########################################################################################################################
The following is a transcript of closed captions provided on the television broadcast of this episode of Capitol Report.
Captions on CT-N are created with CaptionMic voice captioning technology; the network is not responsible for voice recognition errors impacting the accuracy of closed captions.
Copyright Connecticut Network
########################################################################################################################

this week on the capitol report ..

governor rell releases her latest budget deficit mitigation plan.

the governor’s proposal to raise state revenue through keno .. is heard by the public safety committee.

and senate president don williams testifies in favor of his jobs creation bill .. and the way he proposes to fund it.

 major issues and debates in the spotlight this week .. on the capitol report.


I think everyone is painfully aware of the fiscal situation.

 
this week .. governor rell’s budget chief briefed a group of legislators on the latest state budget situation.

he has been delivering a similar message each time he appears before a legislative committee this session.

everyone should be aware that the state of Connecticut closed fiscal year which ended June 30th at 09 with the deficit in excess of $900 million.
The state was required to issue economic recovery notes and was required to borrow money to close that deficit.
The adopted budget was a two year budget and for fiscal year 2010, the fiscal year we are currently in, we find ourselves while it was balanced when adopted, we find ourselves less than six months after the adoption of that budget with a projected deficit for this fiscal year of anywhere between 500 and $635 million depending on whose numbers you use.
The governor by the way coincidentally issued a deficit mitigation package with a variety of choices and options for the legislature to consider to close the deficit for fiscal year 2010 is for second issued deficit mitigation package for this year alone.
She issued four in fiscal year 2009 in five rounds of rescissions such as the state of our fiscal affairs.


the governor’s latest deficit mitigation package proposes to close a current budget shortfall of about 504 million dollars.

it shifts 220-million-dollars of the state’s rainy day fund from fiscal year 2011 to the current fiscal year .. defers 100-million-dollars of the state employee retirement contribution under the sebac agreement .. and includes 58-million-dollars in fund transfers and 81-million dollars in spending reductions.

among the governor’s specific proposals to take effect in 2011 .. combining the state holidays of lincoln’s birthday with presidents’ day .. implement a hospital users fee .. and reducing municipal aid by 45 million dollars.


Good morning everyone.


the proposed cuts to cities and towns became part of the conversation on tuesday .. as municipal leaders budgetary concerns with the legislature’s appropriations committee.


in yesterday's, governors mitigation there was $45 million in unspecified municipal cots.
That is scary as the devil to all of us.
On at the end of my budget process with my counsel.
They will be voting on it probably next week.
Once again, we will be hit with some unknown.
So I would say the sooner you can get to the final answer for us the better off we are.
We need to know what we need to handle and the lager to drag out the worst is for us.
So bite the bullet and do what you have to do and get it done.

it's either more revenue coming in for taxes through development or raising of taxes, reducing expenditures and that includes most definitely reduction in services and services in this small town are people so it means more people of the employment rolls and that he is on palatable in this climate.

how many of your municipalities across the state raise taxes last year and how many in their budget proposals to your various legislative organizations are going to be proposing to raise taxes this year? 
I would say approximately 100 percent will raise taxes because everyone tried last year to cut as much as they could because it was the worst year we had seen since 1929 in this country.
Everyone attempted to keep taxes low last year and this year the reality is the revenues have dropped to a point and it isn't that the costs are exceeding its the revenues are there.
So we had to increase taxes this year.
I had my final budget hearing by Council last night and am looking at a 9.2% increase in taxes because 8.1 decrease in revenues.

we believe 70 percent of towns and cities increased taxes last year as was pointed out, I think I know in our community we are trying to come in with under a half percent maybe zero in talking to the labor unions about a furlough day and the like and that's going on throughout the state.
The revenue side, we get hit with interest rates that were negligible, and we don't want to put our money at risk and get higher returns to the center half percent return on invested money.
And then of course, state aid is being chipped away at the school as well.

it's really important for us to understand because when we don't raise taxes or revenues adequately, it's not like revenues are not raised.
So, the question becomes the overall debate should be at what level is the appropriate level to raise taxes and where do we get the most bang for the buck.
I heard you say it that you would be raising about 9%.
That's extraordinary.
We would never consider raising any of our taxes 9 percent here.
Frankly, up having been able to small amount that would probably balance things a little bit better, to raise and even a small percentage, a half percentage.
So I think that's an important story to be told.

the reason I ran for office is because I thought we needed to revise the property tax structure so I'm no fan of the property tax.
As we are having this discussion I would encourage you to ask yourselves at least the time that I've been here this is my fifth year, as we raise taxes up here how much is that is coming to your town.
So before we get all excited about raising taxes up in Hartford to solve the problem if we are going to do that, you should have a part of the discussion that has to make it to you.
When you raise the property taxes you know it's coming to you and it's going to your town.
There are a lot of people sitting here that if we raise taxes up and Hartford they're also going to be raising the property taxes.
It's a double whammy because when you we raise them appear it has to go back to you.

I'm reading some of the testimony at seeing words like Armageddon and chief elected officials recognize that what we went through last year and this year, are just a precursor of what is to come in 2012 and 2013 and 2014.
I can tell you from my perspective when we try to deal with those deficits, we've given away all the rainy day money, we borrowed money to pay bills today, I don't see how we get through the next cycle without revisiting state aid to municipalities.

the governor’s proposed bienniel budget adjustments .. and her latest deficit mitigation plan are being reviewed by legislative leaders .. and members of the appropriations and finance committees.

on wednesday .. budget secretary genuario will appear before the appropriations committee to testify on the governor’s deficit plan.

the next day .. the appropriations committee will hold a public hearing on the plan.






the topic is kino which has been suggested by the governor and her budget.


on tuesday .. the governor’s proposal 
to offset the state budget deficit by introducing “keno” was discussed at length before the public safety and security committee.

first to testify .. budget secretary robert genuario .. and connecticut lottery corporation president and c-e-o anne noble.


we think that Aquino has the potential to generate $60 million a year of revenue.
And that $60 million a year, could translate into $400 million towards the 1.3 billion that we needed to come up with pursuant to be adopted budget.
Questions and comments from it operated in all the bordering states, New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
At different levels.
Our estimates of $60 million is based on an average of the surrounding states, it is also quite close and other state we often compare ourselves to is Maryland and is based also on the experience that is sad and Merrill Lynch.
While the administration believes that no new legislation is necessary in order for is the Connecticut lottery corporation to implement key know because we believe is consistent with their current authorizations and the right to implement new lottery type games, that is not a state minted that the administration or the Connecticut lottery corporation would implement this in the absence of legislative approval.
This is a proposal that is part and parcel of a 2011 budget adjustment package and if the Legislature should shoes or determine and working with the governor that another revenue stream is preferable to generate the $1.3 billion then we would honor that decision.

Aquino was one of the oldest games of chance its origins can be traced back to a Chinese game of chance from the third century B.C., the profits of which were earmarked for the construction of the Great Wall of China.
In Connecticut many of us know the lottery had similar beginnings having first been established in colonial times for the purpose of funding our old state house and even Yale university.
Today the Connecticut lottery offers a wide a variety of games typically divided into two categories, instant tickets, and the draw tickets that you may know well such as power ball, lucky for life, classic model and the daily numbers games.
Keno importantly is a trawl style lottery game, characterized in the industry as a social product because it usually is offered in venues where people may goal, restaurants, pouring establishments and other social gathering as establishments.
It's distinct from other drug games due primarily to the frequency of its lines which are typically held every 46 minutes.
With regard to revenue the Connecticut lottery believes that keno will have a positive impact on our general fund transfers to the state Racing millions of dollars for the state of Connecticut as it has done for over millionths ... including our neighbors as the secretary testified in Rhode Island, New York and Massachusetts.
The lottery will add a new source of revenue as well as expanding the distribution base and refresh distribution network is important because the Connecticut lotteries mature with little incremental growth forecast from scratch games and new price points.

questions and comments legislators focused .. in part .. on the compact the state has with the mashantucket pequot and mohegan tribal nations that results in the state receiving 25-percent of video slot machine profits.


the attorney general said that the state should amended the MOU with the tribes before introducing quinoa and has there been any efforts to involve the tried with keno discussions from the administration's standpoint since June 1st of last year? 
we began discussions with the drive last week 
last week? OK thank-you that's all I need to know.

the compact is not specifically say that you can't not do keno ... so, you seem to indicate that you feel pretty comfortable it or you wouldn't of brought it to this legislature.
So, I wanted you to elaborate a little bit on it.

of our position is that this is consistent with the states' rights under the compact and the understanding and history of the approval of casino gaming by the tribes.
Their position is the opposite it should be no surprise to anyone.
I can't imagine that either of us are going to give up our positions in this forum today.

if this proposal moves forward and goes to court, and the money ... is the monthly contribution is held ... that the casinos make to the state are held, how is the state going to handle that?
We have no idea how long a court case could take ... 
if there is a serious threat of an injunction or escrow dollars it would impact the ability to sell the securitization bonds I don't think the bonds would sell or lease not at a rate that we would support.
I think it's a show stopper.

next to testify .. paul young .. executive director of the division of special revenue .. an agency that would play a pivotal role in allowing keno to be played.


the division already authorized kino within the state of Connecticut and sees no reason why the Connecticut lottery corporation could not also operate keno as a lottery game.

I'm trying to find out how lengthy discussions have been between you and the lottery corporation.
In terms of, is this a game, Aquino going to be something that's drawn every five minutes? Is it something that's every three minutes once an hour? You know in terms of id being viewed as a lottery? 
there's no proposal before the division so, those discussions have not taken place.
The way the process would work is at some point, a day would send us the rules and procedures and how they intend to run the game.
We look at the rules and procedures and provide you those rules and procedures were similar to that of which we already approved is likely we would move it forward.
Without a proposal in front of me I can't answer your question that it's every three minutes or eight minutes.

I'm surprised at that quite frankly you would think before a proposal is generated, that they will lead you know, do their homework in terms of ... in terms of talking with your division to understand whether it's something that the Division of Special Revenue is comfortable with ... 
ofrepresentatives from the attorney general’s office and the two tribal nations also testified.



>> Aye our concern is that's ... the point was brought out a couple times that day which is although there are good reasons, I heard Paul Young and testify on why this game should be considered in the lottery and therefore, it would not raise any issues with the MOU with the tribes.
There is no way that we can say, with any degree of certainty, how a court would rule on that, if at the game was introduced and the tribes a challenged it as violating the MOU.
I'm not a gambler but this seems to be a big gamble to just introduce this new game without being pretty shore or actually quite sure that the tribes are in agreement that this would not be a violation.

the drive asked me to come here today to listen to what was being proposed a so I could go back along with the attorney general's office and the Mohegan tribe and governmental affairs and to advise them as to what we think this game constitutes.
I have to say my personal opinion in hearing from the director of the lottery corporation it is that it's a casino game is very close to what we play at the casino.
The main point here would be it's a very unsettled area as a representative from the attorney general's office said states have come down on either side of it and the courts have as well and I would encourage that if you move forward with this, to really communicate with the tribes, and try to get some understanding so that we could have a better understanding of what's proposing you have a better understanding of the tribe's position moving forward so that the MOU's are not triggered and it's awfully risky proposition moving forward with the game in such an unsettled area.

even if this is a lottery, even if it were that case we have to determine whether it's a video facsimile.
A video facsimile is very well defined in the compact.
It's in Section 2 ... is any mechanical come on electrical or other device contrivance or machine and the only other two requirements are, that you have to pay money to play and win a prize if you win.
That's clearly the case.
It says to the player or operation of the machine must be a facsimile of a game of chance.
We didn't know until we sat here listening to the testimony we did have a very good idea of what the state had in mind because it's never been described to us the AG has pointed that out as well.
But, clearly there will be a couple of contrivances or devices that are used as a facsimile of this ancient Chinese game of chance.
So, we would invite people to focus on that section of the compact, as presenting certainly an issue ... 
following the informational forum .. the public safety committee held a public hearing on bills .. 


including h-b 5343 .. an act authorizing keno.


at the position that we've taken is that it's not necessary ... and the Connecticut lottery Corp. currently has the authority to introduce new lottery games under Section 12-806 before.
Additionally I would point out the division has already approved keynote to be played in Connecticut as a lottery game twice, bold travel casino sought approval to play keno as a lottery game in the 1990's in correspondence between the division of the tribes exists including letters of approval to operate a lottery game called keno.
We further believe that passage of this bill confuses if not conflicts with existing statutory language currently Section 12-806 calls upon the Connecticut lottery corporation to be entrepreneurial and to introduce the lottery games and modify existing games in this bill outlines a specific type of lottery game with specific rules on how it is to be played with no room to modify.
Therefore, it would appear that future games and modifications to existing games would need legislative approval that would weaken if not nullify Section 12-80681 and before.

I gambled away everything I work for for the past 20 years including my kids' college funds and I had no control over this.
I've never been to the casino but there are over 2700 many casinos in the gas stations ... if we introduce this will have more compulsive gamblers and affect more families to gamble away all the money just like I did.
And that's a fact.

my testimony here is to tell you that gambling is not going to fix anything.
Keno all it will do is take away from somewhere else because, I've always said it in Massachusetts there talking about putting a casino there but if I have $100 I can only spend $100.
So if I'm spending it on scratch tickets and I start with keno I will only spend 80 on scratch tickets and 20 on keno.
So for me it's not going to spend any more money than what I have.

one time I was scratching tickets in the one in next to me said why don't try can no? On the first game of keno that I played I one $500 and that was it I played it for the next 10 years I was one of those people in the stores, five, six, eight hours a day.
Until I won, I got paid sometimes I 13 or four games in a row $500 but I never left the store with any money.

the public safety and security committee’s j-f deadline to act on bills .. is thursday.



first on the list is Senator William 

on monday .. senate president don williams appeared before the finance revenue and bonding committee .. 


in support of his bill .. senate bill 1 .. an act concerning the preservation and creation of jobs in connecticut .. which includes a series of proposals aimed at helping small businesses in the state.


oftentimes the small business is do not wind up in the headlines of news stories be read about large corporations coming in going but when the small business goes out of business, oftentimes it's without fanfare, newspaper articles, public attention.
In this downturn, we must reach out to small businesses, the engines of job preservation, and creation.
In order to do that, Senate Bill 1 proposes at least two specific things, first off we want to eliminate the business entity at $250 fee for the small mom-and-pop businesses.
Secondly, we would like to establish a revolving loan funds with a minimum of $20 million to help those businesses that are not being Held's by the commercial banks.
Now, we proposed to pay for a substantial part of what on talking about if not 100 percent of it.
I know there are other proposals that are out there the governor talked about barring $100 billion and we want to look at all the proposals regarding jobs I think there's a lot of good ones that are out there.
If this is one piece of the many pieces that we ought to join together in a bipartisan way and move forward.
We are proposing for these proposals to actually pay for them through a surcharge on the so-called par putt bonuses.
These are the bonuses paid to the Wall Street firm in please let and the folks who work for the firms that were bailed out by the taxpayers.

on part of funds is a good way to approach this ... a lot of people ask me about the constitutionality of this have you had occasion to look at that or investigated? 
yes, thank you and I think it's a good idea because as I mentioned I believe that there's a rational relationship tier with financial institutions and their ability or inability to help small business and are in need to help the small businesses and get the economy moving again.
I think it makes a lot of sense in terms of the use of small surcharge and I say small surcharge because what we're really talking about, is the difference between what an individual who lives in Connecticut it would pay in taxes on bed bonus in New York State and Connecticut.
The business is about 3%.
So, we are not talking about what they are discussing at the federal level which is a 50 percent tax on the bonuses.
Now, I read a fair amount of information about this constitutional discussion as to the federal proposals of a 50 percent tax.
What I have been able to get from that, is that most folks come down on the side of saying that is that constitutional.

the overall intent of this, is looking to capture bonus or is it looking to capture you know, all income? 
this is looking specifically at the bonuses.

the concern that I have is why wouldn't someone recast if there was a desire to pay out additional compensation to the extent to that we are telling the world now, what our intentions are why would the compensation be recast in such a fashion as not to be bonuses to escape our reach? 
well we can't control obviously, what the Wall Street firms do.
But, we can craft a policy of that takes into account what has happened in the past and the payment schemes and bonus schemes that have that been put out there in the past.

I am so heartened by the bipartisanship of the job creation in Connecticut and I'm so bipartisan I mirth--more than to Senator Davey.
She asked all my questions except for one the constitutionality one was bothering me and the other thing I wondered was what about companies who already paid back the tarp of money are bonuses paid to people in those firms or are they still going to be under this? 
yes at the short answer to that is yes, those firms are raking in about $55 million in profits so, the help from the taxpayers has put those financial firms on a solid financial footing and that's not the case for this small businesses on Main Street that we are trying to help.

is the bone is strictly for cash value or to cover other financial vehicles that could be manipulated 100 different ways? 
the intent is to capture other financial benefits, so not necessarily just cash.
But, it is a bonus if you will, over and above salary, not tied to performance or any tax that the employee took is part of a contract but simply a bonus payment, that it could be cash, it could be cash plus stock, it could be just as stock etc..

much of the other testimony on monday also focused on the tarp bonus surcharge portion of senate bill one.



if you were to tax the tarp and bonuses to the banks that received them and use the money to fund something related to banks perhaps the constitutionality would be met.
But when you are doing it for a general fund global purpose like getting rid of 250 in all corporations I think that's where the rationality tested does not meet muster.
I think overall, that this is a good bill come I think it brings the parties together and I look forward to bringing it to the House and senate.
One other thing is this, we should do this immediately.
I mean immediately.
With respect to funding it, we will figure it out, the to under $50 we will figure it out the entity tax.
We will figure out how to fund the small business is we will get through that.
But let's do it, let's do it next week, let's emergency certified it and do it in session why?
Because there are business is teetering out they're deciding whether to close the doors or not, the economy is stifling.
There is no great promise that we are going to get better in the future let's at least send a message that we've talked about these proposals for ever, but now we are going to put them on the books.
We will fund them but let's put them on the books, let's get going, get the people to start working on the details of these loan programs and how they will work and it will take time once we pass it to get through the pipeline, get all the measures done, all the administrative stuff, and finish it but let's start now said that people see this and stay in Connecticut.

the biggest concern is this, when we as a legislature set our priorities, and depending on the here is that we set transportation is education etc., what we are saying by this bill being before us and labeled as Senate Bill one is that this is the number-one priority of this legislature in state government.
Job creation, we cannot have an asterisk next to it, and I would submit to you that by tying the job creation bill to the hopefully constitutionality of the tarp of funding taxation of bonuses, a because I don't think that any of us would say, that if there wasn't part the bonuses, that wouldn't happen not to be an issue.
What we still say well therefore we can debate creating jobs ... are we saying that us as a state creating jobs, is a priority but its contingent upon funding that we get from a source that might be questionable at best? 
not only am I a small-business owner but I'm your neighbor, on your child's coach, I am part of the community structure.
That's what we've talked about, small businesses are the backbone of every community and we're the ones providing the jobs.
The stats are there we provide most of the jobs in this state and maybe there are big businesses that provide more revenue to the state coffers, but if you combine all of us we are quite a large entity.
I want to talk a little bit about the business entity tax which I have paid since the inception.
There is into an equity there and I stated this before at a press conference that was held at my establishment that the inequity as wide as a major corporation that stealing millions of dollars in the state of Connecticut paying the same to under $50 that I am.
I wish I was doing a billion dollars but not quite there yet.

we hope he did you get to that millionaire status but we would like your income tax there been to.

I'm here to support the creation of jobs in Connecticut.
I want to lend my support in particular to the first half of the bill which is the concept of getting rid of the tax.
Obviously from listening to the speakers this morning the second half needs a lot of work and not really prepared to comment on it too much.
But, I hope Bill legislation does get past.

please understand the state's financial service industry is looking closely at this bill and the message that's being sent by this bill.
As an industry we have always been supportive of lending initiatives that help businesses and individuals obtain credit and that's why we were very encouraged by the provisions within Senate bill one that would create a small business assistance program.
We look for to working with this committee and others to make the program a reality however please understand that we are strongly opposed to provisions of the bill that would create a tax on the bonuses of individuals who work for banks or bank affiliates that were recipients of federal funds.
We feel it's an unfair singling out of a group of individuals and a specific industry and an industry that plays an important role in the state's economy and tax base.
The tax provision runs completely counter to the underlying goals of the legislature which is to create jobs.

the Federal Reserve is taking a hands-on approach and is overlooking the comprehensive program top 20 largest banking programs.
We have serious concerns about Senate Bill one which was physically taxing bonuses of the employees of turf recipients of we believe such a tax is paid a dividend is use of the tax code.
We understand a legislatures frustration with the events of the last 18 months but we encourage you not to enact measures that cut as the market improves discourage additional investment in the state or prevent Iran businesses from expanding the presence here.
Senate bill one does raise potential constitutional concerns.
The U.S. Constitution prohibits the legislatures from passing bills and the legislation amounts to a bill of attainder when it is an effective legislative punishment of any form of severity.

how do you square taking federal money from an entity that the bankrupt and using the dollars to get a foothold in and then turn around and pay bonuses? I cannot get my head around how that is OK? I don't know if your Association has an opinion on that or has an answer for that? 
our view is that in order for it the economy to get back on track for the firms to get out there and do the lending and the activities they need to do they also need to be able to provide their personnel compensation.
They want to make sure they can retain people that can do the work that they need them to do they are concerned about losing their people to other financial services firms that did not take part of money.
So they are very concerned about if we're going to repay the federal government for the funds they supplied for the farms is important to keep them healthy and one way we can do that is to make sure they can retain and retract the talent they need to repay the money they receive.

the Bank programs were designed to be used by healthy banks, and it was money designed to support troubled institutions like AIG, GM and Chrysler.
This confusion between capital for healthy banks in bailout for weak firms continues to be a source of great frustration to banks but more importantly can lead to confusion about policy.
This misconception has continued into the public debate about paying compensation practices, compensation is generally paid out of income turns not capital and all federal banking regulators prohibit as an unsafe and unsound practice excessive compensation arrangements.
The special inspector general for target reported that retroactive compensation of these provisions has caused firms to use--lou senior employees to domestic and foreign competitors that are not under these restrictions.

do you think that there's any fairness in limiting this bill to nonbanks? /willis seems to me that, if we got banks that were in the institutions that bring in the not being program that have as you can correctly stated previously borrowed 250 billion and only returned for Billy into Treasury adding on another tax on them might not help taxpayers recoup the money that they deserve.
So my answer would be no.

we hear about the 3 percent and in the scheme of things, it doesn't sound like a lot, 3% of a million dollars utilities people can afford to give that up.
And I guess what I'm hearing from you, is that future programs it Connecticut puts our foot forward and passes this type of legislation that possibly Connecticut banks would not take future funding and that may help small businesses and job creation in fear of having this imposition put on it? 
they would not want to join in any sort of government sponsored program for fear up with the bells and whistles that may be put on those participants in the program after the fact.

the finance committee plans to focus on state agency bond authorizations next week.


legislative committees continued public hearings this week on bills before them this session.

among them .. s-b 248 concerning the reporting of adverse events at hospitals and outpatient surgical facilities was heard by the public health committee.

the transportation committee heard s-b 345 which would authorize municipalities to conduct red light camera pilot programs.
and s-b 346 .. concerning the installation of speed detecting cameras on highways.


the judiciary committee heard s-b 225 .. which would require banks to assist homeowners during foreclosure proceeedings.

meanwhile .. the judiciary committee passed two controversial bills this week ..

h.b. 5148 .. concerning funding for the judicial branch.

and .. s.b. 221 prohibiting the disclosure of employee files to inmates.

we are holding this morning and informational forum on power plant safety.

on tuesday .. the energy and technology committee invited a number of state and federal officials to testify during an held informational forum on power plant safety .. 
called in the wake of the kleen energy natural gas power plant explosion in middletown that claimed the lives of six contractors working on construction of the plant.


I have a simple goal for this particular hearing and that is to ensure that we take all the measures necessary and put in the safety protocols when we are building power plants.
It's important to the workers who work at the power plants and it's important to the residents that live in the vicinity of those plants.
That's how I see the purpose of this meeting is going to be educational for all of us and it's my hope that after we review was presented to us today that we then will have legislation that will help in achieving that end.

this is an informational forum with respect to power plant safety in general, it's not related to any one particular facility and I will ask the speakers to not address matters related to any one particular facility and I will ask members to not ask questions in that regard and I will rule them out of order if they are asked.

the invited speakers were asked to discuss their jurisdictions when it comes to power plants, natural gas pipelines and emergency response in the state.


power generation over 1 MW ... electric transmission, and gas transmission but we work closely with FERC on gas transmission.
With respect to pipeline safety transmission United States Department of Transportation pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has the full and complete regulatory safety authority over all interstate natural gas transmission companies and intrastate natural gas companies operating in Connecticut.

our jurisdiction with respect to power generating facilities is somewhat limited as you just heard in testimony it's regulated by the Department of Public Utilities Control, the Office of State Fire Marshal come in building inspector to promulgate regulations concerning certain construction projects some of which do have a bearing on power plant construction specifically the ancillary buildings, not the power plan or power generating facility itself.

in Connecticut just ongoing activities not to get into the specifics of the investigation but we are continuing we of a team of investigators this week that are continuing witness interviews and examination of physical evidence, the site, the site has been released back to the investigative parties, OSHA, see Espy and the company.
We reached an agreement on evidence preservation and site preservation quickly on Friday afternoon.
There's been great cooperation amongst the companies involved as well as the unions to represent the workers at the facility in all have been extremely cooperative.
We're going to be reviewing federal, state safety standard codes and other recommended safety recommended practices related to gas blows and venting of gas.
We will examine inherently safer alternatives to this gas activity to insure the state, cleaning of the fuel gas pipes.

since Connecticut has no county government we have established five for Paribas and planning regions.
The American Red Cross at the State Department of Public Health have also adopted these regions.
Emergency Planning teams have been established in each of the five DEMHS regions.
Each team has representatives from all municipalities within the region as well as representatives from every emergency discipline.
The teams have two major roles, first as a planning role where they get together to decide how to spend federal grant dollars in the region, and secondly their role has expanded to include for planning, for mutual aid for large incidents that may occur in the region.

which a state agency has responsibility for safety oversight for the construction and operation of power plants in Connecticut? If any of you can answer ... 
my name is carl of Baker from DPUC and power plant safety I don't know if I can answer your question as to who does, I can say that our department does not within the legislative laws that we work under.
As I spoke to you earlier, the oversight that we have with respect to gas is limited to the gas companies and although I only work on the gas side I know little bit about the electric side is the financial issue not a safety oversight.

construction oversight in building inspection process in Connecticut always falls to the local entities, local communities with the exception of state buildings.
State buildings generally fall to the state agencies to which are responsible for the construction and done less they meet certain threshold criteria is outlined in statute and then, they fall to the state Department of Public safety.

I would think most people in this state in maybe even most legislators would believe that when we are building a power plant that's affecting the entire state, of that there are there is state oversight, that there's some role and some agency, most people would think numerous agencies would have responsibility with respect to that.
So, again I will ask unless anyone knows I'm suspecting from the remarks so far, that the response is that none of the agencies here have that responsibility and to the extent that you know, if any other agency does that not here today.
That's not a good thing to learn.

I could ask the chairman of the Department of Public utility Control to come up for a second chairman DelGobbo if you have a minute.
We are trying to figure out what we should do in having been on this side of it and having served with you, I'm sure you understand where this is moving.
What I'm trying to understand is whether we should find a central authority for all of this weather is possible and whether it makes sense to put it in the DPUC or somewhere else.
Listening to this this morning am wondering if you have any advice or thoughts on that question.

my observation would be, is to key in on the fact that there are all these pieces everyone is looking at the world from where they sit so you have environmental protection looking at air quality issues and the siting Council as Mr. Phelps mentioned is the siding and necessity for the facility in the first place.
There is as you mentioned a linear process in which there are multiple agencies that have a different piece of this OSHA, Department of Labor so the question that you posed ... is there some more rational way where if the question were pose that Senator fonfara did earlier, who is in charge that there be someone to step forward.
I wish I had a clean answer to that.
It's a challenge to think of building within any one time any individual body, the scale of expertise in one entity that Lloyd be able to be responsible and say okay, I'm in charge I got it from beginning to end.

the key thing is fragmentation when you have a number of entities responsible for this actually hurts us it doesn't help us.
We have to get a handle on this so that number one, there's discussion among all the entities and number two there someone who knows what the discussions were and then monitor this and look at this and not necessarily displacing all the agencies in maybe they will exist individually but, it begs us, we need to look at an individual that's going to look at this across all of you and the able to communicate with all of you.

the energy and technology committee has oversight over all matters related to energy planning and the d-p-u-c.
 

Welcome to the transportation committee.
On Monday The Transportation Committee held an oversight hearing with the Department of Transportation.
Besides providing updates on various transportation projects currently underway in the state DOT commissioner, joe marie address concerns regarding the state's failure to secure federal stimulus funds under the Tiger program.

there's been a couple of discretionary programs that were announced as part of this program and to we had mixed results admittedly on some of these programs under the Tiger programs ... we had good results and Connecticut in fact receive the second largest award under that program in the nation.
We recently learned about the results of the Tiger program and I must admit to that we are disappointed and perplexed by the results of this program and there was a prescribed application process and I have copies of a number of applications that were submitted not only by the DOT but the other states run the country have done side-by-side comparisons on the project that we submitted and quite frankly, looking forward to having a debrief with the U.S. DOT.
It's my strong belief that one of the things that we do very well at the DOT is we write very good grant applications we had a third-party take a look at the grant applications to critique them before they were submitted to the federal government so, we are a little bit disappointed actually more than disappointed by the results that came through it renounced last week.

from a congressional delegation did you receive any feedback from them after they met with Secretary (unintelligible) did they come back to you and say we sat down with it was the applications or had nothing to do with the applications it was just or other applications written so much better than ours that was the reason why they went with them on what was the feedback you receive? 
I did not talk to any member of the delegation directly but relief from members of the staff ever at the meetings and clearly, the secretary admitted openly to the delegation during those meetings that we did indeed have five or six that really, probably should have gone unfunded.

obviously this is an important topic in view of the overall financial status and the need for federal funding to complete some of these very important projects.
You made reference to the underlying issue that's probably going to surface when the surface Transportation Act is reauthorized and that is the Down East states and is there any thought on your part, that that issue to some extent may have entered into this decision with respect to the wealth of Connecticut from other competing states? 
it's a very delicate question Senator defronzo.

(Laughter) again, I was not at the debriefing that took place with the delegation.
But, it's my understanding that the notion of Connecticut being a wealthy state was uttered during that conversation.
If this is the case is rather perplexing statement for someone to make particularly when we are looking at what should be objective criteria for the evaluation of these applications.
I think the relative wealth of the state should have little to do with it.
What we should be looking at is whether the individual applications really live up to the explicit and stated objectives of the program.

The Transportation Committee also question Department of Motor vehicles Commissioner Bob award on Monday regarding issues with his department.

... Getting the latest information on upcoming CT-N programs is quick and easy. 
Visit the Connecticut Network's Web site at www.ct-n.com and click "see CT-N's daily schedule" on the menu bar. 
for easier access, click the sign up icon the Home page to receive CT-N's daily schedule every day in your e-mail. 
if you prefer to watch online, click on the "now showing" link to see what's playing on any of our 3 Live web streams, 
or "on demand recent additions" to browse and search CT-n's video on demand and podcast libraries. 
get the most out of our programming and watch CT-n the way you want with the help of these simple tools at ct-n.com.


< <> > Captioned using voice caption technology. CT-N is not responsible for voice recognition errors in this telecast. < <> >