going to be a lot more that you actually went after.

And I'm wondering, is this just the beginning or are there more recommendations that we're going to see going forward, maybe not this session but next session about, you know, make these processes, making a little bit more sense and give the municipalities a little bit more interactivity or freedom?

UNDERSECRETARY GIAN-CARL CASA: If I remember correctly, several years ago OPM did a compendium of municipal mandates, you know, something like this thick. Certainly it's an ongoing process. Like everything else here when you propose to eliminate something, ten people talk about it, and say, you can't get rid of that one, that one is important to us.

I think as -- as we go forward over the next few years, we're more than willing to look at the mandates that are out there. These are things that we think are fairly tangible just in the same way as the Governor's proposing exempting municipalities from the insurance premium tax, that is in bill and finance. But it also is a tangible mandate relief proposal.

REP. REED: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

SENATOR OSTEN: Representative Vicino.

REP. VICINO: Thank you, Madam Chair. I saw 5550, the first item, the car tax reports back to the motor vehicle, how big of a problem is this? Between the municipality and the motor vehicle?

UNDERSECRETARY GIAN-CARL CASA: We understand it's a fairly frequent occurrence. You know, municipalities have a lot on their plates. You know, they try to be timely. The statutes actually require them to immediately inform DMV if there's a delinquency. They do it less frequently than that, we think, allowing them to have a month to get the information in sort of strikes a fair balance.

REP. VICINO: You're giving them a month, and they still don't do it at that point?

UNDERSECRETARY GIAN-CARL CASA: If they still don't do it, they don't report by the month that someone has paid the taxes, DMV doesn't have the list of who has paid their taxes and who is delinquent. By the first of each month, the Commissioner would be able to say, okay, for this town that hasn't reported in a timely fashion, we're not going to be running the program. When the town starts again, DMV would once again the begin enforcing the program.

REP. VICINO: So what would the consumer have to do? Go back to the town hall, and try to investigate why it wasn't reported.

GIAN-CARL CASA: They have to do that now. That's the problem with this.

REP. VICINO: That's the problem.

GIAN-CARL CASA: Yes.

REP. VICINO: And I would think if there was, getting back to the software interface, if there was some kind of immediate report that this seems like it's outdated, whatever is going on here. We need something to tie it together immediately. Makes a lot of sense. Thank you. We'll take a look at it.

SENATOR OSTEN: Are there any other questions? Thank you, very much Gian-Carl.

UNDERSECRETARY GIAN-CARL CASA: Thank you.

SENATOR OSTEN: Matt Nemerson. Followed by Senator Kane or Mayor Finch.

MATTHEW NEMERSON: Representative Rojas, Senator Osten, and Members of the Committee, my name is Matthew Nemerson, I am the Economic Development Administrator for the City of New Haven, and I come here today representing our mayor, Toni Harp. And so I felt like the kid in third grade who wanted to raise his hand and ask the question while Karen Buffkin was up there, because I think I can help you answer some of those questions.

Let me say that you have my testimony in front of you about Bill S.B. 33, and I will just speak very briefly to it, and then obviously be happy to answer any questions that you have.

We are trying to create a Regional Development Authority, as you know, to renovate Union Station, to build a new train parking garage, to promote a TOD, Transit-oriented Development, and as Representative Reed, you mentioned we are trying to create a front door and an access to what will be billions of dollars in development in our biotech corridor which both exists today, and will be evolving on an area that we call the Hill to Downtown area, which is also the subject of this Authority. And it will have powers there.

We have one of the busiest train stations in the country. And it is getting busier as more people wish to take the trains and as the major investment in the state, the state is making in the Springfield-New Haven run continues and is completed.

And we have not made many investments in that train station over the last 20 or 30 years, and we feel it's time to upgrade it so it can be a welcome front door for the millions of people who come through it every year and come to Connecticut, come to New Haven, come to Yale.

We want to have a second garage. Today it is almost impossible to park at the garage if you don't get there by about 8:00 in the morning. And with development that is going to be happening nearby it will actually be impossible to park there, and that is simply not a good for place that many people drive even for the capital area to take trains to New York or occasionally to Boston from our station. So we have to address that.

And finally we are on the tip of an iceberg of billions of dollars of development, much of which will want connections to Hartford, to New York, to Boston on a regular basis. Having high speed rail just a few feet away or a few yards away from one of the largest medical centers and medical schools in the country is just a great asset for the state.

So we are delighted to be able to talk about this. We've got lots of different ideas about how it should be done. We have lot of different plans. I bring one of them with me here with lots of pretty pictures of what the station could look like, what the garage could look like.

We have an even thicker book about what all this medical center TOD will look like, and we have actually a link here. But we're happy to provide a beautiful, 50 page color book if you want that.

And we want to sort of evolve this. We have a wonderful partnership between the mayor and the governor and the state. And we see over the next month or so, sort of ironing out a couple of details about how this authority could work. Some of the questions that you ask, Ms. Buffkin, I think, are germane to all these discussions and how they forward. You know, basically we just want to tweak it a little bit.

But our goal is to have a connection up and down the 95 corridor from a train standpoint with this train station, commuting into New York, connecting to Washington and Boston and other places, as that rail link and high speed rail expands, that is worthy of, again, one of the great states in one of the great cities and one of the great medical centers in the country. So we're delighted to answer any questions, and very happy to have this opportunity to be a partner with all of you.

REP. ROJAS: Any members of the committee have any questions? None? Okay. No questions? Yeah? Representative Belsito.

REP. BELSITO: Thank you, Chair. Once again I'm going to ask the same question. Do you have any idea of how much this is going to cost the citizens of Connecticut, and how much is this going to cost the City of New Haven?

MATTHEW NEMERSON: So right now we have an arrangement. For the last 33 years the state has allowed the City of New Haven and specifically it's parking authority to manage the train station and to manage the first -- the parking garages that you're all familiar with, many of you are familiar with there. It actually makes money.

We actually give money back to the State of Connecticut, and we have an arrangement with them where actually some of that money can come back for other purposes, you know, probably for other parts of the rail system.

Right now, by sort of unofficial custom that money has stayed in New Haven on the track side. So it's often gone to make improvements to the platforms and other things that aren't directly part of the operation of the train -- of the station.

We expect that with the development of the second garage, which we hope we can begin very soon, that there will be additional surplus. So the question from the standpoint of the citizens of Connecticut is really not how much you're investing, but how much together in our partnership we are delivering value and how much of that should be reinvested in the area contiguous to the train station or, in some of the language that we can talk about, into perhaps other train stations in the CRCOG region. If those town and train operations, you know, wanted us to do that.

So I think so the issue, Representative, is really how much of an opportunity is this for the state to generate revenues based on more people buying things at the train station, more people parking at the first and second garage, and our efficient operation of all three in a contiguous unified operation so that we actually generate more money so you don't have to put as much money into developing the infrastructure that will bring the billions of dollars of additional development from the medical center. So the answer is, I hope nothing.

REP. BELSITO: Does that mean you don't know?

MATTHEW NEMERSON: No, it means that --

REP. BELSITO: Because it sounded like that.

MATTHEW NEMERSON: No. What I'm saying is that we are making money right now. The station creates money, it creates a surplus. There is a committee that the city and the state sit on that meets monthly that decides how much of the surplus should be reinvested in the garage, how much should be reinvested in the station, and how much is a surplus which the state has, through its, you know, goodwill, kept within the New Haven facilities to make investments on the track side.

When we build the second garage it is conceivable that in the early parts of the development of that garage we may need to sort of put some money in because we don't have the means to finance that garage. But aside from the financing of the garage, once it's built, these garages make money.

The train station garage is full all of the time. It delivers, you know, a high degree of money from the monthlies and also from the people who pay on an hourly basis. So I do not believe from anything that I've seen that, other than funding the construction of the garage, that there will be any additional need for subsidizing or any investment other than the garage itself.

REP. BELSITO: So that's it? Just the garage? How much is that going to cost?

MATTHEW NEMERSON: That will cost between $25 million and $40 million, depending upon the size of the garage, and depending on what the actual program is.

One of the things that we're looking at in terms of this garage is how it should be used as part of the growth of this whole region. So rather than just building a garage with a concrete face on it, there are different options. One would be to develop a retail on the first floor. Another option would to be actually develop an office building around it. And a third would be a combination of retail and housing right there.

So the garage might be, in fact, a little bit smaller, and there would be a second component. One of the goals of the state is to bring in private developers or to bring in partners to actually develop these things, and we are right now taking -- there's a study that is going on right now to look at the actual capacity of this garage to attract outside investment.

And we are hoping as part of the conversation around the creation of this authority that we will be able to have that conversation as a participant and maybe even playing a role in selecting and working with that development team.

There will be some dollars that will be necessary to improve the -- the station itself, which again was renovated in the '70s and '80s, as has very antiquated support systems in terms of restaurants and newsstands and even services for the Amtrak and Metro North people themselves in terms of selling tickets and things like that.

If you look at other train stations up and down, Boston, Back Bay, Grand Central, Union Station, Philadelphia, these stations are now making a lot of money. So the investment in the stations will, we believe, will come back in terms of higher profits from running them.

REP. BELSITO: Right, thank you. You said that the state, the parking garage, and the station were already making money. Now if that was my business and I was going expand I would have to say my business is making money, so we're going to use the money, the profits from the business to expand into a new parking garage and new facilities.

MATTHEW NEMERSON: Yes.

REP. BELSITO: But it sounds like you haven't invested any money in your railroad station or parking garage, because you said they're antiquated. What happened?

MATTHEW NEMERSON: So we have an arrangement, which is actually a wonderful arrangement that we've had for 33 years, where we manage the parking garage and the train station is owned by the state. But because it's a New Haven iconic building and it's very important for our economic growth, you have allowed us to manage it, but you make the rules in terms of what we can invest the money in and what we can't invest the money in.

So while I hear what you're saying, I think that decisions were made by the state with us as part of that agreement in terms of how much should be invested in the station. And the station is in great shape.

It's simply based on if you spent time in Grand Central Station or Union Station in Washington, the vision of what a train station looked like in 1978 and 1980 when it was designed, and what train stations look like today or over the last five or ten years is very different. There are malls, people do their holiday shopping, and where they buy gifts on their way home to see their spouses.

We simply didn't design the station that way. It is a beautiful station. It has been wonderfully maintained in collaboration between the state and the city, but we were not -- in a sense, we did not create a program to upgrade the retail, to make the investments in the eating amenities.

We didn't make it a lovely destination that people could actually hang out and spend money there. It simply wasn't the program. And so I'm not in any way being critical of the state rules that they gave us, I'm simply saying that these are the rules that we agreed to abide by 33 years ago when we created the partnership.

What we are proposing today is an extension of that agreement which runs out in two years, by the way. And so we're saying let's renew that for another 35 years. Let's have a relationship where we think about the station. I've got some very pretty drawings I can show you right here.

Where we make the station -- it won't be a Grand Central Station, but it'll a miniature little jewel box version of that with some lovely stores, with some nice places to eat where people, if they're stranded there because their train is late or if they come here a little bit early or if they're just looking for a place to eat in that part of town or buy something they actually might be able to stop there.

So we actually think we'll be able to make more money doing that, but we do need a little bit more money that we haven't been allowed to spend because of the policies between the state and the city. We haven't been allowed to make money on making it just a more Back Bay, Grand Central kind of atmosphere.

REP. BELSITO: Right. So is it going to be sustainable?

MATTHEW NEMERSON: Oh, it will be more than sustainable. The discussion that we're really having through this Authority, sir, is how much of the money we're making here can we keep to invest around the train station as opposed to going to other worthy projects in Hartford or in Bridgeport or in other places.

The real question here is, is this an asset that can help develop even more activity and more profits from the greater region, whether it's a few blocks or many blocks around Union Station or should it be an asset that inures back to the state and to the rail system of the state itself.

And quite frankly we're making the case that we hope that this money stays here in New Haven and increases the transit-oriented development future of this station. So we actually leverage more money. It's more than sustainable.

It will be very profitable, and we're hoping that you'll invest some of the money that you deserve to control, because this is your asset with us, and a little bit under our control. We hope to have an even stronger partnership in the future.

REP. BELSITO: So you're looking for a new distribution method of profits made by your station with the state, is that what this is all coming down to? It always comes down to the bottom line.

MATTHEW NEMERSON: It always comes down to money. That might be one way -- that might be one way of looking at it. But it's something that we think will liberate the ability to have almost literally billions of dollars of investment within five or six or seven blocks.

Because as the medical center continues to grow, as the role of a medical, as the university and its prominence in research grows, even as the state is doing wonderful things with Jackson Labs and at stores, we feel that the area directly contiguous to Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale's Medical School will be one of the hotspots in the country for research and for medical growth.

And this being New England, and people coming from all over, taking a train there is going to be one of the ways that people come, whether they're working there or they're patients there or they're coming to visit loved ones there.

So we see all of this as very much part of what will end up being billions of dollars of additional development, jobs, an opportunity for all of us.

REP. BELSITO: Thank you, very much.

MATTHEW NEMERSON: Sure, thank you for the question.

REP. ROJAS: Representative Vicino.

REP. VICINO: Thank you, Chair. I live not too far from there, a couple of towns over, and the rail garage is full all the time. And what ends up happening is I end up back on the highway, I go to the next yard, or I might even go all the way to Fairfield. Certain times of the year it's very congested, and that is one of the most congested parts of the whole state, the lower 95 area.

You do need a new garage, depending on who it pays for it. From what I can see, it would be a big asset to the whole area. Public transportation, people use public transportation. They save money on their own automobiles, they put more money into our economy, that creates jobs down the road. And I was looking at a map of some of the projects and future opportunities.

Yale has done a great job of retaining jobs, creating jobs. Investments in the medical community. This all ties into all of our future. Science jobs down the road. Being a main distribution area. It's halfway between Boston and New York.

Kind of creates a smart area of investment for future jobs. You have a port that the governor's been talking about investing into a study that's never really been tapped. These are all places of large opportunity to create jobs. And this is just part of it. And as an investment I personally, from what I've seen, it is good investment down the road, because it all ties in together. Thank you.

MATTHEW NEMERSON: Thank you very much. Well said.

REP. ROJAS: Thank you. Any questions? I guess -- oh, go ahead, go ahead Representative Fox.

REP. FOX: Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman, good afternoon, sir. Just want to ask a quick -- what I hope is a quick question just to get some feedback from your end.

In Section 11 of the proposed bill, the final section, the first sentence indicates that “No ordinance, law, regulation, adopted by or granting authority to any municipality shall apply to the demolition, construction, repair, improvement, expansion, or extension of the New Haven train station if undertaken by the state or a public instrumentality thereof including the New Haven Regional Development Authority.”

That language, my reading of it, provides significant authority to this Authority to kind of have their -- have their way with this project. And again, just in my review of it -- admittedly brief -- concern, perhaps, by the possibility of this being a means to potentially avert local zoning laws or regulations. Do you have any comment on that, sir?

MATTHEW NEMERSON: Well our hope is when all of the dust settles here is that we will be in a position, in partnership with the state to sort of manage the activities of this authority. And that the mayor of the city and or development authority, development administrator, whomever else, would be in a position to sort of guide that.

So we don't see it in any way as contradictory to the efficient planning and development of this garage.

REP. FOX: Okay, thank you. And just one quick follow-up, if I may, Mr. Chairman. If you then tack on to this, what could be a significant amount of responsibility and authority bestowed upon this entity, in the section of legislation just prior -- that's Section 11. Section 10, there's language that provides, “The state shall protect, safe, harmless, and indemnify the New Haven Region Development Authority and its directors, officers and employees from financial loss and expense including legal fees and costs if any arising out of any claims, demands, suit, or judgment based on any alleged act or omission,” and then it goes on.

So just, we'd be developing an Authority that would have a significant amount of responsibility over this particular project. And then to take it a step further, now that they have that authority, they are potentially being indemnified from any actions taken. And so just in light of your comments earlier about the size and scope of this project, there were just some areas of concern for me that I just wanted to bring to your attention.

MATTHEW NEMERSON: So two things, Representative Fox. One is I should also add in my previous answer that, you know, in New Haven we have a tradition with a strong board of alders, strong mayor, and a strong commission form of government going back many, many years of a lot of democracy, a lot of sharing of responsibilities.

And so I don't want to any way give the impression that our involvement in this Authority is trying to abrogate any of that tradition and that custom that we have. We spent a lot of time talking about things and involving everybody, and certainly this mayor is not going to change that.

To your second question, I believe that that's the standard language that has to be inserted into the creation of a quasi-municipal state authority just to make sure that we're not sort of operating under some sort of corporate sort of concept of responsibility, that this is still seen as a public, quasi-public entity with the kind of indemnities that anybody, any of us serving in the public sphere sort of expect when we're making complex and difficult decisions for the public that may have consequences unintended.

So I only think that that's standard language. I'm not a lawyer and I will certainly find out if there's anything unusual or expansive about that language that wouldn't be in the Capital Region Development or in our own parking authority which currently operates all of -- many of the things that we're asking for here. Good question, though, I will find out.

REP. FOX: Thank you sir, and just one final question. I think previously I said that was my previous question, and now I'm going to have another final question. Section 7 of the statute provides this authority the opportunity to submit an application to Connecticut Innovations.

Do you know, and you may not, and I don't, which is why I'm asking you. Obviously including this language, an entity of this nature is not yet -- does not yet have the authority or ability to solicit funding from Connecticut Innovations.

Is this a unique -- is it -- it obviously is unique because you need to seek the authority. A city or entity of this nature does not yet, I would guess, have the authority to seek funding through Connecticut Innovations. Could you just clarify that?

MATTHEW NEMERSON: I would be happy to. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but my belief here is that it's simply a new terminology. In the past, we'd be going to see the CDA, the Connecticut Development Authority which has, you know, the allotment of various tax-exempted bonds.

And so I think that these kinds of authorities have traditionally in the state worked through CDA. Under the merger of CDA and Connecticut Innovations a year and a half ago, I think we're simply now going through a new name and front door but to that same allotment of authority to issue bonds and to do the business of the state through bonding that I think we traditionally have.

So I don't think there's anything new or different here, I just don't think that any of us have sort of been in a situation where an authority was created in the time of CDA being part of CI.

REP. FOX: Thank you very much, sir.

MATTHEW NEMERSON: Thank you.

REP. ROJAS: Are there any other questions? I have one. Kind of a -- well, not -- is there any concern that these kind of efforts essentially come at the expense of neighborhoods in the city? And I ask that because I work here in Hartford, and so much of the focus seems to be, at least for CRDA on the downtown area, an enormous amount of money going into housing downtown, and that is great for the city.

But there's certainly groups of people in the neighborhood who feel it comes at the expense of development in the neighborhoods. And, you know, what are we doing here? Are we building an entire city or are we building a downtown, and do you have any concerns about gentrification or anything like that?

MATTHEW NEMERSON: So it's a great question, Representative. The region that we're talking about, and actually you will hear later in the -- in the hearing from a representative of our development corporation who has done a lot of the planning, and she can speak to this probably more eloquently than I can. .

But the reality is that the hospital and the medical center and the vision that we have of the development that will happen as this train station no longer runs out of parking at -- by 8:00 a.m.

And as people realize that we are even more cemented as a major link between New York and Boston and Washington, the truth is, and we've all lived through this sort of in this post-industrial age that while there may be more manufacturing jobs here or there, and while there may be other kinds of service jobs, that the reality of the medical community and the growth of whether it's Hartford Hospital and St. Francis here or Yale New Haven and its merger with the former St. Rafael's in New Haven, and then the huge research, one of the largest in the country at the Yale Medical School, there are so many jobs here, and there's so much involvement of everybody in New Haven.

And so if someone is aspiring to a job, whether they're in Dixwell the Hill or Fair Haven, chances are that they will be one way or another, either directly connected to some of the growth of the medical center or perhaps one step away. I mean, it is true they may be working at a restaurant or working at a laundry or working at some logistical operation bringing patients in or moving patients out.

But I -- but I think that -- I think what we'll find is that the ability to sort of bring billions of dollars of growth because of the growth of our logistical connections, our transportation connections, TOD, as well as other things we're working on, airports and things like that, I think you'll find there is support everywhere.

Because I don't know where else we can expect to find a growth of literally thousands and thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of investment.

So we're always looking for those other ideas, but I think that this particular region and the train station, and -- and if you look at the connection between the train station all the way up three or four or five or six blocks up to the medical center, yes, there are people living here in affordable and federally and state-supported affordable housing, and yes, we have to make sure that those developments are -- are handled respectfully and we certainly are, and that's actually a large part of our time thinking about how we can create a mixed income and mixed use development community here.

But there will be medical uses. There will be research buildings, there will be, I hope, major foundations and large consultancies from around the world that will want to locate here as they have in the hospital area of Boston or as they certainly do around Johns Hopkins.

And medical centers are just where there's so much growth that I think we should look at this as a positive way and not seen see it simply as gentrification.

While there will be some, I think we should look at this as the growth of thousands and thousands of jobs, and with the career high school we have which trains people, and with Quinnipiac University and with Gateway Community College and with University of New Haven and Southern Connecticut State University all moving to some of the paramedical areas so that people can be trained as technicians, associate's degrees and even high school degrees sort of getting into a pathway to sort of move in up terms of jobs.

I really think that it's a wonderful opportunity and we should look at it as a positive.

REP. ROJAS: Yeah, no, I would agree with you. I think there is an opportunity. I just, I worry about actually whether all people are going to benefit from this tremendous opportunity.

I mean, I think we're obviously serving a certain population when we engage in this kind of development, and I think a lot of the jobs that can be created out of these require some level of higher educational attainment which seems to be limited in a lot of the neighborhoods, perhaps, around this area.

And I just want to make sure if we're going to invest this much money in these kind of products -- projects that perhaps everybody in New Haven, and I'm sure the mayor would agree with this, can benefit from this kind of investment or perhaps it doesn't come at the expense of development that is really needed in a lot of these neighborhoods. So.

MATTHEW NEMERSON: I couldn't agree more. I would simply say that while we would hope that even an immigrant to these shores who gets a job working at a restaurant that is frequented by doctors and patients would eventually go to Gateway and would eventually get a degree and become a technician or become a Ph.D. doctor.

You know, what we have to do is sort of provide as much opportunity as we can for everybody in the places that we have it. And so many of our neighborhoods which used to have large factories, and used to be workers' communities around factories that were built from the 1840s through to maybe 20 or 30 years ago, sort of atrophied because those factories aren't there anymore, and we haven't been able to find -- you know, we have to make sure that we have the right transportation system so people can get there.

We have to make sure that people have the right training. But I think this is the work that we all have for all of us in the decades ahead, and I just don't see any other way other than to be part of a global dialogue about health care and about sort of the improvement of the human condition as Yale and the hospital are trying to do, and try to, in a sense, bring as much of that money and jobs and opportunity.

Again, whether it's someone starting out working in a restaurant serving it or somebody who has worked their way through scholarships at UCONN to become a Ph.D. scientist there who grew up a few blocks away. I just don't know any other way to do it.

REP. ROJAS: I understand that. I only express these concerns because there's opportunity costs to anything that we do, and I want to make sure that the child of the immigrant is getting a good education so that they can become that Ph.D. and not the waiter.

MATTHEW NEMERSON: Well, if we get the billions of dollars that I hope we will from investment here, much of it will be private sector. We right now I think have -- although there is definitely state money in it, we have the wonderful Alexion Building One that is going up now, Alexion came from two people working in a lab that has a market value, I think, last week of $35 billion. Even more than (inaudible).

So, you know, I think that we're in a great position to sort of keep growing those kinds of companies and that means taxes for you and for us.

REP. ROJAS: Thank you. Are there any other question? Seeing none, thank you for coming in today.

MATTHEW NEMERSON: Thank you so much.

REP. ROJAS: Given that I think I saw Senator Kane somewhere, he's the last person on this list, so I want to give him the opportunity, because I'm sure he has somewhere else to be at this point.

SENATOR KANE: Good afternoon Senator Osten, Representative Rojas, members of the Planning and Development Committee. I know the two of you may be new to the chair of this committee, but this bill that I've been proposing for about five or six years is not new. Senate Bill 39, the State of Connecticut has had a Marijuana and Controlled Substance Tax on the books since 1991 but we've not been capitalizing on its revenue potential. The DRS, Department of Revenue Services in 2012-2013 collected about $35,000 through this tax. But the Department of Revenue Services also states in its annual report that this tax is intended to be an economic burden on drug dealers.

I believe this legislation that I have again proposed many times before would encourage our towns and cities to step up their work on illegal drugs and get them out of our neighborhoods. Current law allow the Department of Revenue Services to collect this revenue on marijuana and controlled substances that results from drug arrests.

But local officials, already burdened by paperwork and unfunded mandates do not reap any of the financial benefit for referring their local drug arrests to DRS for tax collection purposes. I propose that we allow our municipals to collect 100 percent of the tax revenues.

Everyone but drug dealers would benefit from this proposal. So you do have the language in front of you. It has been here probably five or six times. I'm hoping this time is the charm. I am here to answer any questions. I do have a couple of more people, constituents that are willing to testify today, and I'm looking forward to hearing their testimony. But I do believe that this is a good effort in the war on drugs, but also to help local municipalities with their revenue situations, as we all know are extremely difficult.

REP. ROJAS: Now thank you for again putting this in and coming and testifying. We continue to raise it every year. It's certainly been on our agenda for the five years I've been on the committee, going on six. Do you know how it works? Now how does DRS actually collect the revenue?

SENATOR KANE: It's a civil tax. It's not anything to do with the criminal phase, but it is based on the value of the drugs that were seized. And there's an entire chart in statute that you can see that will show you each of the formula that is currently on the books. The problem is, and the Department of Revenue Services will tell you this, they're not collecting it.

So this proposal, when a person or persons are arrested and are taken into custody, the police department in the municipality would be able to log that entire value of the drugs that were seized and then put a tax on that and go after that person civilly with a lien on their property for, you know, collection services. So because DRS is not collecting this, we -- we believe that the town should have that ability.

REP. ROJAS: And how is the DRS even made aware that there's the potential for somebody to have to pay the tax?

SENATOR KANE: Well, that is part of the problem. Because there's no incentive for the local municipalities, local PDs to submit the paperwork, a lot of this gets missed. So that is exactly right. There is paperwork at each of our towns that the local PDs can fill out. But without the incentive to get the return, it doesn't happen.

REP. ROJAS: Now, I guess -- and how would it work? So the police make an arrest, the town is aware of the arrest. What if the person is not a resident of the town in which they're arrested -- how does it actually work? Does the tax collector send the bill to The Office of Records?

SENATOR KANE: Yeah, that's a very good question, and that is something that we can certainly work on through the -- through the bill process. But I know that just in my hometown alone, last week I saw an article in the paper about the seizure of marijuana and other controlled substances at a -- at a person's home. This was a homeowner in town where this could have a lien on their property or certainly be able to collect it through our own tax collectors, yes.

REP. ROJAS: Interesting to see how it would work on, perhaps, college campuses. Perhaps we can reduce the tuition -- the tuition burden through this.

SENATOR KANE: Whatever we can do.

REP. ROJAS: Senator Osten.

SENATOR OSTEN: And I am the new on the committee, so I have a couple of questions. Representative Rojas asked a couple them, but how do you determine the -- the value of the illegal substance.

SENATOR KANE: That's already in statute.

SENATOR OSTEN: It's already in statute. So you don't have to worry about it.

SENATOR KANE: I wish I had the statute with me.

SENATOR OSTEN: I can look it up, thank you. The other question -- question I have, though, what happens when the person is not a homeowner, and they're just a -- they're living in town and they -- they own nothing but a car. How are you ever going to get -- it's hard enough to get motor vehicle taxes.

SENATOR KANE: Yeah, no, I agree. I don't think this is going -- part of the problem that DRS, Department of Revenue Service doesn't like it, let's be honest, let's be frank, because they have great tax revenue collection rates. Probably 98, 99, or higher percentage. And this would certainly lower that percentage, of course. So that's part of the problem.

But that's going to be difficulty. Just like anything. You know, but I don't think we should, you know, not see the forest through the trees, so to speak. There's going to be opportunities for people to avoid it or, you know, go uncollectible, I'm sure.

SENATOR OSTEN: And if the person is not a renter and they own a piece of property and they get caught with significant weight of an illegal substance and they are subsequently incarcerated as a result of that arrest and who would you -- the property that already will probably be a burden to the town unless there are other family members supporting that piece of property, would you then say that the one person who was doing something illegally would -- would then the rest of the family be put at risk as a result of that?

SENATOR KANE: Well, I would imagine a lien on the property would take place. But the other beauty of this is that unlike the forfeiture laws and the seizure laws that we have criminally, we don't have to show any evidence that the these dollars were gotten, if you will, through illegal activities. This is based on the value of the drugs that are seized and there's simply a tax put on them. So, you know, again, I don't have the statute in front of me. You can certainly look at the formula.

SENATOR OSTEN: No, no, no, that's not really what I'm asking. I'm asking, so say we passed this, and the person who was the one who was criminally responsible goes to jail for -- you know, gets arrested, gets convicted or prior to conviction is in jail.

The -- if it's a son or a daughter to someone, would we then say that the property that the marijuana was in would be the property owner's responsibility even if he or she did not know about it if it was a parent of this person. Conversely, it could be a spouse that the other person did not know about it.

So what I'm asking is would we then want to put a lien on the property. You know, what would be the mechanism for someone to dispute that if they were not really the ones responsible, why would they, then, have that civil tax put on them?

SENATOR KANE: Yeah, listen, that's a good question. Certainly we all have a responsibility for our own actions. And sometimes people will have to, you know, if I or you did something of an illegal activity, our families would have to make a decision on how they support us in that realm. Whether they're going to come to our aid or not.

And so I don't know about the legality of it, if someone else is legally responsible besides the person.

But all of this can be worked out. I'd really like to just see the idea continue to move forward. As I said, it's been five or six years since we've been promoting this. And I'd really like to see it move forward, and I'm willing to work with your committee, yourselves, the LCO attorneys, of course. However we might need to adjust it and modify it.

SENATOR OSTEN: And are you aware that there is already a revenue stream that municipalities are supposed to receive as a result of driving infractions, whether DUI or whatever it may be that is having a hard time making it to the municipality already because the different -- the different ways that revenue is assessed, it's hard to track.

So I am concerned that if we don't nail it down correctly that it's not going to happen. And I'm very concerned about holding family members accountable for someone's action. Because I think they already get held accountable for -- in a variety of ways.

SENATOR KANE: Yeah, no, that's a concern. There's also concerns, I've heard, in opposition to, you know, similar to your situation about speeding tickets or DUIs or other violations. We don't want to use this as a revenue opportunity to go out and seek those things. But, and we're not looking for that, and I don't believe our police and municipalities do that either. Although the perception may be there.

But what I would suggest is certainly you'll hear others come up and testify that the way you attack the drug dealer is in their pocketbook. And also, you know, the way we can put money back into, whether it be our own general fund budgets, meaning the local municipality, or for them to fight this continued war.

This is another revenue opportunity, a revenue stream that the State of Connecticut is not take advantage of anyway. So why can't the municipalities have that piece, sit at the table, so to speak.

SENATOR OSTEN: Sure. And what would be your recommendations for those towns in the state that do not have their own municipal police force? Would it be a revenue stream that state police would use and would some of that go to those small towns? What is your recommendation?

SENATOR KANE: First, the way the bill is written it is populations under 75,000, because I know there was some opposition in the past about larger cities not wanting to partake. So we made it populations under 75,000. But specifically to your question, I believe that the resident trooper is an agent of the town and is being paid for by the town. So the money would still go to the municipality.

SENATOR OSTEN: Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions for Senator Kane. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

SENATOR KANE: Thank you, all of you.

SENATOR OSTEN: Have a nice day. Mayor Finch? Are you here? Just on time. Thank you.

MAYOR BILL FINCH: Glad to be here, Senator. Senators, Representatives. First I'd like to thank Governor Malloy for including the proposed allowance for reval delay in this -- implemented for all municipalities for two years is what we're asking for, what the Governor put in his -- in the current year legislative proposal.

I know you've had a lot of questions I've been hearing throughout the day on my way up, so I'll try to go through my testimony rather quickly so you can ask me any questions you want.

Thanks for allowing me to the opportunity to testify regarding the proposal to delay the enacting statistical reval for municipalities that are up this year, specifically for the City of Bridgeport.

As the mayor of the state's largest city and the President of the Board of Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, this issue is one of great concern in my city and across the state. But I'm here to talk specifically about Bridgeport, and why we need this delay.

I'd like to lend my support to all affected municipalities, whether they may choose to take advantage of this proposal or not, because it would allow them to put off implementation of the reval for up to two years. The proposed legislation provides localities with the local option still has to be approved by a town council or city council, and I think that's the fair way to do it.

The City of Bridgeport is taking the two years delay of the current statistical reval because of several -- several reasons. It's the midpoint of the ten year reval cycle, as you know.

This request is based on a huge economic recession that obviously hit everybody, but it hit Bridgeport quite a bit harder than any other cities' real estate markets that are up for reval this year.

Between 2008-2013 Bridgeport has consistently held the unenviable position of recording the highest rate of subprime lending, loan defaults, and foreclosures in the State of Connecticut. During this time frame Bridgeport experienced more than 5,000 subprime loans being made. This is the height of the recession. And 3,431 lis pendens filings with 2,834 closures far exceeding any other municipality that is up for reval.

As you may know, Bridgeport has the highest rate of home ownership of the state's three largest cities. And implementing the results of this statistical reval would have a very serious negative impact on our home ownership rates and drive the much needed economic development that we're finally experiencing out of Bridgeport.

The city is on the cusp of a large scale economic revival thanks to many of the actions that you've taken here already. Smart investments, Steelpointe, the fuel cell Project 150, ecoindustrial park just to name a few. With millions of dollars of state funding having been invested in brown field cleanup, housing, jobs program, economic development, that would be seriously compromised if the reval were to take place with this wounded, terribly wounded real estate market that we have, though it is being revived.

Bridgeport's Chamber of Commerce on behalf of its members has always supported the proposed delay. In a letter, the Speaker of the House, Brendan Sharkey the Chamber leadership noted that the exemption is vital to the economic expansion of the city in preventing what could eventually be a terrible slowdown in our economic development.

The city is requesting a period of two years to allow the commercial and residential markets significant time to recoup its historic loss in value. This time frame will also allow a number of substantial economic development projects which have been supported by many of you in this room, state's assistance, to come online and expand the local tax base.

Implementation of the reval in Bridgeport this time would likely result in a significant mill increase. I know it would, which would increase the property tax burden on motor vehicles and personal property. The personal property increase and the corresponding major hike in the mill rate would encourage businesses to leave the city and discourage new businesses from locating here.

This would have a devastating impact on what is a fragile but reviving commercial tax base. And it would squelch the investment in the expansion that we have all agreed to so far.

In light of the facts presented here, the city respectfully requests that your support for this legislation, which is permissive, would delay the reval process in Bridgeport, and I would certainly recommend this to my city council. Then not having taken a vote, but certainly a note, I can do a head count, there's strong support among the city councilman as well. I think you heard from one of them in here today.

Due to the time sensitive nature of this request, we are hopeful this the committee is in agreement that the proposal would move forward for consideration by the entire State Legislature as soon as possible, and that I'd certainly be willing to take any questions.

But just to reemphasize, the most important thing is we are reviving, we are building, we are -- our tax -- our census grew for the first time in 60 years in the last census, because we've invested, with your help, in lots and lots of housing projects, particularly in the downtown area.

But right now the -- the shock that this would create to the system would really slow much of that growth and would cause a lot of the people that have fought to reinvest in Bridgeport (inaudible).

SENATOR OSTEN: Thank you very much, Mayor. Yes? Go ahead.

REP. GROGINS: Thank you. Thank you, Mayor, I appreciate you coming up here from our city. I just have some questions for you, maybe you can tell the committee, are there -- if the reval were to take place this summer as scheduled, are there neighborhoods that would, I understand you'd have to make -- you'd have to raise the mill rate, most likely, to make up for the loss of revenues. Are there neighborhoods that would be disproportionately affected, and tell me what kind of an increase they'd be looking at, and give an example of what kind of property taxes in those specific neighborhoods you're talking about.

MAYOR BILL FINCH: Thank you, State Representative Grogins. The neighborhoods that would be most impacted I think were the ones that were preyed upon by the mortgage brokers. If you believe in the American dream, as I'm sure do you, these guys looked like they took a map out, and they said where are the upwardly mobile, hard-working people that want to believe in the American dream, let's sell them a bill of goods, and they sold them mortgages they couldn't afford.

We had all sorts of social service agencies, you know, qualifying people for their mortgage saying, you know, you could qualify for an average home in Bridgeport, $120,000, you could qualify for that. It's got a bath and a half. They'd go down the street to the mortgage broker, their brother-in-law who was unscrupulous and they sold them a bill of goods and said, no, you could afford a $230,000 mortgage not telling them that in three or four or five years that balloon -- that variable rate mortgage would balloon to payments well beyond their ability to afford their home. That happened over 5,000 times.

Right through the middle of the city. Right through the upwardly mobile parts of our city that were just dying to have a part of the American dream. So the places where we have high home ownership and affordability, those are the places that would be wracked by a reval at this point.

And so single family homes, people upwardly mobile looking at one and two family homes, those are the places where we saw the most dramatic decline in property values. But we also saw that relatively speaking, probably less than other areas, which is why the shift. Does that answer your question?

REP. GROGINS: It does, but I would like -- maybe you can hone in, for instance in Black Rock, do you think that neighborhood would be affected by reval now, do you think that they may be disproportionately affected because they have the most expensive properties in the area and maybe you can give an example as to what kind of taxes, you know, based on a value of a home, what kind of taxes they pay, and what kind of taxes they would be paying. I'm particularly interested, that's my district, and I would be particularly interested in your thoughts on that.

MAYOR BILL FINCH: It's all relative, right? So in Black Rock where State Representative Grogins does a tremendous job of representing the residents there, they had a decline, but nowheres near as big a decline as other areas. So the shifting would be on these homes that are already paying in Black Rock. It's not unusual to hear of a 12 to 30,000 dollars a year property tax bill.

REP. GROGINS: That would be based on -- I'm sorry, what kind of value of a property? So if you have a property that is $20,000, how much would the property be valued, do you think?

MAYOR BILL FINCH: Don't hold me on the math, but, you know, homes in the neighborhood that you represent that are valued at, say, 750,000 which in Fairfield or Westport would be 3 to 4 million, 5 million dollar homes, that's the disparity that we have in Fairfield County, would be paying those kinds of property taxes.

So despite the fact that, you know, the home is worth quite a bit less you would be paying the same as you would, relatively speaking, on a similar home in Westport. The difference is the home would be worth, you know, three, four, and five times the amount.

REP. GROGINS: And it wouldn't -- it's not just Black Rock, am I correct, that is going to be affected? It's the North End, it's the Brooklawn area, I mean, there's a large part of the city that would be disproportionately affected, correct, with regard to this?

MAYOR BILL FINCH: Right. Though everybody in Bridgeport lost value, the places that lost much more value, and that would therefore shift the value to these other -- the taxes to these other areas were -- was the center band of the city, upwardly mobile, two, three family, one family houses were purchased with these exploding mortgages.

Those values cratered. We've seen prices as low as, you know, well, some of the sales are private, and it takes a while to figure out, you know, how much they paid, but we're talking about well less than half the value of the home, the homes are being sold for. So that shift, then, is going to go to the places where the real estate market is a little healthier, like Black Rock and Brooklawn and parts of the North End.

And that's where we would lose people -- we would have flight out of the city because the dramatic increase in the property taxes.

This is going to give us two years to repair.

SENATOR OSTEN: And you might not need the whole two years because it is permissive in nature, it doesn't mean that you would take the whole two years?

MAYOR BILL FINCH: The way the bill is written, the council could vote for one or two. I would recommend two only because the devastation, Senator, that we've seen, it's similar to your district, only the numbers are, you know, significantly worse. Our socioeconomic situation of our taxpayers is very similar to your district.

SENATOR OSTEN: Yes. We just have less people than you.

MAYOR BILL FINCH: Right.

SENATOR OSTEN: Senator Cassano.

SENATOR CASSANO: Yes, thank you for coming, Mayor Finch. I'm one of those that's always believed in the annual reval, and I have real difficulty in delaying reval, basically because I watched Waterbury do it for 15 years, and when they finally did reval, the cost was so astronomical it killed half the city of Waterbury. I think you got a different situation. You clearly, in the last year, have made tremendous strides in bringing large box taxpayers. You made real progress.

MAYOR BILL FINCH: Thank you.

SENATOR CASSANO: And in a two year period I assume that they will be up and running, so they will be contributing to that tax base which is going to benefit the taxpayer.

MAYOR BILL FINCH: Exactly.

SENATOR CASSANO: So this is a case where it makes sense.

MAYOR BILL FINCH: Thank you.

SENATOR CASSANO: I still hate the idea of expansions. My real concern is that we grant a two years, and then in two years people are back, well, we didn't quite get enough, so we got to hold it -- somewhere we have to stop the process. That's why they changed to ten, and then the statistical every five.

But in this case, I think again, the efforts of the city, the progress that they've made in the last couple years and so on, this is a case where it makes sense. And I'm going to support that.

MAYOR BILL FINCH: We really appreciate that. And you know, we wouldn't have been in this position of being at the cusp of this investment if it weren't for everybody in this room. You know, Bass Pro moving into Steel Point, the great housing investments that the governor through DCD, and with your support, we wouldn't have had our -- our population increasing, we wouldn't have had people moving to transit-oriented development in the downtown.

We wouldn't have had the new stores and restaurants opening. And we want to just keep that going, and I think two years is an ample time for them to -- for these realistic values to repair. But I want to thank you every chance I get, because we can't do this on our own.

SENATOR OSTEN: Yes, Representative Aman.

REP. AMAN: Yes, thank you for coming forward on this. I have many of the same reservations on it. If I heard you right, the lower cost housing, the working class housing are the ones that are hit hardest as far as a reduction in value. And so -- and the more expensive homes have had less reduction. So there would be a tax revenue shift from the lower cost homes to the higher cost homes.

I guess my question ties into, in trying to bring back the values of those lower priced homes, wouldn't it be to Bridgeport's advantage to have the taxes as low as possible on the properties that have the biggest hit to encourage more people to buy them?

MAYOR BILL FINCH: I certainly think that would be an advantage. Finding owners is not that difficult. What's really the most difficult is this three to four year period of limbo where the courts and the mortgage companies and HUD and everybody else seems to want to hold onto these properties while they decay. Our biggest problem is we could find owners, because the deals are there, Representative.

You know, if you could buy a two family house for $50,000, we don't have a problem finding people, and they're not discouraged by the taxes. What they're discouraged by, so often, is they can't get them. These things are held in limbo in courts for years.

I've said here before, I'll say it again, we protect private property far too much in the inner city, and we allow slumlords and long dead distant owners to hold things up inadvertently in probate and other ways.

It's just, we have -- we have one meeting every week where we just focus on the hundred worst torched properties, right? And there's probably another 900 to 1,000 more we could put on that list. It's bad. And, you know, we really need -- I know the Representative Grogins' task force here on blight is going to come up with some things that we think will be really very helpful to us. But we've got the people who want to buy them.

You know, that same energy that we had that the unscrupulous mortgage brokers took advantage of, you know, new entrants to the society that want to build and prosper and have a home, the American dream, we have all of that. We've got tons of people who want to make a difference and start a family and start a life.

What we have a hard time getting is clear title to the property so that somebody can actually buy it. But when we do, it isn't the taxes that hold people up. There's great deals, great housing stock. Some very historic, beautiful homes. It's really this -- we're still fighting our way out of a lot of mush is the only way to put it.

REP. AMAN: As someone that has been involved in trying to purchase short sales and foreclosed properties, I cannot -- I understand the frustration, because I'm sitting there right now on a property that a family gave up after well over a year. A year ago it needed work. Now it's still sitting there and in another year, it'll be demo'd. And it's -- I don't know what's going on, but it's been well over a year, and nothing has happened.

And as you say, there's millions of properties around like that. And I do not understand the philosophy of Fannie and Freddie Mac about why, once they take title, don't they move it as quickly as possible for whatever they can get.

MAYOR BILL FINCH: Every one of these houses seems like it's a CSI episode, you know?

REP. AMAN: Yeah.

MAYOR BILL FINCH: It's incredible, and I don't know why, but I know State Representative Grogins is working hard to try to figure out some ways out of that. I don't -- I'm not an expert on all of that, I'm just an expert on getting frustrated.

REP. AMAN: Yeah. Having attended many of those meetings on that, I wish I could say this is a legislation we need. But it just doesn't seem to be something that legislatively we can get a handle on. But business-wise, again, it makes just no sense to me what the banks are doing.

MAYOR BILL FINCH: It puzzles me as well. We can commiserate again sometime.

REP. AMAN: But I thank you for your answer, because that was a real question on my part as to why you wouldn't try to encourage people to buy by making it the least expensive as possible. Thank you.

SENATOR OSTEN: Are there any other questions? Yes, Representative?

SENATOR DIMINICO: Thank you Madam Chair. I too, like Senator Cassano, have initially have reservations. I heard a gentleman earlier say when we get caught up, it's kind of like a catch phrase. But I guess I'm going to ask you a pragmatic question, because it sounds like the shift is really going to be from the first time home buyer houses to probably the upper and middle income houses are really going to share the burden.

I had initially asked a question about the balance of your grand list in regards to the business side and the residential side. And it sounds like that it's much more residential and that the business side is starting to pick up, and it sounds like to me that the game plan is that increase the business side, and in the end, everybody will benefit.

So that prompts me to question, as Senator Cassano kind of alluded to, if you have a crystal ball, where do you want Bridgeport to be in two years, or how is it going to look in two year?

MAYOR BILL FINCH: Much different than today. You know, most of these projects represented take a very long time, lots of bureaucracy, lots of lawyers. But once we get to the point where we are right now, there are four developers that took a portion of the Downtown North which is about a 10-12 acre portion around City Hall. And all those developers have gotten their financing or are nearly close to closing. That's about another 300-400 units of housing.

When you drive through Bridgeport you'll notice large factory buildings in the West End as you head toward Fairfield. To your right, there's four or five of them there. It's kind of like a Hollywood set because behind that are neighborhoods of working class families and not problems that the factory represents.

Those have been purchased. That project is backed by large pension funds that are going to reinvest in those buildings. They're going to zoning in March. The energy improvement district and the ecoindustrial park has brought in about a dozen new businesses.

We have some controversy around it, but I do believe our landfill will have taxables on it with solar panels. GE has cleared 75 acres of land on the East Side to make way for development. They're going to donate 14 acres of that for a new school to replace Harding High school.

There's a tremendous amount of development right now. The last thing I want to do is throw the business investors and the homeowners a curve ball. I'd like to give them two years of status quo to maintain the stability of the investment cycle that we seem to be maximizing right now.

SENATOR DIMINICO: So I'll ask the dirty question. Are there any deferments on the taxes that are in this business development?

MAYOR BILL FINCH: There are pilots. We have found that for large scale residential development that the only way really to get the pump primed is to do pilots. Under the state law we have some latitude. But that is always contemplating a phase-in of the pilot. I think they're mostly five years, and then you go to full taxes.

The only way we're really going to get taxes stabilized in Bridgeport is if everybody pays their fair share, but we get a lot more everybodies in there.

SENATOR DIMINICO: Sounds like a plan, thank you.

MAYOR BILL FINCH: Thank you, Representative.

SENATOR OSTEN: Thank you. Representative Vicino.

REP. VICINO: Thank you, Mayor, nice presentation. Basically by you extending your reval, this is kind of gamble on your political future, being that if this didn't work out down the road and your mill rate skyrockets, this is going to fall on -- on the CEO of the company, in other words. But being that there's been so much investment in your area and as you went through it just now, it does sound like there's a big future in that part of the state.

Just what I've seen from being up here a short time, a lot of your home values have bottomed out. The strong hands have absorbed it from the weak hands, and things are starting to turn, not just in your area, but throughout the whole state as the inventory falls, the price eventually goes up. And I think that everything's kind of bottomed out, at least in my area of the state.

MAYOR BILL FINCH: I think you're right.

REP. VICINO: I do come from an area of the state where we did the same thing a few years ago. We -- we obtained a five year extension, and when we decided -- when the time came up, it was at a time when the values dropped and our mill rate skyrocketed.

So it is a big gamble and eventually it will fall in your hands. But by obtaining permission it kind of falls into the hands of your board to make the final decision. Without that permission from this building, your -- your hands are tied. So I think in the end it's all going to fall onto your lap, and I wish you nothing but good luck with your city. You're doing a nice job.

MAYOR BILL FINCH: Thank you very much. We're working hard.

REP. VICINO: Thank you.

SENATOR OSTEN: Are there any other questions? Yes, Representative Belsito.

REP. BELSITO: Thank you Madam Chair. To me it sounds like you're doing what the state is doing, kicking the ball down the road for a later date. I mean, right now if you started your reval, you're going to get some higher prices because maybe the more expensive homes have gone up and the lower homes are going to go down.

I don't see how it's going to affect the people who are doing business or planning their business to come there. Because the whole thing is, the real key is you holding the mill rate and cutting your spending and -- and making do, sustaining what you can do with what you have.

So if you've got homes that are two and three decker homes that are falling in value, that's because the market isn't there. I don't think it's going to be there in a couple of years. It might even be lower in that particular type of home. So you are really taking a huge chance that -- that things might even go up higher than what you think on the newer homes, because those are the homes that are most wanted.

The other homes are the demand is going down for them. I mean, there's still a lot of people want to buy them because they're renting them, they're going to buy them cheap and renting them, that is going to happen. But I think that would take a little bit of different thought process on the town's part as to what is happening with rental properties, especially the homes.

And I think you can really keep the whole thing balanced by doing the revaluation, but the rental properties have to be looked at a little differently. That's my (inaudible). Thank you anyway.

MAYOR BILL FINCH: Thank you, Representative.

SENATOR OSTEN: Are there any other questions? Thank you, very much. Have a nice day.

MAYOR BILL FINCH: You too.

SENATOR OSTEN: That finishes our public officials section. We next have Anne Kelly-Lenz followed by Nancy Meyer. We are now onto the public, and I would remind everybody that it's three minutes.

So if you presented your testimony in writing, you may want to summarize and add anything else besides the written testimony. Anne Kelly-Lenz followed by Nancy Meyer. She did? Okay. Nancy Meyer? Followed by Paul Timpanelli.

NANCY MEYER: Good afternoon, Senator, Representative, and Members of the Planning and Development Committee. My name is Nancy Meyer, Publisher of the Hartford Courant. And you do have my testimony before you. So really what I want to hit on are probably four key points relative to public notices and in the newspaper versus placement on the municipality Web site.

I think first and foremost they are public notices. They should be in the public, and they should be fully accessible by the public. Secondarily, accessibility. The ability for the maximum number of people to see a public notice within the state is certainly of utmost importance.

The verifiability of public notices and the ability through affidavit of publication to ensure that they've been published, and then the archivablity to ensure it is secure.

When I look at these four pieces, a municipal Web site, first and foremost, I think with good intentions absolutely understand, but at the same time is it updated. Is the Web site up and live at all times. The maximum number of people that can look at that Web site and find what someone might be looking for. With millions of Web site addresses out there, that's not always an easy task.

When we look at the 17 newspapers that are represented by the CDNA, we look at being able to reach the maximum number of people in Connecticut who are looking at public notices, either via the newspaper or our online newspaper sites as well as ctpublicnotices.org.

So I think when we look at these four pieces, we look at how crucial they are.

I'm also going to add accountability. You know, bottom line is, when it's in the public, government is accountable. We want to ensure that each and every step of the way what a newspaper does is ensure accountability to its constituents as well as the constituents of Connecticut.

So for those purposes, public notices should continue to be where the maximum number of people can see them, view them at all times, and still believe that is the newspaper, and the newspaper Web sites overall. So I thank you for today in reading over the testimony, and look forward to any questions.

SENATOR OSTEN: Are there any questions? Representative Vicino.

REP. VICINO: Thank you. I looked into this a couple of years ago. What I found was when I was working with my local town as a selectmen, this looks like a way to save money.

But then it takes jobs away from your industry, and what I found right off the bat is that the people that were able to find it on the Internet and search it out, which was a small part of this, if you look at the big picture, the general public would have a tough time going to the municipal Web site.

But on the long-term, this looks like a big savings for the citizens. Now in your point of view, this would take jobs out of your industry. Do we know what kind of dollar amount we're looking at? Sounds like you've done a lot of research.

NANCY MEYER: You know, when I look at the Courant specifically, and I'll speak on behalf of the Courant versus all the newspapers in total, we'd be talking about anywhere between 30 and 50 jobs at the Hartford Courant. That is certainly of importance.

At the same point, we in newspapers continue to fight for freedom of information at all times, so yes, jobs are an important aspect, but I think first and foremost it is to ensure that information is public and to all people.

And as you said, the difficulty of finding it online is certainly a challenge. And so does it have impact on jobs of the Connecticut newspapers? It certainly does, but I think the financial sustainability, but it is bigger than that. And I think that is most important.

We have seen our business evolve over time, and we will continue to see that business evolve. We'll diversify our revenue base. But this is extremely important both financially, without a doubt, but also public information should remain public.

REP. VICINO: Thank you.

NANCY MEYER: Thank you.

SENATOR OSTEN: Representative Belsito.

REP. BELSITO: Thank you Madam Chair. We are living in a new era, and I'm from the old era, where the newspapers were there. But every morning I walk around my neighborhood, right, and more than half of the newspaper boxes are empty. And I'm out there at 6:30. I was on the town council and this represents a good portion of dollars for us.

And in so many instances, all those notices are falling on blind eyes, because they're not reading that. I mean, I never read it myself. I go right by it. Zoom. I mean, we get the paper, but most of my neighbors are not getting papers. What I would like to see done, not to put down the Hartford Courant, I've been getting the Courant since I moved here in 1966.

NANCY MEYER: Thank you.

REP. BELSITO: And I read the paper. But I'm telling you, more than 50 percent of the people in my neighborhood in a rural area do not get the paper. What I'd like to see done is that every individual has to register their email address with the town and then the town will then send out the notices, the public notices that have to be made. I think that would be far more effective, because then those people who get them can read them if they want, and if they don't want to read them, they don't have to.

But we're having a problem getting the readership. The cost is very high. When 50 people will be unemployed because of this, that is significant in your company. I don't know how to counter that, but I don't think we're getting the readership that we need.

I mean, you're selling a lot of papers, yes, but they're not reading the public notices. I'm sorry, but they are not.

NANCY MEYER: And I think, Representative, it depends upon the audience. So certainly I think those people who are interested certainly look that the. And just to counter, you know certainly, is readership different today?

I would say without a doubt, you know, what first of all we are still the number one source within the State of Connecticut to rah reach the maximum number of audience. Twenty-five percent of Americans still do not have access to Internet.

So even if I registered my email, I may not -- not everybody has an email that has the ability to be registered. So not only do people look at their newspaper, they're looking at their desktop, and maybe more importantly they're looking at this. This is fully accessible at all times, and what is most crucial.

So readership, and I counter this, whether it's here or as I'm talking with advertisers or others, we probably have more readership today than we did 20 years ago because of the accessibility of information and how it's delivered.

So people who have access to read legals and to look for information at any point in time on any device that they should be looking at. And I think that is important. So when we look at -- I know internally when we're dealing with any way of communicating with our employees, we're doing it on paper.

We do it in person. We're doing it online because about 25 percent of our employees do not have access to Internet at home either. So we can provide it in our HR Department so that they do or we're providing it on paper. So that still holds true today. The newspaper, with the combination of online and mobile still is the best way to reach.

REP. BELSITO: Thank you.

SENATOR OSTEN: Representative Diminico.

SENATOR DIMINICO: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of questions. Do you offer to leave the notices online on Courant.com?

NANCY MEYER: I'm sorry, what was that?

SENATOR DIMINICO: Do you offer the legal notices online at Courant.com?

NANCY MEYER: We do, and the majority of Connecticut newspapers do as well as an aggregated Connecticut site, which is ctpublicnotices.org.

SENATOR DIMINICO: Okay. So I guess the other question is since you've developed a Web site over the years, and it's a very good Web site, and it keeps improving all the time, and I know there's a revenue stream there as well.

So I'm curious, the drop in revenue stream on the -- on the public notices in the Hart paper, what -- how would that be affected as opposed to the income you pick up online on Courant.com? I'm curious if they kind of offset each other when there's --

NANCY MEYER: You may have an expense offset. Because at that point, you know, depending on how many legal notices we have in print. But ultimately the content still needs to be placed online, but you wouldn't have a manufacturing cost of paper. So you probably have some expense offset, so it might add to some profitability.

You know, I think the big picture, you know, it's a public domain, and has public access. So still, you know, the viability of getting information out there is extremely important.

You still have a large population that may not look at online that may be looking at it in print only. You know, we know demographically how that is changing. And there's a huge audience, when I look around this room, who is still looking at newspaper only.

SENATOR DIMINICO: I kind of empathize, we don't want to see any job loss. It's kind of like a sign of the times, it's all about productivity, and it starts with the post office. I empathize. But I do see the wave is, you know, it's kind of juxtaposed.

It's like -- you know, I'm on the MORE Committee. So everybody wants to down size government, everybody wants to find more efficient ways to -- to save money. And now it goes down to the municipal level from back office operations. But nobody wants to take it on the chin.

So I kind of empathize, but this is kind of -- kind of a sign of the times and the way the future is going. And my hope would be that no jobs would get lost, and that the Courant would continue to evolve and pick up other ways of revenue streams, particularly online.

I think really that is kind of the wave of the future. I mean, it's much less overhead online as it is with the hard paper and all that stuff. But I empathize. It's really a difficult question. Thank you.

NANCY MEYER: I appreciate that. I mean, one comment to that. Evolution's happened over 250 years of the Courant, and we are still here and vibrant and growing. And the fact is it may move online after a period of time, but I think, again, what is probably most important to folks sitting here today and as we look at it is public access.

And still the most viable place, and until that completely changes, and it's not about the Courant or even Connecticut newspapers, it's really about where people get their information, and right now it's a three way source. And the maximum amount of information where people get that is in their newspaper and probably going here very quickly. Thank you.

SENATOR OSTEN: Representative Aman.

REP. AMAN: Yes. Typical ad in the Hartford Courant is, say, two columns wide by four inches long, I don't know what that is in technical terms. What does that cost a municipality?

NANCY MEYER: Now it depends on if they're running it in full circulation of the newspaper which is about 180,000 on Sunday or if you're going into zones. And we have very localized zones which we zone to about five different geographic areas in order to make sure you're hitting the target audience you'd like. So it range anywhere from, say, $75 upwards to $800 at a size like that.

REP. AMAN: So a $75 ad for roughly 4 by 6, two columns.

NANCY MEYER: Two columns by 4 inches.

REP. AMAN: Would run, if you're just in a local area, $75?

NANCY MEYER: You can run $75 upwards to, let's say, 800.

REP. AMAN: It's just been my experience, the few legal ads I've had to publish cost a lot more than that, and I know that we didn't want them anywhere other than our own towns, wherever else they still got it.

NANCY MEYER: And Representative, I can look at that just to make sure.

REP. AMAN: The -- and I think that's what the real problem is. It's not with the municipalities or the state saying we don't want the notices out there. It's just a pure matter of cost.

For towns it's thousands and thousands of dollars that you're paying out, and I am not seeing the response. So we're having a series of things with the Metropolitan District Commission and one of the things they claimed is that, well, we put the ad in the Hartford Courant twice under legal notices, why didn't nobody attend the meeting? And the answer was because we couldn't find anybody that had read the legal notice, including the town officials that were directly impacted by the legal notice. So in that regard I'm having problems with it.

I just pulled up the Web site, the Hartford Courant Web site. They're not easy to find. If you don't for that there's a legal notice for your town that day, you're not going to find it. I don't see how that is making the Web site, except for a professional who is checking them every day for their job, how that is helping the general public.

Maybe I'm missing something on how the general public is accessing your public notices, do you have any information on that?

NANCY MEYER: I mean, they're fully searchable. So, you know, I could take a deeper look just to make sure that, you know, hey, we could do focus groups and have an average user come in and take a look at it and prove it both for our property and for others and we're definitely willing to look at that. Is it public? It absolutely is.

As we look even, you know, from a municipality, how do we drive better results to the information you're looking at, with we do that with advertisers on a regular basis, whether it's looking at their adds, how it was, what the placement of that was. We look to do that, you know, all the time to ensure the benefit.

And so, you know, it's hard for me to sit here today without looking at what you published and how you published it and what day to say how do I drive the best results. We know that we're getting the audience and we know that placement is still viable, and the fact is that's where people are looking for legal information.

REP. AMAN: Okay, thank you.

SENATOR OSTEN: Are there any other questions? I have a couple.

NANCY MEYER: Okay.

SENATOR OSTEN: So we met the other day and talked a little bit about this. And, you know, and I appreciate what you say. I actually have found people that have used legal notices. So I'm not opposed to legal notices, but what I am opposed to is to have the whole text in there when it includes things that are unnecessary to have in the legal notice.

The bill does not say get rid of legal notices. It just says to summarize, allows the summarization of it, so it would still keep intact all the points that you had.

So I'm looking, I went on your Web site and found the public notices on there just now, and I also went on the Norwich bulletin, the only paper that delivers, although I think at the Hartford Courant, and do get the Hartford Courant at my house, but is the Norwich Bulletin is our local newspaper, and you can get that on there.

And I'm looking at the small cities ad for the town of Preston. And the small cities ad for the town of Preston is much larger than the ad, I'm not going to try to do the inches, I'm not going to try and do columns and inches for you to try to figure it out. This ad here would cost upwards here of $1,000, and it's a very small ad about a small -- potential small city's project, and it includes a lot of verbiage that says -- so the first -- what I would call the first four, probably ten lines get to the meat of the issue.

The next ten lines say, "The purpose of the public hearing is to obtain citizen's views on the town's community development, housing needs, review and discuss specific projects in the area of housing, economic development, or community facilities which would be part of the town's application for funding. The hearing will review and discuss the town's prior small cities projects including any currently open or underway.

The public hearing will give citizens an opportunity to make their comments known on the program in review, and discussion of the program income reuse plan. If you're unable to attend the hearing, you can direct written comments to the Town of Preston."

Gives the address, gives the telephone number and the name of the first selectman. I think everybody in Preston knows Bob Congdon. I've known him for years, and I don't think they need to have his address and phone number if they're a resident in the Town of Preston, they already know who he is.

“The Town of Preston promotes fair housing and makes all programs available to low and moderate income families, will not discriminate or permit discrimination against any person or group of persons on the grounds of race, color, religious creed, age, marital status, national origin, ancestry, sex, gender identity, or expression, mental retardation,” -- mental, which is a term we don't even use anymore.

“Mental disability, physical disability, or handicap. All are encouraged to attend. The hearing is accessible to the handicapped Any disabled person requiring special assistance or non-English speaking person should contact Fran Miner, ADA Coordinator at least five days prior to the hearing. The Town of Preston is an equal opportunity action employer.“

So I think the important part is the top half of that which talks about what they're going to apply for. If all's this piece of legislation has in it is an ability to summarize. It does not get rid of legal notices. It requires papers to have a section for legal notices so that people can readily go to them.

No one around -- well, I don't know about anybody else, but I'm only speaking for myself, I've never advocated for elimination of legal notices. So this bill does not advocate for the elimination of legal notices. So I will ask again, the same thing I asked when you and the rest of the folks came.

If we could sit down and come up with a resolution to the issue that the legal notices have redundant information that doesn't need to be in the legal notices. If we could come to some sort of understanding that would allow municipalities a piece of savings and allow newspapers to do what they do best is provide information. So I'm not opposed to having the legal notices still in the paper. No one around here says that.

This bill does not say that, and I find it, you know, somewhat distressing that it keeps saying we want legal notices because you're trying to eliminate notice to the people. This is not what this says. It has never say that. It didn't say it last year. It doesn't say it this year. It's not the intent of the committee, because the committee is the one who put the bill out there.

So that's sort of, I would point out, and there are many, many, many pieces of legal notices that could come out that are just redundant in nature. And there isn't any reason why we can't sort of sit down as a business community and a municipal community, save some money for the taxpayers and still provide them with all the information they need. And that's all this bill does. It doesn't do any more or any less than that.

And so I still stand ready to meet with you along with CCM as the end cost representing towns to come to a resolution that would say that we could all simply agree that there are some redundant pieces to legal notices.

Because I know people come to town meetings as a result of legal notices. Not many. There are a lot of people that look at them and don't even know what they're about. But there are a lot of people that find out valuable town business that is important for them to know, and they would still find out about that valuable town business if we could come to an agreement on eliminating some of the size.

Because if we're not going to come to agreement on eliminating the size of the legal notice, to me it's more about the money you make than the idea. So that's what I would say. So. You know.

And I feel very passionately about this, having been lambasted in the paper on this issue, having been the one person in the room who took a significant hit when I was completely misrepresented. And I think that that's disingenuous when you sit here in front of us, and say that it's about the freedom of information and not the money. So.

NANCY MEYER: I think it's twofold, because when I sit here in front of you, and I can't speak to others, both come to play. I mean, I think still what newspapers represent is the ability to ensure accountability across the board. We have found, you know, whether it's a major advertiser that leaves us, we have found ways to diversify our revenue base. So this to me is an important issue. It is what serves democracy.

Now lessening and I think coming together and looking at a compromise I think is a way -- one way to evaluate this. What I would say is what is that compromise? What should be in there, what shouldn't? We can say, some municipalities may say that's redundant, others may not. And we may need to find some common value there.

I don't know about Preston. I don't know who in your community does, but there are many who may not. But what is right, what is wrong? I think there is an ability to have that conversation, and we can do that, but I think we also have to be very careful about what that entails.

You know, this is still public information, it does provide accountability. And at the Courant, I've been there seven years, I've found many ways to diversify my revenue base, and I will continue to do so. But this is important to the people of Connecticut, shortened or completely out, and I hear you Senator, and I'm glad you brought that up, but I think we still need to be very cautious, and is it a slippery slope? It certainly can be.

I know from where you're coming from feeling very passionate, that's not what you're saying, but you're one person in the midst of many, and so I think it is crucial that we're paying attention to the whole. I started my career typing legal notices, I absolutely can't understand the language.

SENATOR OSTEN: So again I'm waiting, you know, for you all to come in and give an idea of what you think would be a compromise to that. I -- I stand ready. I've stood ready since we last met, and I will stand ready.

But I think that there's a way that this could be worked out and not have anybody say that they don't want to be held accountable, because every one of us that sits around this table gets held accountable every two years.

And so we expect to be held accountable, both publicly on the front line, but we expect to be held accountable reasonably, and not be misrepresented, and I know I was misrepresented, and I didn't appreciate it then, and I don't appreciate it now when people stand here and say that we're looking for less than accountability, because we are not. We are looking for a way to make a reasonable request and to get rid of redundant language.

Now the only way we're going to come to that compromise is to sit down and talk, and that's why I offered that day to sit down and talk with both you and representatives from municipalities.

And I think that there's a way that that can be done. I'm not interested in not giving information to residents, whether they pay taxes or they don't pay taxes or they vote or they don't vote.

I think they all deserve the information, and I still want them to have the information, but I don't want this to be said that this bill is a bill that is something that would not provide real information to the residents in the State of Connecticut and those who may not even live in Connecticut but have financial standing here.

So that's my concern is that cannot be continually represented that we're trying to take information away from people. We are not. Nobody around this table is trying to do that. We all value you and what you do, and we all value the people that we're responsive to.

So we want to make sure that they get information, but there's no need to have that whole text out there that -- that is redundant in nature. So there is a way that we can work on this together. And there are also ways that we could put this down so that it's not quite as expensive.

So as you -- as you change your revenue stream you could give some of that over to municipalities if we wanted to continue with the full vote.

So are there any other questions? Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

NANCY MEYER: Thank you.

SENATOR OSTEN: Paul Timpanelli followed by Mike Muszynski.

PAUL TIMPANELLI: Madam Chairman, members of the Planning and Development Committee, thank you for this opportunity. My name is Paul Timpanelli. I'm here before you this afternoon in my capacity as President and CEO of the Bridgeport Regional Business Council. The Business Council is a 1,000 member business membership association physically located in the City of Bridgeport.

We represent those 1,000 members through our management of the Bridgeport Chamber of Commerce, the Trumbull Chamber of Commerce, and the Stratford Chamber of Commerce. Of our 1,000 members, approximately 500 of them are located physically within the City of Bridgeport.

I am appearing before you today representing those businesses to urge your support for the legislation that you've already talked about this morning relative to exempting the applicable tax revaluation in the City of Bridgeport for the years of 2013 and 2014.

Providing that would enable added time for depressed property values in the city to rise in keeping with projected economic expansion, and thereby preventing a situation that could result in dramatic slowdown of what we're currently experiencing in terms of economic development in the city. I'm not going to repeat everything that's been said to you so far. My written testimony will be provided to you.

Just let me simply say that what has been said earlier by some of you in terms of your conclusion is this is an attempt to enable us to catch up. This is an attempt to enable what is currently occurring in the City of Bridgeport, and that is growth on the commercial and industrial side, and that is economic expansion, and rising of property values to have an opportunity to be implemented. That will occur. It's our hope within the next two or three years in time for this reevaluation to then be implemented.

What is occurring in the City of Bridgeport today in terms of economic expansion, in terms of business development is dramatic. One of you have asked the question on two or three occasions, and we haven't had it adequately answered yet, and that is what is the ratio between commercial and industrial property, vis-a-vis residential property. It's approximately 30 to 70. In successful cities the ratio should be exactly opposite of that. Successful cities that have reasonable tax rates, have 60-70 percent of their tax base covered by commercial and industrial property and the remainder by residential.

In Bridgeport it's almost exactly the opposite, but our trend is correct. Our trend is commercial and industrial is beginning to make up a larger portion of that total and that will happen dramatically over the next couple of years, as everything that is now online, in fact, takes place.

This provides some stability. This provides some predictability, and in terms of our ability to grow the tax base with additional commercial and industrial property that is taxpayers' number one concern when they look to locate their business in a city or expand their business in a city. We have a predictable tax rate, we have a stable tax rate. This will allow the potential for that to happen.

REP. ROJAS: Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions for Mr. Timpanelli? I guess I can only look over here. Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

PAUL TIMPANELLI: You're welcome.

REP. ROJAS: Mike Muszynski followed by Randy Collins.

MIKE MUSZYNSKI: Good afternoon, Chairman Rojas and members of the Planning and Development Committee. My name is Mike Muszynski with the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities. We represent over 92 percent of the towns and cities in Connecticut. We appreciate the opportunity to testify today in strong support of Senate Bill 40 regarding the PUBLICATION OF LEGAL NOTICES IN NEWSPAPERS. Submitted written testimony on this proposal, I want to provide a couple of key facts.

The bill will provide significant relief from a long standing, costly, and outdated mandate on towns and cities by modifying the requirement to post the full text of all legal notices in newspapers. The bill is not a complete repeal of the law, but rather a reasonable modification and compromise by allowing the publishing of a summary of the legal notice along with clear instructions as to how to obtain the complete text and other relevant information regarding the notice.

The availability of the document would be available online as well within the town hall. In addition, the bill would allow the notice to be published in three weekly newspapers. This proposal would not remove the newspapers from the process, but only reduce the outdated mandate on the municipalities to print the entire document.

Towns and cities ensure the public is provided information on government actions and issues that may impact them. To this end, local governments spend millions of dollars every year publishing lengthy documents in its entirety in local publications.

The Internet is the quickest, most transparent and cost effective way to get information to the most amount of residents. The Internet is often the main source of information for people. It is how people communicate, shop, do their banking. Municipal Web sites, municipal and state Web sites have linked living rooms to the governments instantly.

Some key points. The Internet is accessible to everyone. Either people have access to the Internet either at home or work, or at least newspapers are equipped with computers with no cost to users. On the other hand, newspapers must be purchased.

The Internet has been -- is accessible from anywhere in the world at any given time. Newspapers, however, are purchased in the region that they serve. As well public notices placed on the Internet can remain there indefinitely, making information available for a greater period of time.

Municipal governments have a long history of perfecting record keeping and retention. Notices, however, placed in in newspapers are only there for the allotted time period paid for. Despite these obvious advances in 2014, Connecticut's hometowns continue to be mandated to post their entire legal notices in printed newspapers.

The state itself has moved to a paperless system in similar ways. The General Assembly, a couple of years ago, stopped printing certain legislative documents in Public Act 12-92 requires proposed state agency regulations to be placed online rather than being published.

No one is seeking to hamper the public's right to know. Rather towns and cities are seeking a more cost effective and efficient manner in which to provide this information. Newspapers have had a captive client in municipal government for years.

While the newspapers assert that it's easier to find notices within newspapers than online, experience has shown that legal notices are used as filler throughout the paper, and are not placed in a coordinated manner to provide the readers ease of access to the information. Municipalities continue to make sacrifices and explore ways to be more efficient and save money.

CTM urges this committee and the General Assembly to support Senate Bill 40 as it would provide meaningful mandates relief to towns and cities. Thank you, and I'd be happy to answer any questions the committee has.

SENATOR OSTEN: Everybody is really busy today.

MIKE MUSZYNSKI: I understand.

SENATOR OSTEN: I apologize, they're all in different meetings. So I just wanted to point out, did you see the article that was in the Hartford Courant that congratulated Senator Witkos for foregoing expensive printed material for his constituents and reverting just to email?

MIKE MUSZYNSKI: I did not see that article.

SENATOR OSTEN: Oh, okay. I just thought I'd point it out that even the Hartford Courant agrees with -- this was done -- well, it goes back to August 8 of 2011 about the same length of time that you have, as a group, been participating in trying to downsize the size of legal notices.

So I just think it's interesting that even the paper, back in 2011, recognized that political information should be down to the size of emails or web postings, newsletters, and Facebook.

MIKE MUSZYNSKI: Yes. Thank you, Senator. And to follow up on a point you had mentioned to the previous speaker regarding meeting amongst parties to discuss this issue, we'll be happy as CTM has reached out to your office and hoping to sit down and have this meeting. We would like to point out that this is a compromise. We aren't looking for a complete repeal of this mandate, we're just simply asking that it be modified.

SENATOR OSTEN: Thank you. Are there any other question? Seeing none, thank you very much.

MIKE MUSZYNSKI: Thank you.

SENATOR OSTEN: Next is Randy Collins, and after him would be Henry Talmage, Connecticut Farm Bureau.

RANDY COLLINS: Representative Rojas, Senator Osten, good afternoon. My name is Randy Collins, Senior Legislative Associate on Behalf of Connecticut Conference of Municipalities. I have submitted my written testimony, so I will be very brief. I know that the hearing is starting to move on.

First off I wanted to testify in support of House Bill 5055 AN ACT ELIMINATING MANDATES. I know we've heard quite a bit of testimony on this bill, and I would just like to reiterate CCM support and the support of our members for Section 1 which eliminates the payment through OPM to DMV for she registration of delinquent taxes.

We also support Section 2, which will allow municipalities the option to delay reval.

I'd like to speak very briefly on Senate Bill 38, AN ACT CONCERNING INTEREST RATE ON DELINQUENT TAXES. CCM has strong concerns with Senate Bill 38.

While it's kind of given as, you know, an optional property tax relief to allow municipalities to reduce the interest rate from the current 18 percent to a range between 15 and 18 percent, it really, in fact, it becomes a de facto mandate which will place a lot of pressure on municipal leaders to reduce this interest rate, and thus lowering revenue available to municipalities.

It doesn't provide property tax relief to very many, and does not provide property tax relief to all, but simply is going to provide property tax relief to the people who aren't meeting their current obligations. Anybody who pays their bill on time is not going to see any savings.

You know, this is one of those that we kind of fought year in and year out, and have expressed our concerns within our oppositions. It doesn't just affect property tax, but it'll assess, if you assign a fine to a blighted property which I know is a significant problem in a lot of our municipalities, the interest rate on those liens that are filed would also be reduced as those interest rates are tied in together.

So we'd really ask the committee to oppose Senate Bill 38 and the de facto mandate that it would impose.

Very briefly in House Bill 5056 which is technical corrections to the RPO consolidations, we would ask, we've submitted testimony asking for a slight fix for what we kind of refer to as the money follows the town the way the statute is currently drafted, some of the transition fees for towns and RPOs that are consolidating or transitioning, unless all member towns are going, that money is not going to come and we don't understand that the intention was not to do that, but we'd like to see that fixed, and we consider that a technical correction.

And House Bill 5057 which would allow for the municipal option to not tax horses, we appreciate that for the last few years that this has been a mandated exception, it now becomes optional. We appreciate that change in the language, but we do have concerns with Section 2, which would change the assessed value to the actual -- the actual value to the assessed value which would result in a financial impact to municipalities. Thank you very much, and if you have any questions I'd be happy to take them.

REP. ROJAS: A quick question, I remember there being some concern around towns about having to post minutes and agendas for all the public meetings in a timely manner online, and given that that is kind of the direction we're looking to head in with the legal notice notifications, are we going to hear kind of the same complaints that they don't have enough time or it's a burden of some kind for them to post these things online?

RANDY COLLINS: I mean, I think that we would be able, willing to work with that, there's if -- are we talk about the DMVPs with the posting?

REP. ROJAS: We're talking about legal notices.

RANDY COLLINS: I think, I mean, if everything has to be posted online, it has to be met within that certain deadline to file it within the newspapers. I think very easily, we could be able to work, we have to file it in the newspapers on time, we could easily file it online within a very reasonable time, and if we can't do that, well, I think then we don't have much of a standing if we can't get a notice up online.

REP. ROJAS: In reference to the other comment you made about changing some of the language for the RPO consolidation, that is probably going to show up in another bill. So you'll probably have an opportunity to testify on that again.

RANDY COLLINS: I look forward to it.

SENATOR OSTEN: Are there any other questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Henry Talmage? Or Joan Nichols is his substitute? Hi, Joan.

JOAN NICHOLS: Good afternoon Senator Osten, Representative Rojas, and members of the Committee. My name is Joan Nichols, I'm the Director of Government -- excuse me, Community Relations. I'm here today on behalf of Connecticut Farm Bureau, and on behalf of our Executive Director Henry Talmage who could not be here today.

I'm here today to ask your support of House Bill 5057, AN ACT CONCERNING THE ASSESSMENT OF HORSES AND PONIES AND FARM MACHINERY AND THE TRANSFER OF LAND CLASSIFIED AS FARM LAND, OPEN SPACE LAND, FOREST LAND, AND MARITIME HERITAGE LAND. Mr. Talmage has also submitted written testimony on this bill.

Connecticut Farm Bureau represents over 5,000 farm families in the State of Connecticut. We ask your support of this bill for providing for technical changes to Public Act 490 which is one of the most important pieces of legislation that has helped maintain our forest land and our working farm land. So these are technical changes that will clarify some gray areas in the statutes.

We're also asking for the tax on horses to become a municipal option along with some other technical changes to filing deadlines that we feel will not only help the assessors and the municipalities, but also our landowners in the implementation of PA 490 and some of the other tax programs. So with that I'm happy to answer any questions.

SENATOR OSTEN: Are there any questions for Joan? You have a question? Thank you. You're all set.

JOAN NICHOLS: Thank you very much.

SENATOR OSTEN: Thank you. Next is Kip Kolesinskas -- I'm not saying your name right, I apologize. And Tony Bialecki.

KIP KOLESINSKAS: Good afternoon, Senator Osten, Representative Rojas, and Committee Members. My name is Kip Kolesinskas. I'm from Manchester, Connecticut, and I'm on the Steering Committee for the Working Lands Alliance.

Working Lands Alliance appreciates the opportunity to testify in support of House Bill 5057, an act concerning the assessment of horses and ponies and farm machinery and transfer of land classified as farm land, open space, forest land, and maritime heritage land.

The Working Lands Alliance is a broad-based coalition dedicated to preserving Connecticut's farm land, and our members reflect the diversity of organizations, businesses, and individuals that care deeply about our working lands and the farmers that steward them.

So again House Bill 5057 provides important technical and procedural clarifications on 490, and of course, you know, we consider 490 to be one of the most important pieces of land use legislation in Connecticut.

on matters that relate to ownership, implementation of the conveyance tax as well as filing dates and notices and allowing municipalities the option to impose a tax on horses. For those that depend on revenue can continue to tax them.

Those that determine the administrative burden outweighs the benefit, then they have the option to eliminate by a vote of their legislative body. So again -- and we know that this change has been supported by the Connecticut Association of Assessing Officers and we think it will help both landowners and the municipalities to implement Public Act 490 more effectively.

So we appreciate the opportunity to testify favorably in support of this bill. Thank you very much.

SENATOR OSTEN: Any questions? Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Tony, you're followed by Mike Killian.

TONY BIALECKI: Senator, Representative, my name is Tony Bialecki, I'm the Vice Chair of the New Haven Parking Authority and their commission, and I'm here to talk about Senate Bill 33, AN ACT ESTABLISHING NEW HAVEN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. And I'll be brief.

I submitted written testimony and I know Matt Nemerson earlier from the City of New Haven answered some of your questions that were raised. What we want to say is that the Parking Authority in New Haven, it's over 60 years old.

It's an effective development organization that has been very effective in providing safe, effective, and affordable parking in downtown New Haven throughout the city have 8,000 spaces, several garages, surface lots, and specifically to this discussion the Authority has worked with the State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation and the city over the last 30 years running Union Station.

Both the management of the station itself as well as the parking garage next door which has about 900 spaces in the service lot.

And that 30 year agreement is coming up in two years which in part has sort of driven this conversation. And I just want to say that on behalf of the Authority I think it's been an effective. For those of you who have been to Union Station, I think it works well.

And I think that the issue of why it's -- two things, one, why is there regional discussion. Clearly the Parking authority provides parking for maybe businesses downtown as well as residential and downtown area, but particularly for businesses. And many of the customers of the parking authority actually come in from the suburban areas. And because many of those people work in the downtown as well as take a train to New York and other places.

So from a reasonable standpoint it's important for those area towns not only to have some of their own parking as West Haven just established as well as Guilford and the other places. But in terms of safe, accessible transportation mode, I think Union Station is a good example of a working relationship with the state.

We'd like to see that continue. I think the Parking Authority will may a role in that in the future. And I think Matt Nemerson's comments in terms of some of the suggestions about how the organization might work are due to consideration.

SENATOR OSTEN: Thank you very much. Are there any questions? No? Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Mike Killian? Followed by Robert LaBonne.

MIKE KILLIAN: Well, my name is Mike Killian. I am Senior Vice President of the Record Journal, which is a 147-year-old family owned and operated newspaper company headquartered in Meriden, Connecticut. In addition to the daily and Sunday paper we publish six or seven community newspapers that are mailed free of charge to everybody in the towns of Plainville, Southington, Berlin, North Haven, and three or four other towns.

I'm here today to chat about Senate Bill 40. And I'll confess to you, I'm going to -- you have all my material, so I'm going to go off script a little bit, and tell you that I feel like a Jay Leno after a Jimmy Fallon has taken over The Tonight Show. Following Nancy Meyer and CCM, I think, you know, the substance is out there.

I do want to respond to a couple of the comments and some of the statements that have been made by the earlier speakers as it relates to public notices. It has been suggested by one speaker that public notices are fillers in newspapers. I want to tell that is not true from our standpoint. They are indexed on page one every day, and I think most of the newspapers in the State of Connecticut takes that equally seriously.

When it's been suggested that, you know, there's costs associated with buying newspapers, I want to tell thaw newspapers are free at all public libraries, and that in fact a lot of people go there and read them. Just ask your local librarian.

It has also been suggested that, you know, people struggled with finding public notices on newspaper Web sites. Have you ever gone to a government Web site? It's equally challenging, and I will tell you that in the case of our weeklies which are mailed to 100 percent of the community, according to the U.S. census bureau, only about 7 percent of the people go to government Web sites, and I can tell you, I've never been that hard pressed that I would want to do that for entertainment. Certainly I would download a form if that's necessary.

You know, I have been, and as the two co-chairs here know in conversations that I've had with them previously to this, I think compromise can be struck. To me, though, I think the devil is in the detail, and I have made myself available, and I continue to make myself available so that we can craft something that doesn't abbreviate what Nancy was talking about in regard to the public -- public information. And I do think that there are some compromises that can be struck on this.

I can also tell you in regard to one community that we do business with, we actually put together a five year contract that lowered their costs, because we're equally sensitive to the cost issue. We are not the Hartford Courant, and if you look at an average ad in our newspaper, it runs -- it runs about 4 -- 4 inches.

I'm taking out all of the large space stuff as it relates to various ordinances. It's about $100. And, you know, for $100, you get an awful lot, I would submit. And let me tell you specifically, you get to us typeset it proofread it.

We give it publication in our newspapers, we put it on our Web sites, and then we upload it to a state Web site called ctpublicnotices.org. I say that because I helped create that about 12 years ago. And that's -- I think for $100 that is a bargain. We're not charging $800 for that. And with that I'd be happy to answer specific questions as it relates to testimony you have in front of you.

SENATOR OSTEN: Any questions? Representative Diminico.

SENATOR DIMINICO: Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought earlier with the other speaker -- I was -- I -- you brought up that five year plan. So if -- if the content cannot -- the issue of the content is debatable. What about package plans, like so many square inches a year?

MIKE KILLIAN: That's exactly what I'm talking about. I did that with one municipality. I'm very concerned about costs, and we sat down, and we worked out what we would call an advertising contract. They gave us X number of inches in public or legal notices, and we gave them a pricing that reflected that commitment.

And I'll tell you, they were happy with that.

SENATOR DIMINICO: Oh, I think that is refreshing to hear as opposed to standing strong in the corner and not coming to a compromise. I mean, that way it's palatable to everybody.

MIKE KILLIAN: Yeah, I would say that if cost is the driver, then, you know, let's sit down and talk to the various newspapers, and let's make that happen. I can tell you, I'm Past President of the Newspaper Association here and in New England, and for most of us, we want to make it work for everybody. It's not one or the other, and that's why I have suggested to the co-chairs to -- I think compromise can be struck on these issues.

SENATOR DIMINICO: Thank you.

REP. AMAN: Yes. I am very much interested in your idea of a contract, because that's one of the things that I have discussed and others have discussed, is that the newspapers in general, and I'm not saying yours, charge equivalent to the rack rate for legal notices and will discount for almost anybody else.

And one of the things that was discussed is that if a municipality signs a contract with you to do a certain amount of ads over the course of a year or five year period, that the rate that they are charged will be no greater than what you're charging your best business client for the ad -- for the equivalent ad space over the course of a year.

How would your feelings or your organizations feel on some legislation that controlled your rates only by saying you can't -- you have to hold the -- whatever your best rate is for commercial customers is what your best -- your rate for a town would be?

MIKE KILLIAN: I cannot speak for the other 16 publishers in the State of Connecticut. My sense is that would rankle them to some degree because, you know, you're setting their pricing. I think the issue needs to be negotiated offline and with the spirit of cooperation. And that's what we have done in Meriden. We've made it work.

REP. AMAN: The -- and I would normally agree with you except that most municipalities probably don't have a real choice what paper to put their ads in, because the circulation within their town. And so it's, in many ways, a one-sided negotiation.

I have to use your newspaper no matter what, and you're going to tell me how much I'm going to pay for it. I realize in the real world there is some give or take on that, but I'm looking at our own Republican Town Committee, and we have no negotiation rights when is it comes to putting those ads in. They tell us, it's going to be this much, and you have to publish it in our paper.

MIKE KILLIAN: I -- I can only speak for, you know, our family operation, and that we think compromise is in order. And that when you say there's no competition, that throws back to a -- a time long gone where competition probably did not exist and newspapers were perceived as monopoly. That certainly is not the case today. And I'm not familiar with the town where you're from, by my sense is that whatever that daily paper is they do have competition.

REP. AMAN: Okay, thank you very much -- and I am very glad to hear that you're willing to talk about it, and understand that cost is a problem, not the legal notice part of it. It's just they share expense the towns are running into.

MIKE KILLIAN: Yeah, and one of the examples that I used in our visit was the public notice that resulted in a big outcry in the town of Berlin for the VIP Lounge which now is a Chef's Emporium. And I think we spoke about this year last year when I was up.

If, you know, my concern is if you abbreviate it so much you lose the purpose of what the whole issue is, and the fact that hundreds of people turned out was a direct result of the fact that it was a public notice that exposed that as a VIP sex lounge coming to town as opposed to what is currently there.

So to me when you start talking about compromise, the devil, again, is in the detail, and we've got to figure out, you know, a common ground on that.

SENATOR OSTEN: And I assume that it was front page story, too. Just saying, it was probably a front page story that might have got an lot of people there. I mean, I think it was a combination --

MIKE KILLIAN: I don't follow the Courant that closely, so --

SENATOR OSTEN: I'm just thinking that the front page story that got some people there. But I would say that, you know, in every newspaper that I've had dealings with, and I represent a swath of Connecticut that goes from Marlborough down to Ledyard, whether it's a little, tiny newspaper or it is a larger newspaper, like the Hartford Courant, tiny being like Riverside East, those not printed on a daily basis, those newspapers all have good reporters that actually read the legal notices.

Nobody again, I go back to the point where nobody here is saying get rid of legal notices. Not a single person at this table is saying get rid of legal notices. None of us wants that. All of us want accountability. All of us want to have it out there.

We're just looking for a mechanism to decrease costs for municipalities which ultimately pass all costs onto our constituents. So that's all we're looking for here. And I appreciate the fact that you've said you'll sit down.

I'll have our Clerk here give you a call, and we'll set up a time or you and CCM and COST could sit down and make a recommendation to us on language that you think would reflect your ethical concerns and reflect their financial concerns.

Because the ethical concerns, we all want to make sure that the information is out there. So I'll have, you know, Peter get in touch with you guys. But I think that you should come to us with something that you've talked about with each other.

Because we have compromised language, and maybe we're not seeing what you're seeing. So we want to make sure that we're addressing your concerns. Is there anybody else have anything? Yes, Representative.

REP. FOX: Thank you Madam Chair. Good afternoon, sir. Just a quick question or comment that I'd like your feedback on, if possible. I'm an attorney by trade. And in our firm a portion of the practice is both residential and commercial real estate.

It was in the past several years, as it pertains to foreclosure sales. The attorney responsible for the foreclosure sale known as the committee is obligated and required to post an advertisement in the newspaper, similar to a legal notice.

Several years ago it was much different than it is today. It was a photograph, a significant amount of details as to the underlying sale. And now the only requirement looked -- asked of attorneys or the committee overseeing the sale is to include a heading of the case, our contact information, and then a link for additional details, please refer to the judicial Web site, www.cta, blah, blah, blah.

In your field, is that -- do you remember there being discussions as to when the Judicial Branch went from what had been a much larger notice to what is now a much more condensed notice with the primary source of information being please see www.cta? Was that an issue that was addressed within your -- your field?

MIKE KILLIAN: That was head up by Judge Douglas Mintz out of Stamford. You may be fairly familiar with him, as I am. And that was basically a compromise that was struck. I will tell you, if you look at our newspaper, you will see photographs of those houses because we actually did work it out with the Judicial Branch and I will tell you that we provide those pictures for free.

REP. FOX: So I -- I guess the point I was -- or my -- my question was more just the actual discussion that was undertaken between the Judicial Branch and the newspapers. It doesn't seem that it was anywhere near as, I don't know if contentious is the word, as the conversation being had between the newspapers and the possible obligation of the municipality. Would that be correct? And I realize that may be they're two different --

MIKE KILLIAN: Well, you're a lawyer, you know, dealing with the Judicial Branch is a lot different than the Legislative Branch.

REP. FOX: Okay. Thank you, sir.

REP. ROJAS: I just simply wanted to add a comment, I don't have any more questions. Please go down and sit in a room with COST and CCM, and bring us back some language.

MIKE KILLIAN: Thank you for your time.

SENATOR OSTEN: Thank you, very much. And next is Robert LaBonne followed by Serena Neal.

ROBERT LABONNE: Thank you, Madam Chairman, Representative Rojas, and members of the committee. My name is Robert LaBonne Jr. from Morris, Connecticut. I'm here to discuss Senate Bill Number 39. I'm the current owner of four supermarkets in Watertown, Woodbury, Salisbury, and Southbury, Connecticut employing over 330 employees of Connecticut with a couple from New York State.

I've seen over the 30 years as being a manager and also as an owner the devastating effects of drugs on our communities. Personally I have lent money to help people, cars, they couldn't make car payments, make back rent, and yet I ended up getting stiffed, and then on the retail side, many, many consumers stealing from me back where we have to lock up items such as cigarettes and formula because they've been getting stolen on a habitual basis.

So I think this bill has the opportunity to put a dent. And if the drug problem in, you know, any town or any community or any state is like a tree. The drug dealers are the trunk of the tree. If you have the ability to cut out the trunk, meaning going after the assets, and most of the big drug dealers have money. They have assets. They have houses, they have money, they have cars. And if you can go after them you're essentially going to kill the uprooting of other drugs falling to kids on the street.

And so I think this bill addresses the ability. It may not affect it. I agree with you. I'm concerned that if there's a 17-year-old kid selling drugs and his parents are going to sell their house because he's got, you know, a quarter million dollars' worth of drugs he just sold, and the parents are going to have to pay that tax, maybe there's something that can be done to prevent that.

But I think the big time drug dealers, if we can go after their money and take them, that is just going to decrease the amount of kids that are going to be selling drugs downstream. So I think you have the potential to change the course of thousands of peoples' lives, not only in Connecticut, but in the country, and possibly the world. The last sentence of my personal mission statement is to make a world a better place one person at a time.

And I'm fortunate to be here, because a little over a year ago I had a heart attack, and I was one of the ones that survived the widow maker heart attack. So help me and help Senator Kane, you know, change, make a difference. Because I think this bill has the ability to do that and change people's lives forever. So any questions?

SENATOR OSTEN: Are there any questions? Thank you, very much. Appreciate you staying today. Serena Neal? And you'll be followed by Rudy Mazurosky.

SERENA NEAL: Good afternoon, Senator, Representative, members of the committee. My name is Serena Neal Sanjurjo. I am a Community Economic Development Professional working in the City of New Haven, specifically in the Hill neighborhood.

And I'm here today to talk about our S.B. 33 and its opportunity to create an economic development entity to help in remerchandising the Union Station as well as building a parking garage and providing opportunities for the Hill neighborhood that would significantly impact the neighborhood, jobs, and economic development.

Thank you for allowing me to appear today. I'd like to take an opportunity to share some of the work and consensus building that we have been doing in the Hill and how S.B. 33 will address the need for future development impacting Union Station and the surrounding neighborhood.

Over the past two years, the City of New Haven EDA supported by DECD and HUD have worked on the ground in the Hill neighborhood to develop a comprehensive plan for redevelopment. In December of last year, the Hill to Downtown Community Plan became the product of that work.

Through dozens of community and stakeholder meetings, planning and commission meetings, the community has realized a new vision for the Hill. And that vision includes Union Station. For many years, the station was not recognized as a part of the neighborhood.

It served a constituency that did not live in the Hill. But based on studies conducted as a part of the plan, we learned that more than 700,000 to 1 million people travel through the station annually and continues to grow every year.

For local stakeholders in the Hill, this has been a missed opportunity. Through the planning process, residents, homeowners, business owners, and government have developed a shared vision for the neighborhood that includes Union Station as a viable economic entity that provides an opportunity for job creation, business growth, and economic stability.

One of the goals of the Hill to Downtown Community Plan is to create a new public space, Union Square, surrounded by new housing and retail that will provide direct access to the station and become a focus of activity serving local residents, area workers, and visitors to the region. The Authority will cultivate new investment and strengthen our neighborhood revitalization efforts.

S.B. 33 articulates one possible structure for creating a vital partner to realize the Hill's neighborhood -- the Hill neighborhood's vision for growth, as well as support and enhance the City of New Haven, the region, and the State of Connecticut's economic development initiatives.

It lays the foundation for locally focused entity with representatives from the state, the city, community, and major stakeholders. All committed to ensuring the goals of the Hill to Downtown Community Plan are realized.

As this legislation progresses, we look forward to working with you, the governor, Governor Malloy, and members of his administration to produce legislation that reflects that shared vision of what Union Station, transit-oriented development in Connecticut, and New Haven itself can and should be.

On behalf of the contributors of the Hill to Downtown Community Plan, who have invested countless hours, intense meetings, and a relentless commitment to this process, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to present this testimony.

SENATOR OSTEN: So don't go anywhere, because I have at least one question, maybe two. Anybody else have any questions first?

I just wonder, how many economic development organizations are in New Haven that have testimony? Because we've had testimony from the City of New Haven Economic Development. We had, I believe the Parking Authority or the parking group, and we've had you. Are these three different organizations with the same general focus?

SERENA NEAL: Yes, they are. We're all partners in developing this plan for that area as well as the EDA where Matthew Nemerson spoke earlier today. He is the Economic Development administrator for the City of New Haven. I currently work as a consultant in the neighborhood, and the Parking Authority is a separate entity.

SENATOR OSTEN: Because I'm wondering, it seems to me that there's already a lot of the authority to handle this particular situation, and I'm concerned that we're creating an additional group. And I don't know why we would -- why we would want to do that, because it -- it seems to me that between the three groups that have testified here today that there's already an ability to be out there doing what this piece of legislation would do. Do you know if that's true or not?

SERENA NEAL: I would have to defer that question to Matt Nemerson, who is no longer here, but all of this is a part of a comprehensive effort throughout the city. There are different agencies that are working on the ground in the neighborhood, as well as through the Parking Authority. And through EDA.

So we're all in this together in terms of the university, in terms of the hospital, all impacted in the neighborhood that has largely had very, very little investment. And there's a lot of development going on right now, and we are hoping to capitalize on some of that investment.

SENATOR OSTEN: So -- so I guess I don't -- sometimes I think having an additional layer of bureaucracy doesn't do anybody any good. So I'm a little concerned that we're getting to the point where we're making it more administrative in the fees that the administrative costs would eat up would not, you know, would -- would not allow for the dollars that you want to go into the actual construction. I'd rather see less administrative costs and more construction. If the idea is to get money out in infrastructure.

So I'm again curious why do we want to have this additional layer of, you know, of bureaucracy involved in this when there are three organizations who seem to me to have a very good working relationship together and already have the ability to do this without us adding on this one more layer of redundancy.

SERENA NEAL: I don't -- I understand, and again I would have to defer that question. But I can say that my work is on the ground in the community. It's not an entity or it's not another organization that is coming to the table. This is part of the community process that we're trying to work through under specific grants. The EDA is clearly a city agency.

And then there's the authority that is there currently. However, my role in sitting before you today is to show that we have had a consorted, comprehensive effort to try to support the development of this Authority. And have a on the ground, in the community entity that is working with us to move key components of that plan. And it's around economic development. There is no economic development agency in that community that can do this.

So it is crucial that we have that relationship, and that's what we're trying to build.

SENATOR OSTEN: So is there economic development agencies in the community that cannot do this?

SERENA NEAL: There aren't any currently in that community that will do this work -- that can do this work.

SENATOR OSTEN: But are there some there?

SERENA NEAL: In the city, of course.

SENATOR OSTEN: And would it be possible for the city to take this on as an additional department or a subsection of the current economic development agency that they have.

SERENA NEAL: That question I couldn't answer for you, ma'am, sorry.

SENATOR OSTEN: Okay. I'm just curious, because I think we're in (inaudible) we're trying to do less government, not more government, and here we are doing more government, so I'm a little confused.

SERENA NEAL: Absolutely.

SENATOR OSTEN: Does anybody else have any questions? No. Thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony. Rudy Mazurosky followed by Betsy Gara. I -- I tried. I looked at it a couple times. Thank you.

RUDY MAZUROSKY: Senator Osten, Representative Rojas, it's -- this is my fourth time trying to help Bob Kane with his legislation. I should tell you, this is my 15th year working on his project. One of our very excellent members of our drug freedom task force was Jack Bailey, the former Chief State's Attorney. And he's the one that helped us make sure that the Department of Revenue Services understood that they didn't do their job. And we were helped by the DEA and a lot of other organizations.

As a Journalist, I should tell you that I represent a couple hundred thousand readers in 20 communities of Western Connecticut. I've been in the business for 58 years. This is my 59th year, and there's a simple solution, by the way, to legal advertising, and I'll be very happy to help you with that, and I'm sure it's going to be so practical you'll wonder why you didn't come up with it to begin with.

But right now I'd like to be able to talk to you about the unwritten story behind "Died Suddenly" within each so published obituary. According to the State Medical Examiner's Office more than one in Connecticut became a drug fatality every day, every week, every month of the year 2013 without the murderer brought to justice.

In symphony with the bereaved, published obits omit the cause of death for drug related fatalities. Five hundred and twenty-six drug related fatalities in Connecticut in 2013 seems to be of no great concern to law enforcement since the policing authorities appear to have no mandate to locate and prosecute the perpetrator of each drug related fatality. An opiate drug related fatality is simply not considered to constitute a homicide.

The rest on that sheet is in writing. The second part is, of course, that I came up with a chart for you. You'll find it in your papers, that shows a state line from 2004 when they -- when the Medical Examiner's Office started to break out the drug related fatalities.

They didn't do it before I asked them in 1999. They now do it. And it's a straight line that shows you that in 2004 there were 348 fatalities, and in 2013, 526. And so you have that.

There's also, most people don't understand that first responders should be taught in this state to administer the antidote to drug overdose which is Naloxone. Other states have this with the police who are the first responders. Not so in Connecticut. It's something you should consider.

With this passing of the bill you'll have money available to the municipalities to make certain that the police and the EMS try desperately to have -- have the antidote applied to drug overdoses. This is not done in the State of Connecticut.

In 1953 during the Korean War I happened to have been in the Chemical Corps and we were taught about nerve gas. You see, every soldier must have the antidote to nerve gas. Half of the dosage, only half. Because if you gave yourself both, you'd kill yourself. So what you have to do is get it from a dead comrade, and you'd have to be sure from the signs that it was nerve gas. And once you'd get it from your dead comrade, you then can be safe from nerve gas. That still is the case today.

With regard to cocaine and the opiates, if you have one gram, which is a sweet and low package, you can survive that. Two will stop your heart. That's why I use that example. Two will stop your heart.

So with more and more of our overdoses of our loved ones, nothing seems to be happening. We have the largest number of people in this state who are employed selling and distributing drugs in this State of Connecticut and throughout the country.

When I started the program, we didn't have quite a million in prison. We are now over 2 million in prison. We have more people in prison in this country than any other country in the world, including mainland China. And they -- they treat drugs as crimes of homicide in advance. We think it's barbaric. I do too. I think what we should do is harm them on the money side.

I heard somebody from your side, Representatives, not know that a gram, which is 28.35-grams for an ounce is $200 tax -- I'm sorry. $300 tax for heroin and for cocaine. $3.50 for marijuana. Now if you have a kilo, that is $200,000 tax.

If only 1 ounce of the average of 14,000 drug related arrests in Connecticut transpired to bring in 1 ounce, 28.35-grams of cocaine or heroin and only half the money was paid, collected, you'd have over $100 million going to communities of less than 75,000. Our task force believes it's going to be closer to a third of a billion dollars on annual basis.

The largest company, of course, the largest amount of money is in drugs in this country. It's at least $1 1/2 trillion. All of this you know about because it's been documented many times over. We're in a position now to do something about it. You have a law that's been in effect since 1991.

Jack Thompson, a marine, is the one that led this, a Democrat. And when we came back from Washington, finally, he called me and said you've come up with a solution along with Jack Bailey. And we have not had it passed by you folks to get this law passed so that the municipalities can collect this tax.

Here is what happens. You have a drug related arrest. Either by the state police or the troopers or the local police. They find drugs. They send them to the crime lab. The crime lab sends it back as to what it is. They put it on a one page form, three parts. They keep one for criminal prosecution, one goes to the town. And the other one goes to the Department of Revenue Services.

Now the revenue services will get a report from the towns once a year as to what they did with the money. They aggregate it and send it to the governor so the governor understands what is happening. So you will and everybody will know the amount of money and -- and the what they're doing with the money, and there is so much they can do with the money, including remediation of the prisoners. When they come out, they can't get a job. So you ask the police, what happens?

Well, we see their MO, and after we do it a few times, we go and collar them, and they say, what took you so long, and they send them back to prison. Well, there's a way of remediation for prisoners similar to the GI bill, and we have to do that. If you don't do it with 2 million people in prison when they come out we'll have the biggest crime wave in the history of mankind. We have to avoid that. It's uncivilized.

And what we do is we start with what we can do. Bill 39, pass it. I'm 80 now. I started this program at the behest of the Government of Connecticut in 1997. The Blue Ribbon Commission, you remember that? The back of that report, it's thick. Says, we've lost the war. Can somebody put a committee together? Can somebody come up with a solution, and we did.

We used the DEA, we used the police. We used everybody, including the Chief State's Attorney. And we came up with a solution. We went to the DEA in Washington and they said, please enact this. You know it if you -- if you harm the drug traffickers and take their money, they'll get the hell out of the business. You can kill people, but don't take their money. So that's what we're doing. Please pass this legislation.

SENATOR OSTEN: Thank you --

RUDY MAZUROSKY: So it's vital.

SENATOR OSTEN: Rudy, thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you very much for your persistence. Next is Betsy Gara followed by Bill Donlin.

BETSY GARA: Thank you. My name is Betsy Gara, I'm the Executive Director of the Connecticut Council of Small Towns. I've submitted testimony on a number of bills, I'm just going to briefly comment on a couple of those. COST strongly supports Senate Bill 40, AN ACT CONCERNING THE PUBLICATION OF MUNICIPAL LEGAL NOTICES IN NEWSPAPERS.

As you mentioned, Senator Osten, in questioning another witness, this bill is really a compromise measure which requires towns to post a summary of the legal notice in the newspaper directing individuals to the town's Web site for the complete information. I think this is an issue whose time has come.

More and more we're getting our information from the Internet, and towns really do want to make sure that people get that information. They're not seeing it when it's in the newspapers. They are going to the municipality Web sites, however.

Even the State Department of Energy and Environmental Protection last year had adopted legislation that allows it to actually publish its notices online as opposed to publishing in a newspaper.

So I think they recognize, again, that this is a better way to get information out to people. So we will be happy to work with other organizations to develop some kind of compromise on this. And I thank you for suggesting that.

I'm also supportive House Bill 5055 AN ACT ELIMINATING MUNICIPAL MANDATES. Anytime you're eliminating a municipal mandate it's good news to Connecticut small towns. This is a good start.

We certainly welcome the elimination of the Telecommunications Report to the Connecticut Siting Council which is just a make-work project for municipalities, and also the elimination of the fee on towns for DMV to block access to registrations. That's going to save towns an estimated $800,000 per year.

There's also another proposal to eliminate the municipal health insurance premium tax, and that is before the Finance Committee. So those are all good proposals.

We do hope that in the future the committee can get traction on some of the really big cost drivers that are facing municipalities, and look at some of those issues so that we can begin to provide our towns with some relief. We're right now entering about a decade of years where we've had flat funding of municipal aid pretty much across the board, and as a result there's a lot of pressure on municipalities to do more with less.

They have held the line for the most part on property tax increases, but it's getting ready hard, and we need to be able to help towns by relieving them of some of these unfunded mandates. One of the issues that we see is that we don't do a perfect job of identifying the impact, the municipal impact of a proposal when we are discussing it at the Legislature. It's very difficult given the time frames of the process.

But I think we can look at ways of making sure that legislators understand the implications when they pass something, and I do think that is something this committee can work on in the future.

I've also attached a list of some of our top mandate release items for your consideration, and I thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of these bills.

SENATOR OSTEN: Thanks, Betsy. Anybody have any questions? Yes, Representative Diminico.

SENATOR DIMINICO: Thank you Madam Chair. Either I was daydreaming or not paying attention. Did you address 38, S.B. 38?

BETSY GARA: The delinquent interest rate? I did not, but we did submit testify in opposition. We are concerned that it would reduce the revenues available to towns. I think it's a better bill than last year, but we're still concerned.

SENATOR DIMINICO: What do you support then?

BETSY GARA: I'm sorry?

SENATOR DIMINICO: What do you prefer, what do you support?

BETSY GARA: We prefer the current interest rate. When you look at the state penalty and interest rate on sales tax, you'll notice that it is kind of -- almost more than what the towns are able to charge. It does provide a strong incentive for people to pay their taxes on time, so we don't think that any change is needed in that regard.

SENATOR DIMINICO: Well, I'll have a little discussion with you, and tell you how I feel about it. First of all, the history on that rate was back when Paul Volcker was Chairman of the Fed, and the interest rates were 20, 21 percent. That was a long time ago as opposed to the historical rates that we have of late.

Second of all, I'm going to ask you a question. If you had a choice of having a delinquent taxpayer pay you a high interest rate per annum as opposed to have them paying you in full over a shorter period of time, which would you prefer?

BETSY GARA: You would certainly want them to pay you in full over a shorter period of time. And I do know that some towns work with people that have delinquent taxes. I mean, generally when you're getting to this point these are property taxpayers that have gone for several months, maybe even years when they have not paid these property taxes.

SENATOR DIMINICO: Because I look at this as typical to the high interest rates of credit cards. Where you end up just paying the interest, and never pay down the principal.

Now I know the State of Connecticut has a provision for an amnesty program, but not one town has taken that up, yet the Department of Revenue Services does it on an annual basis for the state, for state taxpayers. And the reason why they do that, to help the taxpayers get caught up.

Now, it's no secret that we've been in a recession to a long period of time. And a lot of people have lost jobs. And most people, if they don't go through foreclosure, probably want to pay their taxes down, but they don't have the ability. And you know, I look at surrounding towns, and I know -- I know this hurts smaller towns, because that interest rate and smaller budget. But sometimes we have to look past, and see what the goal really is.

But, I mean, for example, New Hampshire has 12 percent. New York has 12 percent, 1 percent a month. Massachusetts has 14 percent. Maine has 7 percent. And I know last year we pass it at 12 percent and it was opposed by CRCOG, and it never got to the floor. But, you know, I think the time has come.

You know, everyone is talking about jobs. Everybody is talking about people having a difficult time. Everyone is talking about the cost of living. I mean, I think we should stop -- start to start thinking about that. We just can't live on the interest here. That we really have to think about the people, and try to make it a little more palatable.

BETSY GARA: I appreciate your viewpoint, and I know we have talked to municipalities about that. But what they're feeling is, is that we're trying to hold the line on property tax increases across the board. And to the extent that we allow some people that aren't paying their property taxes to benefit from that, it puts more pressure on us to increase property taxes for others who are paying their taxes on time. So it is a difficult issue, and I think towns certainly recognize that they do have residents and businesses that are in difficult positions.

But I think our response to that is that we need to look at systemic property tax reform and stop kind of mandating that towns have a particular -- that they can lower their interest rate. I know this is an option, but it does put pressure on the towns to do so. So.

SENATOR DIMINICO: I know you talked to a tax collector, they stick the chest on you. But what the first thing they'll tell you is what their collection rate is. And I think that's what this whole purpose is. A 98 or 99 percent collection rate.

But we really need to do something. It's just -- just not proper. It's just not right. We need ways to help people get out from under arrears in their taxes. And I know where it's probably going, nowhere, but we need to really talk about it. And that's why I brought it up. Thank you, Madam Chair.

SENATOR OSTEN: Thank you. Any other questions? Yes, Representative Fox.

REP. FOX: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Betsy. Just a quick clarification. The section -- the repealed section, 7-163d, the Siting Council. As it happens now, the Siting Council is the jurisdiction over these telecommunications towers. So they have the identity and location of each specific tower in the state. And then on an annual basis they then ask municipalities to regenerate that information and send back to them what they already have. Is that --

BETSY GARA: That's correct. And in fact, we've had some towns say when they don't know what that information is they call the Connecticut Siting Council, and they refer them to their own database, so you're kind of left scratching your head as to why they need it if they already have it on their database.

REP. FOX: Do you know, has there been any feedback from the Siting Council?

BETSY GARA: I haven't heard any.

REP. FOX: Do they support it, oppose it? We're not sure?

BETSY GARA: I have not heard anything from them. I'm sure they would be here today if they had concerns about it. This is something that both CCM and COST had identified as one of those burdensome regulations in response to the Governor's Executive Order 37. And so I know that at that point those recommendations had been forwarded to each of the agencies with cognizance over the specific recommendations. So I'm sure they're aware of this.

REP. FOX: Do you know, I mean, was there -- the statute, I think, was enacted in 2004. So was there a time when -- it just seems kind of crazy, for lack of a better word. But I'm wondering if there was a time back in 2004 where the mandate by which this information made its way to the Siting Council was different than it is today.

BETSY GARA: I'm not aware, but I can check on that.

REP. FOX: No, no problem. Thank you very much.

REP. ROJAS: Are there any other questions? Seeing none, thank you. Bill Donlin?

WILLIAM DONLIN: Good afternoon. My name is William Donlin, I'm the Revenue Collector for the Town of Cheshire. I'm here today representing the Connecticut Tax Collectors' Association. I'm here first to share some of my thoughts with some of the bills. Testimony has been provided by my association as well as by CCM.

First is my opposition to AN ACT CONCERNING INTEREST RATE ON DELINQUENT PROPERTY TAXES. Connecticut Tax Collector's Association, part our mission is to promote professionalism among collectors to promote compliance with state laws through education and training, to promote uniformity in practice in applications of statutes and to promote efficiency and -- efficiency effective and equity through tax collection.

I think creating a local option for -- for reducing tax collection rate is, pits one town against another. I think that -- that, as I stated earlier, we're look for uniformity. So if -- I believe that all municipalities should be charging 18 percent interest.

Second, with respect to the Governor's Bill 5055, I applaud the removal of the fee that each municipality is required to pay for Department of Motor Vehicle withholding. As stated earlier, it's over $800,000, it's $7,000 to my municipality.

The one change that I would like to -- to offer is that the sentence that reads that the registrations that the Commissioner of any outstanding property tax of a registered motor vehicle not later than the first day of each month should be the 15th of the month. We all send out delinquent notices. We all ask that the payments be due by the end of the month. Processing may go for a couple days into the next month.

If a tax collector misses that first day requirement of the statute, then they're not allowed to then -- then the Commissioner shall not be required to deny the insurance of the registration. So I think if we changed it to, “by the 15th of each month,“ that would be something that would work, certainly they'll give the Department of Motor Vehicle more time as 169 towns are going to be reporting. So at least they have a two week window to get that as opposed to all 169 towns reporting at one time. And also the records that I'm asking to withhold are actually tax delinquent at the time.

I just have one question respect to the -- the publication of municipal notices. There are state statutes which is also the -- let's see -- the first bill talks about, which is also House Bill 360, the whole first sentence deals with our -- tax collectors' requirements to give notice.

So does that change at all for us? Because of the first five -- first 15 sentences of AN ACT CONCERNING THE PUBLICATION OF LEGAL NOTICES is going to be in conflict with the one for the interest rate which says “a tax collector of each municipality must at least five days next to a proceeding of the time when tax becomes due payable give notice.“ The whole Statute 145, the first 15 lines, deals with our notice requirement. So will that affect us at all?

SENATOR OSTEN: Well, the legal notices is looking to -- to minimize what anybody would have to do. It would not stop you have having to put out notice. But most of the legal notices from tax collectors are pretty expansive. So maybe it would eliminate some of the costs. But we'll check into that and make sure there's not a conflict between the different statutes. The intention was to get everything sort of together on it. Do you have anything else?

WILLIAM DONLIN: I'm all set.

SENATOR OSTEN: Are there -- yup.

REP. ROJAS: Thank you, no, I just wanted you to know that we had your testimony for Senate Bill 40, or at least I may be missing it, I don't have it for the other bill you were commenting on. So if you could just email us your comments. Just leave us a copy so we have your suggestions. Thanks.

SENATOR OSTEN: Yes, Senator Diminico?

SENATOR DIMINICO: Thank you, Madam Chair. Likewise, I don't have it either. Quick question.

WILLIAM DONLIN: Sure.

SENATOR DIMINICO: I'm curious on tax lien sales.

WILLIAM DONLIN: Yes, sir.

SENATOR DIMINICO: How frequent they are, and who are the winners and the losers in a tax lien sale.

WILLIAM DONLIN: Okay, it's a tax lien assignment?

SENATOR DIMINICO: Yes.

WILLIAM DONLIN: As opposed to A tax sale?

SENATOR DIMINICO: No, no, sale.

WILLIAM DONLIN: Okay, the tax sale is probably done very frequently throughout the state. It's not a collection technique that I use. I do lien assignments, but it is something that many municipalities use during the course of their collection proceeding simply because they need the revenue. These are normally accounts that are 2-3 years tax delinquent or have a tax -- most municipalities will set a dollar value that they exceed 5, 10, 15, whatever the dollar value is.

And these are accounts that you've worked for two or three years to no avail to try to get them into your office. People are not, I mean, we're willing to do payment plans, even though statute doesn't -- shouldn't -- really doesn't address that. We try to work with the taxpayers.

But when you get to a situation where things just don't go, you send your demand notice out, you give them an idea of what is going to be happening, and then the process begins. In the next 12 weeks there are legal notices that are posted informing the public of a sale.

At the -- at the end of the 12th week, the tax sale actually takes place. It's an auction with the bidding amount begins with the amount of tax, interest, and cost incurred at that time. And it can be just for that dollar amount. It's an auction, so the dollars can go much higher.

Now after the sale has taken place, the -- the individual who purchased the -- who was the winner at the tax sale is called a successful bidder. The individual then has six months to sit and wait to get paid back. The taxpayer is required to pay back within six months the amount of tax plus interest of 1 1/2 percent on the bid amount.

At the end of the sixth month redemption period, if the taxpayer doesn't pay, then the tax collector's deed is filed on the land records and that individual does own the property. Free and clear, all encumbrances expired.

SENATOR DIMINICO: So it's really a vehicle that -- sage municipalities cut fuss and time, and in effect, they don't have to foreclose. So in essence, (inaudible) winners and losers, and you know as well as do I the winners are the investors who buy that tax lien, and the losers are the town.

WILLIAM DONLIN: Representative, I'll probably disagree with you there. My responsibility is to generate revenue for my municipality.

SENATOR DIMINICO: Well, the reason why I ask that is if we're charging such exorbitant interest rates on property taxes that are in arrears, that just aids and abets for future foreclosures or future tax sales, and that's just why I oppose -- I think 1 percent is much more fair. And I know you oppose that, but I'm just letting you know that.

WILLIAM DONLIN: Well, I oppose the legislation as written because it's a local option. If you're asking me if you propose legislation that reduced the interest rate statewide to 12 percent, would I oppose it, I would say no.

SENATOR DIMINICO: And that's a very good point. Because I've had discussions with assessors on the option, and they all said the same thing that you did. It would compromise my town as opposed to other towns. If one town went down to 10 percent, say.

WILLIAM DONLIN: I have taxpayers coming in my office, and they're saying they're treated differently in the next town over, and for the life of me I don't understand that. I'm an instructor for the Tax Collectors Association. We're all supposed to be reading from the same script.

We worked with this committee last year to strengthen our legislative package, which was passed through the help of this committee to make sure that we're all following things and that -- that there's some sort of uniformity. I'm not opposed to reducing interest rate.

My statute -- my authorities are by state statute. If -- if you pass legislation at 12 percent, then so be it. However, understand the ramifications on the revenue side. For the Town of Cheshire, for example, the interest that I generate is probably about 180 to $200,000 a year.

To reduce that to 12 percent will probably bring a $40,000 reduction in ours, in the revenue. Not a big problem, but I wish the mayor was still here from Bridgeport. Bridgeport collects $3.2 million in interest. For them to reduce -- to have their interest reduced to 12 percent would mean a million dollar hit on the revenue side.

So the big cities would take a substantial hit. Because we do, when we do our budgets, it's -- it's current tax, prior years, interest and liens. Between those three categories that's the total amount of revenue that we're responsible for the municipalities.

If you reduce the interest rate understand, now you just have another unfunded mandate that you just cut revenue to a municipality from between $20,000 and a million dollars.

SENATOR DIMINICO: But the problem has to be looked at holistically. That's the problem. And I bet you that this Town of Bridgeport on that 3.2, I'd be curious how much of that is foreclosures and interest paid by banks as opposed to property taxes.

WILLIAM DONLIN: The mayor said earlier that he had a lot of problems with that. I worked for a big municipality. I retired from the City of Hartford. I'm well aware of the problems that exist in a bigger town or a bigger city. Now with the Town of Cheshire I file maybe 200 liens a year against 10,000 pieces of real estate, so a totally different world.

When you're in a bigger municipality there's much more pressure on you to generate revenue. The bigger municipalities, maybe half of their total revenue comes from property taxes, whereas the Town of Cheshire, 80 percent of our budget comes from taxes.

So you're squeezed harder in the bigger municipalities because this is the time of year when you're looking at your budgets, and they say, we need you to close the gap. We need you to generate X number of million dollars between now and June.

I've been there. I've done that. And I've gone out, I've done tax sales, I've done lien assignments. I did tax lien auctions where you had property taxes were higher than the value of the -- of the units. And we're auctioning those off at whatever people are willing to pay simply to create home ownership. So I certainly understand when you're starting to look at revenue how it affects us.

SENATOR DIMINICO: And I understand that as well. Now if -- if -- if you depend on that revenue -- the idea is we don't want foreclosures. So if we're having such an exorbitant rate, which aids and abets a foreclosure, that -- that impacts the town as well, because it impacts values over the long run.

That's why it needs to be looked at holistically. Regarding the option, I mean, one could always say to the individual, well that's Redding, that's not Danbury. You want to move to Danbury, be my guest, but your obligation is to the Town of Redding. So I don't if that really cuts a lot of mustard with me as well. Thank you, very much.

SENATOR OSTEN: Thank you. Are there any other question? Thank you, very much.

REP. ROJAS: Is there anybody here who hasn't had a chance to testify who would like to? Seeing no one, this public hearing is closed, thank you.