PA 07-6, June 2007 Special Session—SB 1501 (VETOED)

Emergency Certification

AN ACT AUTHORIZING AND ADJUSTING BONDS OF THE STATE FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND FOR TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONCERNING STATE CONTRACTING REFORM

SUMMARY: This act authorizes state general obligation (GO), special tax obligation (STO), and revenue bonds. It authorizes a net total of $3. 15 billion in GO bonds for FY 08 and FY 09, plus an additional $1. 076 billion in GO bonds for a 10-year infrastructure improvement program for the Connecticut State University System (“CSUS 2020”) that starts July 1, 2009. The GO bond authorizations for FY 08 and FY 09 provide funding for state agency capital projects and grants for local and regional capital projects, including local school construction projects, economic and community development projects, the Local Capital Improvement Program (LOCIP), and farmland preservation. The act also cancels, reduces, and reallocates authorizations from past years.

The act authorizes $850 million in (STO) bonding for FY 08 and FY 09 to pay for transportation-related projects, including a “Fix-It-First” program repairing state roads and bridges, Department of Transportation (DOT) capital improvement and highway resurfacing projects, and new and refurbished rail cars. The act also adds several programs and initiatives to the list of strategic transportation projects already authorized for funding, replaces the planned New Haven Line $1 per-trip surcharge with a schedule of fare increases, and establishes a transit-oriented development pilot program and related programs, among other things

The act authorizes $575 million in revenue bonds for FY 08 and FY 09. Of this amount, $550 million funds loans to municipalities for clean water projects and $25 million funds a new Municipal Pension Solvency Loan Program.

The act revamps the state's contracting process by establishing a State Contracting Standards Board (SCSB) as an independent Executive Branch state agency. It gives the board various responsibilities associated with the state contracting processes, including reviewing, monitoring, and auditing state contracting agencies' procurement processes. It requires all state contracts that take effect after its passage to contain provisions to ensure accountability, transparency, and results-based outcomes, as the board prescribes. The act requires the Legislative and Judicial branches and the state constitutional officers to establish their own procurement codes by January 1, 2011.

The act establishes a procedure for privatizing state contracts, including a requirement for cost-benefit analyses and business cases. It also requires the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) to maintain a single electronic portal for posting most contracting opportunities in the state.

Finally, the act revises temporary changes adopted in PA 07-5, JSS, in qualifying criteria for use of biomass in electric generating plants.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon passage for FY 08 bond authorizations and July 1, 2008 for FY 09 authorizations. Other sections are effective on passage unless otherwise specified.

§§ 1-39 — GO BOND AUTHORIZATIONS

§§ 1-7 & 20-26 – State Agency Capital Projects

The act authorizes up to $369,604,739 for FY 08 and $347,380,361 for FY 09 for the state agency capital projects listed in Table 1.

TABLE 1: BOND AUTHORIZATIONS FOR STATE AGENCY CAPITAL PROJECTS

Agency/§

Purpose/Project

FY 08

FY 09

Legislative Management

§§ 2(a), 21(a)

Genius of Connecticut statue - completion and installation

$360,000

$0

Legislative Office Building – renovation and expansion

5,000,000

0

Old State House, Hartford - alterations, renovations, and improvements

1,450,000

1,450,000

Comptroller

§§ 2 (b), 21(b)

CORE financial systems project

960,000

1,115,000

Revenue Services

§ 2(c)

Integrated tax system

2,950,000

0

Special Revenue

§ 2(d)

Electrical system upgrades, Newington

220,000

0

Information Technology

§§ 2(e), 21(c)

Connecticut Education Network

4,100,000

0

Alternate data center - planning

2,500,000

0

Information technology systems - compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act

6,310,500

6,310,500

Veterans' Affairs

§§ 2(f), 21(d)

Cost and feasibility study of future uses for health care facility at Rocky Hill Veterans' Home

250,000

0

Buildings and grounds - alterations and improvements

1,000,000

1,000,000

Public Works

§ 2(g), 2(e)

State buildings - asbestos removal and encapsulation

6,000,000

6,000,000

State-owned buildings – repairs, improvements, and preservation of unoccupied buildings

8,000,000

6,000,000

New state office building – planning, taking into consideration transit-oriented development principles

1,000,000

0

Fire training schools - construction, improvement, repairs, and land acquisition

10,000,000

10,000,000

State-owned & leased surface parking lots in Hartford – develop and implement plan to reduce number

200,000

0

Public Safety

§ 2(h), 2(f)

State-wide telecommunications system upgrades

2,250,000

3,200,000

Buildings & grounds – alterations and improvements

2,000,000

1,500,000

Building 5, Mulcahy Complex, Meriden – alterations, renovations, & improvements

750,000

6,826,000

Forensics Lab, Meriden - addition

2,180,000

0

Emergency services facility, including canine training & vehicle impound area

1,688,000

0

Programmatic study of State Police troops and districts; develop design prototype for troop facilities

250,000

600,000

Simsbury shooting range - improvements

1,750,000

0

Motor Vehicles

§ 2(i)

Information technology system upgrades

17,000,000

0

Military

§§ 2(j), 21(g)

Matching funds for federal reimbursable projects

750,000

750,000

Buildings and grounds – improvements and alterations

500,000

500,000

Regional force protection training facility - construction

1,000,000

0

Air National Guard Base, Bradley Airport – alterations, renovations, and improvements

0

500,000

Fire Prevention and Control

§ 2(k)

Buildings and grounds – alterations and improvements

500,000

0

Emergency Management & Homeland Security

§§ 2(l), 21(h)

Buildings and grounds – alterations and improvements

450,000

700,000

Environmental Protection

§§ 2(m), 21(i)

Recreation and Natural Heritage Trust Program – recreation, open space, resource protection and management

7,500,000

7,500,000

Dam repairs

2,000,000

2,000,000

Flood control improvements

10,000,000

10,000,000

Fort Griswold Battlefield State Park, Groton – restore monument and surrounding walls, gates, and walkways

500,000

0

State roads in East Hartford – drainage study

250,000

0

Extend boardwalk from Walnut Beach to Silver Sands State Park and create handicapped access to Walnut Beach

125,000

0

West Rock Ridge State Park – acquire property

0

1,000,000

Culture & Tourism

§ 2(n)

Prudence Crandall Museum, Carter House Visitor Center – alterations, improvements, renovations

500,000

0

CT Agricultural Experiment Station

§§ 2(o), 21(j)

Jenkins Laboratory – alterations, improvements, renovations

1,300,000

11,960,000

Facilities – alterations, improvements, renovations, including new construction at Griswold

500,000

0

Public Health

§ 2(p)

New public health lab - development and related costs

38,285,900

0

Mental Retardation

§§ 2(q), 21(k)

Regional facilities – fire, safety, and environmental improvements for client and staff needs

5,000,000

5,000,000

Mental Health and Addiction Services

§§ 2(r), 21(l)

Regional facilities – fire, safety, and environmental improvements for client and staff needs

6,000,000

6,000,000

Patient care information technology system upgrade

4,700,000

0

Education

§§ 2(s), 21(m)

American School for the Deaf, buildings and grounds – renovations, improvements, new construction, and portable classrooms

1,300,000

0

Vocational-technical schools – upgrades, alterations and improvements; equipment, tools and supplies; and vehicles and technology

10,000,000

10,000,000

COMMUNITY-TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM §§ 2(t), 21(n)

All Colleges

Facility alterations, improvements, and renovations

5,000,000

4,000,000

New and replacement instruction, research, or lab equipment

9,000,000

9,000,000

System Technology Initiative

6,000,000

6,000,000

Manchester

Campus improvements

2,609,500

0

Northwestern

Joyner Building – alterations, improvements, and renovations

705,708

0

Gateway

Consolidate programs in one location

21,504,000

36,600,000

Three Rivers

Consolidate campus according to master plan – renovations and additional facilities

8,071,531

0

Norwalk

Roof repairs

450,000

0

Northwestern

Nursing and allied health programs – infrastructure development and improvements

340,000

0

Tunxis

Buildings and grounds - alterations and improvements according to master plan

0

19,118,861

CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM §§ 2(u), 21(o)

All universities

Instruction, research, lab, physical plant and administrative equipment

10,000,000

10,000,000

Auxiliary services buildings – alterations, repairs, and improvements

5,000,000

5,000,000

System telecommunications infrastructure upgrades, improvements, and expansions

3,500,000

2,067,000

Land and property acquisitions

4,587,000

3,158,000

Central CSU

Facilities – alterations, renovations, and improvements

2,933,000

2,397,000

Ventilation and air conditioning system improvements

5,227,000

0

East Campus – infrastructure improvements

5,000,000

0

New public safety building

5,196,000

0

New maintenance building and salt storage shed

1,206,000

0

New classroom and office facility

3,917,000

11,706,000

Willard and DiLoreto Halls – renovations and improvements and in-fill addition

0

4,198,000

Western CSU

Facilities – alterations, renovations, and improvements

2,780,000

2,545,000

Fine and performing arts building – development and construction

17,592,000

0

Southern CSU

Facilities – alterations, renovations, and improvements

1,641,000

3,387,000

New academic building and parking garage - development

6,721,000

11,482,000

Eastern CSU

Facilities – alterations, renovations, and improvements and new campus police station

3,447,000

2,450,000

New athletic support building

1,921,000

0

New fine arts building

5,000,000

32,350,000

Outdoor track, Phase II

1,816,000

0

Correction

§§ 2(v), 21(p)

State-owned buildings – renovations and improvements for inmate housing, programming and staff training space, and additional inmate capacity

10,000,000

42,095,000

Children and Families

§§ 2(w), 21(q)

Buildings and grounds - alterations, renovations, and improvements

1,785,600

2,415,000

Self-contained, secure treatment facility for girls

11,000,000

0

Former Long Lane School, Middletown – reimburse for environmental remediation

5,000,000

14,000,000

High Meadows - alterations, renovations, and improvements, including new dormitory and activity center

7,000,000

0

Judicial

§§ 2(x), 21(r)

State-owned and maintained buildings - alterations, renovations, and improvements

5,000,000

5,000,000

State-owned and maintained buildings – security improvements

1,000,000

1,000,000

Technology Strategic Plan - implementation

5,000,000

3,500,000

Torrington courthouse

25,275,000

0

New Bridgeport courthouse

5,000,000

0

Parking garage, Lafayette St. , Hartford – renovations and improvements

4,000,000

0

Development and land acquisition for courthouse annex and parking near the Milford judicial district and GA courthouse

2,000,000

1,000,000

Current and future space needs study at Manchester GA courthouse

50,000

0

Alterations and improvements to existing facilities related to age jurisdiction change

4,000,000

0

Courthouse at 121 Elm St. , New Haven – alterations, renovations, and restoration

0

13,000,000

§§ 8-11 & 27-30 – Housing Projects

The act authorizes up to $11 million in GO bonds for FY 08 and $10 million for FY 09 for the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) for housing projects. It reserves up to $1 million of the FY 08 authorization for lead abatement and remediation in public housing projects.

§§ 12-19 & 31-38 – Grants for Local and Regional Projects and Purposes

The act authorizes up to $306,004,000 for FY 08 and up to $146,150,000 for FY 09 in GO bonds for grants by specified state agencies for local, regional, and other projects and purposes listed in Table 2.

The grants are subject to state contracts. For grants to entities that are not state subdivisions, the contracts must require that, if within 10 years after the grant date, the premises for which the grant was made are no longer used for grant purposes, the entity must repay the grant amount minus 10% for each full year that has elapsed since the grant date. The state must place a lien on the land to ensure payment, unless the premises are owned by the state, a municipality, or a housing authority.

TABLE 2: GRANTS FOR LOCAL AND REGIONAL PROJECTS AND PURPOSES

Grantee (s)

For

FY 08

FY 09

Office of Policy and Management

§§ 12(a), 32(a)

Municipalities

Preparing and revising municipal plans of conservation and development

$1,000,000

$1,000,000

 

Responsible Growth Incentive Fund

5,000,000

10,000,000

 

Enhance Geospatial Information System – data collection, use and mapping, and grants to regional planning agencies

400,000

0

 

Planning and developing a web-based information system allowing all criminal justice and related agencies to access case files

1,000,000

0

Department of Public Safety

§§ 12(b), 32(b)

Litchfield

Firehouse construction - Northfield

1,000,000

0

Quinebaug Valley Emergency Communications Center

Emergency communications equipment

2,950,000

0

Somers

2 fire substations

500,000

500,000

Hartford

Public safety complex and regional emergency management center

1,500,000

0

West Haven – Allingtown Fire District

New fire and police substation - land acquisition and construction

2,000,000

2,000,000

Montville

Convert old town hall to a police station

800,000

0

North Stonington

Firehouse improvements

250,000

0

West Haven – West Shore Fire District

Improvements

250,000

0

Burlington

Firehouse improvements

100,000

0

Department of Agriculture

§§ 12(c), 32(c)

 

Farm Reinvestment Program

500,000

500,000

Farmers

Matching grants for environmental compliance

2,000,000

2,000,000

Farmers, agricultural nonprofit organizations, and farm cooperatives

Biofuel Crops Program - for cultivating and producing crops used to generate biofuels

1,000,000

2,500,000

 

Farm Reinvestment Program

500,000

500,000

Department of Environmental Protection

§§ 12(d), 32(d)

Municipalities

Acquire open space for conservation and recreation

7,500,000

7,500,000

 

Containment, removal, or mitigation of identified hazardous waste disposal sites

17,500,000

17,500,000

CT Resources Recovery Authority

Costs associated with closing Hartford landfill

3,000,000

12,000,000

Hartford

Flood control system improvements

15,000,000

0

 

Lake Restoration Program

• Lake Beseck, Middlefield - $100,000 per year

• Pattagansett Lake, East Lyme - $200,000 per year

1,000,000

650,000

Municipalities

Providing potable water

2,500,000

2,500,000

State agencies, regional planning agencies, and municipalities

Water pollution control projects

1,000,000

1,000,000

New Britain

Replacing Brooklawn St. Bridge on Willow Brook

440,000

0

CT Institute of Water Resources

River basins study

500,000

0

Greenwich

Remediate brownfields at Cos Cob Power Plant site

2,000,000

0

Naugatuck

Long Meadow Brook – improvements, including riverside access

93,000

0

North Branford

Develop Swatchuk property for active and passive recreation

500,000

0

Thomaston

Extend water main in Jackson St. area

2,000,000

0

Sprague

Dam repairs and sewage treatment plant improvements

1,000,000

0

New London

Ocean Beach Park repairs

1,500,000

0

Environmental Learning Center, Inc.

Indian Rock Nature Preserve, Bristol – infrastructure projects

200,000

0

Farnam Neighborhood House

Camp Farnam Reclamation and Revitalization Project, Durham

500,000

0

Simsbury

Acquire open space and preserve farmland at Meadow Wood

300,000

500,000

Guilford

East River Preserve

1,000,000

2,000,000

West Haven

Shoreline improvements – rebuild beach groin, repair beach erosion, replenish sand, and replace pier

1,500,000

0

Bridgeport

Purchase development rights at Veterans' Memorial Park

3,000,000

0

Wolcott

Retire debt associated with water line installation

500,000

0

Enfield

Soil remediation project – Enrico Fermi High School

3,300,000

0

Stonington

Soil remediation – Pawcatuck Dock vicinity

150,000

0

Berlin

New construction and repair of leisure services or maintenance facilities

300,000

0

Manchester

Develop and construct Manchester-to-Bolton section of East Coast Greenway

900,000

0

Milford

Replenish beach

500,000

0

New Haven

Morris Cove storm water drainage system improvements

1,000,000

0

Orange

Purchase Ewen Farm

750,000

0

Rte. 11 Greenway Authority Commission

Land acquisition

1,000,000

0

Simsbury

Infrastructure improvement – Tariffville section

200,000

0

Danbury

Acquire Terre Haute property in Bethel for open space

2,000,000

0

Shoreline Greenway Trail, Inc.

Match federal funds for building a trail from Lighthouse Point in New Haven harbor to Hammonasset State Park in Madison

665,000

0

Meriden

Flood control improvements and reuse of Meriden Hub

10,000,000

0

Norwalk

Flood control system improvements

3,255,000

0

Fairfield

Rooster River flood control project

17,000,000

0

Trumbull

Great Oak Park – open space and trail development

50,000

0

South Windsor

Purchase or construction of regional animal shelter

500,000

0

Preston

Demolish former Poquetanuck School

250,000

0

Montville

Sewage treatment facility infrastructure improvements and upgrades

6,000,000

0

Homeowners in Beverly Hills section of New Haven and in Woodbridge

Structurally damaged homes from subsidence in the immediate vicinity of West River

2,000,000

0

Portland

Replace water mains

1,000,000

0

Cromwell

Sewer repairs

500,000

0

Norwalk

Harbor dredging

0

1,000,000

Simsbury

Acquire open space at Ethel Walker School

0

1,000,000

Commission on Culture and Tourism

§§ 12(e), 32(e)

 

Restore and preserve historic structures and landmarks

300,000

300,000

Greenwich

Bruce Museum – renovate existing or construct new exhibition areas, teaching spaces, and the science gallery

1,500,000

0

Norwalk

Maritime Aquarium – defray financial obligations incurred for Environmental Science Center construction

500,000

0

Stepping Stones Museum for Children, Norwalk

Expand facility

500,000

0

Vernon

Vernon Historical Society Museum in Vernon Grange Building – ADA improvements and repair and restore exterior siding and windows

283,000

0

Westport Historical Society

Retire outstanding debt

600,000

0

Kidcity Children's Museum, Middletown

New building

1,000,000

0

Norwich Free Academy

Slater Memorial Museum – ADA improvements, including an elevator

1,000,000

0

Lyme Art Association

Renovate gallery building in Old Lyme

100,000

0

Discovery Museum, Bridgeport

Infrastructure renewal and expansion projects

1,000,000

0

Norwalk Seaport Association

Infrastructure renewal projects

500,000

0

Darien Arts Center

Infrastructure renewal projects

50,000

0

Amistad America, Inc.

Freedom Schooner Amistad - repairs

250,000

250,000

Holcomb Farm, Granby

Restore and renovate buildings

100,000

0

Westport

New construction at Levitt Pavilion for the Performing Arts

1,000,000

0

Milford Historical Society

Restore and renovate historic property

50,000

0

Hamden

Restore Eli Whitney 1816 barn

390,000

0

West Haven

Restore historic property for military museum

750,000

1,000,000

Gallery 53, Meriden

Structural improvements

50,000

0

Chatham Historical Society, East Hampton

Replace roof

50,000

0

Barnum Museum Foundation, Inc.

Renovations at Barnum Museum, Bridgeport

1, 250,000

0

Artists' Collective, Inc. , Hartford

Infrastructure repairs and improvements

800,000

0

Willimantic

Restore historic properties along Main St.

650,000

0

Stanley L. Richter Association for the Arts, Inc. , Danbury

Roof repair, expansion, and ADA improvements

150,000

150,000

New England Air Museum, Windsor Locks

Construct swing space storage building and education building

3,500,000

0

East Hampton

Restore and renovate Goff House

100,000

0

New Haven Museum and Historical Society

Restore and reconstruct Pardee Morris House

500,000

0

Antiquarian & Landmarks Foundation

Nathan Hale Museum and Family Homestead Development Plan, Coventry

1,000,000

0

CT Zoological Society

Plan and develop the Andes Adventure Exhibit at Beardsley Zoo, Bridgeport

1,000,000

0

West Hartford Historical Society

Restore and renovate Noah Webster House

100,000

0

Park Road Playhouse, West Hartford

Facility improvements, including infrared system to aid hearing impaired, fire code compliance, HVAC modification, and new sound system

25,000

0

Mystic

Museum of America and the Sea at Mystic Seaport - improve transportation access at north gate

0

1,000,000

Lockwood-Mathews Mansion Museum, Norwalk

Infrastructure renewal projects

0

1,000,000

Torrington

Warner Theater Stage House – development and construction

0

1,000,000

Department of Economic and Community Development

§§ 12(f), 32(f)

 

Southeastern Connecticut Economic Diversification Revolving Loan Fund

5,000,000

5,000,000

 

Regional Brownfield Redevelopment Loan Fund

2,500,000

2,500,000

Four municipalities

Brownfield pilot program

5,000,000

5,000,000

Connecticut colleges and universities or state agricultural research institutions

Biofuel Production Facility Incentive Program

1,100,000

6,000,000

 

Fuel diversification grant program (PA 07-4, JSS, § 61)

2,500,000

0

 

Loans for installing new alternative fuel pumps or converting gas or diesel pumps to dispense alternative fuels

1,000,000

2,000,000

Middlesex County Revitalization Commission

Revitalization projects

1,000,000

0

Stafford

Downtown redevelopment

500,000

0

Torrington

Downtown redevelopment

575,000

0

Ansonia Development Corporation

Downtown development projects

500,000

0

Bridgeport

Planning and implementing Upper Reservoir Avenue Corridor Revitalization Initiative Project

250,000

0

Fairfield County Housing Partnership

Independent living facility in Bridgeport - land acquisition, design, development, and construction

1,000,000

0

New Haven

River Street development project

2,800,000

2,800,000

New Britain

Downtown redevelopment plan – property acquisition, design development, and construction

1,000,000

1,000,000

New Britain

New Britain Stadium – new scoreboard, production equipment and related software, and repairs and upgrades to suites

500,000

0

Vernon

Convert Roosevelt Mill to apartments and retail

1,000,000

500,000

Southington

Southington Drive-In renovations

250,000

0

Oxford

Oxford Industrial Park Road improvements

600,000

0

Milford

Silver Sands Parkway – streetscape improvements, lights in front of Jagoe Court

500,000

0

Hamden

Whitneyville Center streetscape improvements

390,000

0

Manchester

Broad Street streetscape project

2,000,000

2,000,000

Hill Development Corporation, New Haven

Housing rehabilitation and repairs

500,000

0

Meriden

West Main Street streetscape project

2,500,000

0

Hartford

Park Street streetscape project

1,700,000

3,000,000

Bridgeport

Madison Avenue Gateway Revitalization streetscape project

3,000,000

0

Hartford

Bridge over Park River

500,000

0

Bridgeport

Black Rock Gateway project

1,000,000

1,000,000

Fairfield

Repair and improve State Road 59 between North and Capitol Avenue intersections, including median and sidewalk renovations

1,000,000

0

Bridgeport

Water taxi, dock construction, and construction of Pleasure Beach retractable pedestrian bridge

4,000,000

0

Bridgeport

Congress Street Bridge – design and construction

5,000,000

0

Bridgeport Port Authority

Derecktor Shipyard -improvements, remediation, dredging, bulkheading, and building shipyard economic development plan, Phase 2

5,000,000

0

Bridgeport

Bluefish Stadium improvements

500,000

0

Southington

Road relocation, utility upgrades, new service facilities, and other improvements related to Lake Compounce Water Park expansion

3,500,000

0

 

(1) Purchase, rehabilitation, or demolition of severely damaged homes in Newhall neighborhood, Hamden or (2) grant to Hamden for such purposes

2,000,000

3,000,000

Hartford Economic Development Corporation

North Hartford community revolving loan fund

1,000,000

0

Hartford

Planning and design of streetscape improvements in North Hartford area and along Main Street corridor

500,000

0

Norwalk Transit District

Renovations, upgrades, technology improvement, lighting, and new security system related to pulse point safety and security enhancements

153,000

0

Bridgeport

Repair and improve State Road 59 between North and Capitol Avenue intersections, including median and sidewalk renovations

1,000,000

0

Milford Housing and Redevelopment Partnership

Maintain and improve partnership's housing stock

1,500,000

0

Goodwin College, East Hartford

Expand and relocate Goodwin College

9,000,000

9,000,000

Lyme Academy of Fine Arts, Old Lyme

Infrastructure improvements

250,000

0

Bethel

Downtown redevelopment and municipal parking improvements

500,000

0

Hamden

Acquire and install hydrogen fueling station

250,000

0

Cross Sound Ferry, Inc. and Thames Shipyard Repair, New London

Dredging and facility renovations

2,000,000

0

Brooklyn

Implement Internet pilot program

200,000

0

Wethersfield

Silas Deane Highway economic development and infrastructure improvements

1,000,000

0

Hartford

Wethersfield Ave. façade improvements

500,000

0

Neighborhoods of Hartford, Inc.

Hartford Rising Star Blocks and Pride Blocks programs

500,000

0

Farmington

Complete portion of a trail in Rails to Trails

65,000

0

Portland

Sidewalk repairs

200,000

0

Newington

Community center

1,000,000

0

Stratford

Streetscape improvements

450,000

0

Somers Housing Authority

Woodcrest facility – rehabilitate and expand senior housing

0

1,000,000

East Haven

Phase III downtown development

0

1,000,000

Department of Public Health

§ 12(g)

 

Hospital-based emergency service facilities:

• Hospital of Central Connecticut - $1,500,000

• Griffin Hospital - $500,000

• Johnson Memorial Hospital - $1,000,000

• Backus Hospital - $1,000,000

• Norwalk Hospital - $1,000,000

• Midstate Medical Center, Meriden - $1,000,000

6,000,000

0

Milford

New community health center in Westshore area – design and construction

150,000

0

Stamford Hospital Foundation

Purchase digital mobile mammography unit

1,000,000

0

Community Health Center, Inc.

Groton facility – renovations and improvements

500,000

0

Community Health Center, Inc.

New London facility – renovations and improvements

1,500,000

0

KB Ambulance Corporation

Building addition and alterations, Danielson

765,000

0

Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services

§ 12(h)

Bridges of Milford

Property acquisition and facility expansion

1,000,000

0

Rushford Behavioral Health Services, Meriden

Renovations and roof replacement

800,000

0

Department of Social Services

§§ 12(i), 32(g)

Bristol Community Organization, Inc.

Buy building to expand Head Start program

425,000

0

Brookfield

Expand senior center, including computer equipment

500,000

0

New Opportunities, Inc.

Slocum Child Center, Waterbury – renovate classrooms and administrative space

700,000

0

New Opportunities, Inc.

Human Services Center, Waterbury – new heating system

300,000

0

Prudence Crandall Center, Inc.

Rose Hill Center, New Britain – building renovations

1,000,000

0

Saugatuck Senior Cooperative, Westport

Replace roof

250,000

0

New London

Alliance for Living, Inc. – remediate asbestos and replace siding on building

100,000

0

Easton

Senior center - renovations

250,000

0

Good Shepherd Day Care Center, Milford

Construction and LEED certification requirements

350,000

0

Action for Bridgeport Community, Inc.

Acquire and renovate property for early learning center

1,200,000

0

Interfaith Cooperative Ministries of New Haven

Aging-at-home pilot program in Hamden

100,000

0

American Red Cross, Meriden/Wallingford Branch

Building renovations, including ventilation, plumbing, and wiring system alterations

50,000

0

New Britain

Acquire building associated with food pantry

150,000

0

Hospice Southeastern Connecticut

New building in Norwich

1,000,000

0

Mi Casa, Hartford

Renovate and acquire equipment for wellness center

350,000

0

New London County 4H Foundation, Inc.

4H Club, Franklin - renovations

250,000

0

Bridge Family Centers, Inc.

Develop and renovate administrative space in West Hartford

150,000

0

Casa Bienvenida

Acquire property in Waterbury

3,000,000

0

Rivera Hughes Memorial Foundation

Acquire property in Waterbury

1,000,000

0

Jewish Community Center of Eastern Fairfield County

Facility upgrades, asbestos, removal, and HVAC replacement

1,000,000

0

Polish American Foundation

Sloper Wesoly House, New Britain - renovations

100,000

0

Martin House, Norwich

Build efficiency apartments

0

1,000,000

Department of Education

§§ 12(j), 32(h)

Municipalities, regional school districts, and regional education service centers (RESCs)

Wiring school buildings

3,000,000

3,000,000

School readiness programs

Minor capital improvements and wiring for technology

2,000,000

2,000,000

Challenger Learning Center of Southeastern Connecticut

Construct building

1,000,000

0

Waterford Country School

Build gymnasium

1,000,000

0

Stratford

Stratford High School – new boilers

500,000

0

Municipalities, regional school districts, and RESCs

Purchase and install security infrastructure, including surveillance cameras, entry door buzzer systems, scan cards, and panic alarms

5,000,000

0

State Library

§§ 12(k), 32(i)

Public libraries not located in distressed municipalities

Construction, renovation, expansion, energy conservation, handicapped accessibility

$5,000,000

$5,000,000

Public libraries located in distressed municipalities

Construction, renovation, expansion, energy conservation, handicapped accessibility

$5,000,000

$5,000,000

North Branford

Edward Smith Library of Northford – renovations and additions

500,000

0

Somers

Expand Somers Library

500,000

0

Vernon

George Maxwell Memorial Library, Rockville – ADA compliance improvements, including an elevator

550,000

0

Branford

Blackstone Library

500,000

0

Waterbury

Silas Bronson Library - improvements

0

1,500,000

Department of Children and Families

§ 12(l)

Children's Home of Cromwell

Infrastructure renewal and renovation

400,000

0

Pathway-Senderos Teen Pregnancy Prevention Center, New Britain

Acquire new facility

1,200,000

0

Child Guidance Center of Southern Connecticut, Stamford

Expansion

2,000,000

0

Youth Continuum, New Haven

Renovations and code improvements

500,000

0

The Grounds, Inc.

Plan and develop new facility in West Hartford

30,000

0

Miscellaneous Grants

§§ 12(m) & (n), 32(j)

Connecticut Public Broadcasting, Inc.

Buy and upgrade transmission, broadcast, production, and information technology equipment

5,000,000

0

Connecticut Innovations, Inc. (CII)

Recapitalize CII programs

• Capital expenses associated with the Biobus - $1,500,000 for FY 08

15,000,000

15,000,000

§ 39 – Exemption from Grant Repayment Requirements

The act exempts First Step or its successor agency from liability for repaying a grant from the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services authorized and awarded under SA 01-2, JSS, and required under a contract dated June 22, 2004. The special act authorized up to $4 million for the department for grants-in-aid to private, nonprofit organizations for alterations and improvements to various facilities. The authorization was effective July 1, 2002.

§§ 40-61 —STATUTORY BOND AUTHORIZATIONS

§§ 40-43 & 46-53 — Increased Authorizations for Various Agencies and Purposes

The act increases statutory bond authorization limits for various statutory grants and purposes and allocates new bonding for these purposes for FY 08 and FY 09 as shown in Table 3. It authorizes up to $1,005. 4 million in GO bond for FY 08 and $903. 4 million for FY 09. It also authorizes $275 million in revenue bonds each year for Clean Water Fund loans.

TABLE 3: STATUTORY BOND AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FY 08 & FY 09

§

Agency

Purpose/Fund

FY 08

FY 09

40

Office of Policy & Management

Economic and community development project grants (Urban Act)

$30,000,000

$30,000,000

41

Office of Policy & Management

Small Town Economic Assistance Program (STEAP)

20,000,000

20,000,000

42

Treasurer

Capital Equipment Purchase Fund

40,000,000

28,000,000

43

Office of Policy & Management

LOCIP

30,000,000

30,000,000

46

Education

Charter school capital expenses

5,000,000

5,000,000

47

Education

School construction projects

705,000,000

603,000,000

48

Education

School construction interest subsidy grants

14,400,000

16,400,000

49

Agriculture

Farmland preservation

5,000,000

5,000,000

50

Environmental Protection

Clean Water Fund grants

110,000,000

110,000,000

51

Environmental Protection

Clean Water Fund loans (revenue bonds)

275,000,000

275,000,000

52

Economic and Community Development

Manufacturing Assistance Act

45,000,000

45,000,000

53

Environmental Protection

Special Contaminated Property Remediation and Insurance Fund

1,000,000

1,000,000

§ 44 — Housing Trust Fund Authorization

The law allows the State Bond Commission to authorize up to $20 million per year over five years (FY 06 to FY 10) to capitalize the Housing Trust Fund. The act increases (1) the maximum GO bond authorization for the fund for FY 09 by $10 million, from $20 million to $30 million and (2) the fund's total maximum capitalization by $10 million, from $100 million to $110 million.

The Housing Trust Fund was established to expand affordable housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income homeowners.

§ 45 — Charter School Facility Grants

The act extends, through FY 09, the State Department of Education's authority to provide grants, within available bond authorizations (see Table 3 above), to help charter schools:

1. renovate, build, buy, extend, replace, or carry out major alterations in their facilities;

2. (a) replace windows, doors, boilers and other heating and ventilation system components, internal communication systems, lockers, and ceilings; (b) upgrade restrooms; (c) replace and upgrade lighting; or (d) install security equipment; and

3. repay debt incurred for school building projects.

The act eliminates a requirement that charter schools use state funds for debt repayment only to repay debt incurred before July 1, 2005.

By law, the education commissioner, in selecting schools to receive grants, must give preference to those that provide matching funds from nonstate sources.

§ 52 — Groton Sub Base and Connecticut Center For Advanced Technology

Of the $90 million it authorizes for the Manufacturing Assistance Act, the act (1) increases by $40 million (from $10 million to $50 million) the amount earmarked for grants to the U. S. Navy or other eligible applicants to enhance the infrastructure at the Groton submarine base for long-term, ongoing naval operations and (2) reserves $2 million for a grant to the Connecticut Center for Advanced Technology for manufacturing initiatives, including aerospace and defense.

§§ 54 & 59-61 — 21st Century UConn

The act extends UConn's capital improvement campaign, known as 21st Century UConn, by one year. It reduces the annual caps on the amount of state-backed bonds the UConn board of trustees can issue in FY 08 through FY 14, increases the cap for FY 15, and extends the program through 2016 as shown below in Table 4.

Under prior law and the act, any difference between the amount actually issued in any year and the cap can be carried forward to any succeeding fiscal year. Financing transaction costs can be added to the caps.

TABLE 4: ANNUAL BOND LIMITS FOR 21ST CENTURY UCONN

FY

Prior Limit

(in millions)

New Limit

(in millions)

Change

(in millions)

08

$120. 0

$115. 0

($5. 0)

09

155. 0

140. 0

(15. 0)

10

160. 5

140. 5

(20. 0)

11

161. 5

146. 5

(15. 0)

12

138. 1

123. 1

(15. 0)

13

129. 5

114. 5

(15. 0)

14

126. 5

111. 5

(15. 0)

15

90. 9

100. 0

9. 1

16

N. A.

90. 9

0

§ 55 — Construction Grants for Public Libraries

The act doubles the State Library Board's maximum grant for public library construction projects (from $500,000 to $1 million) for project applications submitted on or after September 1, 2007. As under prior law, the grants pay for one-third of the total cost of each approved project on the board's priority list, up to the maximum grant. The grants are subject to available appropriations.

§ 56 — Municipal Pension Solvency Loan Program

The act authorizes up to $25 million in bonds to fund the municipal pension solvency loan program established by PA 07-204. PA 07-204 established the program to lend money to municipalities for their unfunded employee pension liabilities, but failed to include a specific bond authorization. The act also eliminates a redundant requirement that the state treasurer determine the bond terms and conditions in the best interests of the state. This requirement is already part of the state's general bond act.

§ 57 — Matching Grants for Commercial Freight Rail Lines

The act authorizes up to $15 million in GO bonds to the DOT for FY 09 to provide competitive matching grants for commercial freight rail lines operating in Connecticut. Recipients must use the grants to improve, repair, and modernize existing rails, rail beds, and related facilities. The act requires the DOT commissioner to adopt regulations to implement the grant program.

§ 58 — Financial Assistance to Torrington

By law, the General Assembly must approve state assistance to any applicant or business project that exceeds $10 million in any two-year period. In 2004, the General Assembly approved up to $30 million in bond-funded grants, loans, loan guarantees, insurance contracts, investment, or some combination of these forms of assistance to restore and improve property in Torrington.

This act (1) changes the name of the assistance recipient from Downtown Torrington Redevelopment LLC to Torrington Development Corporation and (2) allows the DECD to provide the assistance between the act's effective date and June 30, 2009, instead of between July 1, 2001 and June 30, 2007.

§§ 62-104 — STO BOND AUTHORIZATIONS AND TRANSPORTATION PROVISIONS

§§ 62-64 & 92 — Strategic Transportation Project List Additions

Certain specific transportation projects and initiatives are specified by law as “strategic transportation projects” and identified for available funding. This act adds the following projects and initiatives to the strategic project list (referred to as “tier 1” projects):

1. purchasing up to 38 electric rail cars for use on the New Haven Line and Shore Line East commuter rail services;

2. purchasing equipment and facilities to support Shore Line East commuter rail expansion, including implementing phases I & II as recommended in the Department of Transportation (DOT) commissioner's January 1, 2007 report on obstacles to improved service on Shore Line East;

3. improving bicycle access to, and storage facilities at, transportation centers;

4. developing a new commuter rail station in Orange;

5. improving bus connectivity and service, up to $20 million for FY 08, of which (a) up to $14 million must be used to build bus maintenance and storage facilities for the Windham and Torrington regional transit districts (b) up to $5 million must be used to buy and install clean diesel bus retrofits, and (c) up to $1 million must be used to buy vehicles for elderly and disabled demand-responsive transportation programs that participate in the state municipal dial-a-ride matching grant program established by law;

6. funding the Waterbury Intermodal Transportation Center, up to $18 million;

7. funding the state share of Tweed New Haven Airport's Runway Safety Area, up to $1. 055 million; and

8. evaluating purchase of rolling stock for direct commuter rail service connecting Connecticut to New Jersey via Pennsylvania Station in New York. The evaluation must be conducted by the governor or her designee initiating formal discussions with appropriate parties from New York, New Jersey, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and Amtrak.

The act modifies two projects already approved as priority transportation projects. Instead of developing a new commuter rail station between New Haven and Milford, the act specifies that the new station be in West Haven. It also expands the funding authorization for the Commercial Vehicle Information System Network to include weigh-in motion and electronic pre-clearance of safe truck operators for fixed-scale operations on I-91 (Middletown) and I-95 (Greenwich and Waterford) for up to $4 million.

By law, the transportation commissioner must evaluate and plan implementation for various specified projects (referred to as “tier 2” projects). This already includes improving Routes 2 and 2A in Preston, North Stonington, and Montville. The act requires that, as part of this project, DOT conduct the first phase of a Route 2A bypass alternative that would begin in Preston, proceed northerly toward downtown Norwich, and end at Route 2 in Preston. The first phase of the study must include an analysis of the feasibility, local economic impact, and cost of constructing the portion of the alternative bypass that would pass through the Hinkley Hill area in Norwich. An independent entity that contracts with the DOT must conduct the study's first phase for which the cost may not exceed $300,000. It must submit the results to DOT, which must submit them to the Transportation Committee by September 30, 2008.

The act also adds to the tier 2 project list the completion of the Day Hill Corridor environmental assessment study. Its cost may not exceed $500,000.

§§ 65 & 66 — “Fix-It-First” Program for State Roads and Bridges

The act authorizes up to $150 million in STO bonds ($75 million in each FY 08 and FY 09) for DOT to establish a “Fix-it-First” program. Up to $30 million of each year's authorization is earmarked for repairing state roads, with $30 million of that amount earmarked for rehabilitating and rebuilding highways that are not part of the interstate highway system. Up to $45 million of each year's authorization must be used for repairing state bridges.

The act requires DOT to choose road projects based on traffic volume, condition, and need, with priority given to projects already programmed in out years. It directs DOT to use its FY 08 bridge repair authorization for bridges rated in Category 4 or 5 under the National Bridge Inspection Standards established by federal regulation. (Under the federal rating system, a bridge can be classified from a 9 (excellent) to a 0 (failed) condition. A Category 5 bridge is classified as in “fair” condition. A Category 4 bridge is considered in “poor” condition. Bridges in more deteriorated condition may be classified as in serious, critical, or imminent failure condition. )

Bond funds can also be used for enhancing and improving pedestrian and bicycle access for the road projects and when bridges need to be rebuilt.

By January 1, 2009, DOT must report the program results to the Transportation Committee.

§§ 67-68 & 97-98 — Transit-Oriented Development Projects

Definition. The act changes the definition of "transit-oriented development. " Under prior law, it meant the development of residential, commercial, and employment centers within walking distance to public transportation facilities and services in order to facilitate and encourage their use. The act instead defines it as such development within one-half mile or walking distance of public transportation facilities (including rail and bus rapid transit and services) that meet transit-supportive standards for land uses, built environment densities, and walkable environments in order to facilitate and encourage their use.

By law, transit-oriented development is eligible for urban action bonds (CGS § 4-66c), congestion mitigation and air quality grants (CGS § 13b-38v), DECD grants and loans (CGS § 13b-79v), and Connecticut Development Authority loans (CGS § 13b-79w).

DOT Commissioner. The act adds participating in transit-oriented development projects at or near transit facilities, if funds are available, to the transportation commissioner's general powers, duties, and responsibilities. It permits the commissioner, if funds are available and with the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) secretary's approval, to participate in such projects to the extent that they result in public transportation facility development or improvement.

The act requires the commissioner to use an open, competitive process to select developers when soliciting transit-oriented development proposals. With the OPM secretary's approval, the commissioner may waive the competitive selection process if:

1. the developer is an abutting land owner;

2. his or her property is essential to the project; and

3. the commissioner expressly finds that (a) the state's cost for any property transaction or provision of services does not exceed the fair market value of the property or services and (b) the waiver is in the state's best interest.

The act requires the State Properties Review Board's approval for any lease, sale, or purchase of state land or facilities for a transit-oriented development project.

It exempts transit-oriented development projects started under its provisions from state laws that:

1. prohibit the state from selling state land without first giving the municipality where it is located the option to purchase it;

2. set out the approval process for purchasing, selling, or transferring state land; and

3. establish the process DOT must follow for selecting, evaluating, and negotiating with consultants, including selecting the lowest responsible and qualified bidder for work on certain public buildings.

Pilot Program. The act authorizes up to $5 million in GO bonds in FY 08 for DOT to establish a transit-oriented development pilot program. It designates as pilot projects commuter station development (1) in all towns on the New Britain-Hartford Busway, (2) in Windsor and Meriden on the New Haven-Springfield rail line, (3) on the New Haven rail line from West Haven to Stratford, and (4) in New London on the Shore Line East rail line.

The act permits other projects to be designated as transit-oriented development pilot projects if (1) they are identified in law as strategic projects; (2) they are substantially funded by federal, state, or local government; and (3) substantial planning is underway or completed. The act specifies that such projects qualify for pilot funding of between $250,000 and $1 million each if the towns involved have a memorandum of understanding (MOU) involving a regional planning agency.

The act requires that the MOU identify the grant administrator and the participating municipalities and regional planning agencies. It must also include:

1. a work plan;

2. a budget;

3. anticipated work products;

4. geographically defined transit-oriented development zones; and

5. a deadline for completing the project.

The MOU must propose to complete one or more of the following:

1. a transit-oriented development plan or station area development plan;

2. the development or adoption of a transit-oriented development overlay zone;

3. the selection of a preferred development approach;

4. the implementation of a transit-oriented development plan;

5. a market assessment for transit-oriented development plan implementation;

6. a financial assessment and planning for transit-oriented development plan implementation;

7. the preparation of detailed plans for environmental and brownfield remediation, if required; or

8. the preparation of development or joint development agreements.

The act requires OPM to review and approve MOUs. An applicant must submit a proposed MOU to OPM. OPM must (1) review it within 60 days of receiving it, (2) notify the applicant of any deficiencies in it, and (3) permit the applicant to reapply. OPM must also (1) monitor the pilot program grants (see below) to make sure they comply with the MOUs and (2) help any pilot program obtain necessary funding or investments.

Grant Programs. In addition to the pilot program, the act creates a transit-oriented development planning grant program. Planning grants must be available for (1) completing a transit-oriented development plan or station area development plan, (2) developing or adopting a transit-oriented development overlay zone, or (3) preparing a development strategy and selecting a preferred development approach. The act limits planning activities to areas within one-half mile of transit stations.

The act also creates a transit-oriented development facilitation grant program. Facilitation grants must be available for transit-oriented development projects that completed one or more of the following: (1) a transit-oriented development plan or station area development plan, (2) developed or adopted a transit-oriented development overlay zone, or (3) prepared a development strategy and selected a preferred development approach. The act limits facilitation activities to areas within one-half mile of transit stations.

The act allows facilitation grants to be used for one or more of the following:

1. implementing a transit-oriented development plan and overlay zone;

2. performing a market analysis to determine the economic viability of a project;

3. financial planning;

4. analyzing a project's economic benefits, revenue, or expense projections; and

5. preparing (a) environmental assessments and plans for brownfield remediation, (b) infrastructure studies and surveys, (c) requests for development proposals, and (d) development or joint development agreements.

§ 69 — Coordination of Projects in Hartford

The act requires OPM to coordinate all DOT, DECD, and Department of Public Works projects in Hartford to facilitate economic revitalization and promote livability. OPM must do this in consultation with the city and the Capitol Region Council of Governments.

§ 70 — Connecticut Bikeway Grant Program

The act authorizes up to $12 million in GO bonds ($6 million in FY 08 and in FY 09) for the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to establish a Connecticut bikeway grants program for municipalities.

Grants may be used for planning, design, land acquisition, construction, construction administration, and publications for bikeways and multiuse paths. Eligible projects may include (1) bicycle trails that complete sections of the Connecticut portion of the East Coast Greenway, (2) bikeways that connect to the East Coast Greenway, and (3) bikeways and multiuse paths established as part of the State Recreational Trails Plan.

Under the act, grant eligibility criteria must include (1) a 20% local match provided by municipal, federal, other state, nonprofit, or private funds; (2) municipal responsibility for bikeway maintenance; (3) public input; and (4) project designs that comply with the 1999 American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials' “Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. ” If grant applications include more than one municipality, the act requires the local match to be 10% rather than 20%. State grant funds may be used to match federal funds being used for the specified purposes. For purposes of the grant program, a “bikeway” is any road, street, path, or way specifically designated for bicycle travel whether or not it is shared with other modes of transportation.

The act allows DEP to use up to 2% of the bond allocation for administrative purposes. It also requires DEP to establish a committee to advise the commissioner on the allocation of funds. The committee must consist of trail users and advocates the commissioner designates. The act directs DOT to work with DEP in furtherance of the bikeway program.

§ 71 — Bond Authorization for New Haven Line Rail Stations

The act authorizes up to $6 million in STO bonds ($3 million in FY 08 and in FY 09) for DOT to make rail station improvements identified in its October 6, 2006 New Haven Line Train Station Visual Inspection Report.

§ 72 — Bond Authorization for Stamford Parking Garage

The act authorizes up to $35 million in STO bonds in FY 08 for DOT to build a parking garage at the Stamford Transportation Center, including rights-of-way, alternative temporary parking, other property acquisition, and related projects.

§ 73 — Certification by DOT Contractors

The act prohibits the DOT commissioner from approving any payment for construction, alterations, reconstruction, improvements, repairs, or inspection work performed under a DOT contract unless he receives from the contractor, on an approved form, a statement that it has performed the work according to contract specifications. The contractor statements are subject to criminal penalties for 1st degree false statement (class D felony—See Table on Penalities).

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2008

§§ 74-85 — Bond Authorizations for Capital Improvement Projects

The act authorizes up to $275. 688 million in STO bonds in FY 08 and $173. 3 million in FY 09 for DOT's capital improvement program as shown in Table 5.

TABLE 5: BOND AUTHORIZATIONS FOR DOT PROJECTS

Authorized Program Areas

FY 08

FY 09

Interstate highway program

$12,000,000

$12,000,000

Urban systems

8,300,000

8,500,000

Interstate highway program

112,940,000

42,030,000

Soil, water supply, and groundwater remediation at or near DOT maintenance facilities and former disposal areas

6,000,000

6,000,000

State bridge improvement, rehabilitation, and replacement

65,240,000

34,340,000

Reconstruction and improvements to the warehouse and State Pier in New London, including site and ferry slip improvements

1,400,000

300,000

Developing and improving general aviation airports, including grants to municipal airports, but excluding Bradley International Airport

2,000,000

2,000,000

Bus and rail facilities and equipment, including rights-of-way, other property acquisition, and related projects

40,108,000

40,430,000

DOT facilities

6,400,000

6,400,000

Cost of issuing STO bonds and debt service

21,300,000

21,300,000

§§ 86-90 —Highway Resurfacing

The act authorizes up to $59 million in STO bonds in FY 09 for DOT's capital highway resurfacing program. The funds may be issued for road resurfacing and related projects.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 2008

§ 91 — Route 7 Connector Alternatives

The act requires DOT, within available resources, to report on one or more options for an alternative Route 7 connector from Route 7 in Norwalk to a point not farther north than Route 33 in Wilton. The report must be submitted to the Transportation Committee by December 31, 2008. The options must include:

1. an engineering analysis;

2. the deadline for completing construction;

3. the identification of physical, social, or environmental obstacles;

4. cost estimates; and

5. potential funding sources.

The act requires DOT to consult Norwalk and Wilton and their regional planning agencies in developing the options.

§ 93 — Technical Change

The act makes a technical change.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2007

§ 94 — New Haven Line Ticket Surcharge

The act replaces the $1-per-trip ticket surcharge scheduled to be imposed on New Haven Line passenger tickets from January 2008 until June 30, 2015 with a schedule of fare increases. Beginning on January 1, 2010, the act imposes a 1. 25% increase on the existing fare for all fares originating or terminating in Connecticut. On the following January 1 and on each January 1 until 2016, it imposes an additional 1% increase over the existing fare for a total of seven annual increases.

Under prior law, the $1-per-trip ticket surcharge revenue had to be deposited in the New Haven Line revitalization account, which is a nonlapsing account within the Special Transportation Fund (STF) that could be used solely for the capital costs of the line's revitalization. The act instead requires the proceeds from the fare increases to be deposited into the account and allows the funds to be used to pay capital costs and debt service the revitalization program incurs. The act eliminates the account's scheduled termination on June 30, 2015 and specifies that funds in the account may be used to purchase rail cars for the New Haven Line in addition to those already authorized by the law.

The act requires the DOT commissioner to determine, and adopt regulations regarding, how to apply the increase to daily, multiple-ride, weekly, and monthly commutation tickets.

§ 95 — Increased Bond Authorization for Rail Cars

The act increases the STO bond authorization for rail cars, maintenance facilities, rights-of-way, other property acquisition, and related projects by $140 million, from $485. 65 million to $625. 65 million.

§ 96 — Bond Authorization for UConn Transportation Institute

The act authorizes $500,000 in GO bonds in FY 08 for laboratory improvements to UConn's Connecticut Transportation Institute.

§ 99 — Pavement Noise Reduction Pilot Program

The act authorizes $1. 5 million in STO bonds in FY 08 for DOT and the UConn Transportation Institute to establish a noise reduction open-graded friction course pilot program. They must (1) build at least four one-mile test sections of rubberized open-graded friction course (i. e. , layers of pavement) and (2) monitor the pavement's performance, including its durability and sound reduction, for six years.

By January 1, 2011, the DOT and the Institute must submit a status report on the program to the Transportation Committee. They must submit a final report by January 1, 2015, or earlier if the pilot program concludes before then.

§ 100 — Funding TSB Projects

The act transfers $5. 5 million from the STF to the Transportation Strategy Board's (TSB) projects account, which is a nonlapsing account within the STF that may be used for the board's projects. One such project must be a study of the governance and operations of Bradley International Airport. Findings and recommendations from the study must be submitted to the Transportation and Commerce committees by December 31, 2008.

§ 101 — TSB Reporting Requirements

The act requires TSB to review and revise, as necessary, its transportation strategy once every four, rather than once every two, years. Prior law required TSB to submit a report describing its revisions to the General Assembly by January 1 in odd-numbered years. The act instead requires TSB to report by January 1, 2011 and every four years thereafter. The report must include a (1) prioritized list of projects necessary to implement its strategy and (2) completion schedule for all projects.

The law requires the Transportation; Finance, Revenue and Bonding; and Planning and Development committees to meet with the DOT and DECD commissioners, the OPM secretary, and TSB chairperson in the January after the report is filed. The act also requires the Commerce Committee chairpersons and ranking members to attend.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2007

§ 102 — Bond Authorization for Atlantic Street Underpass Project

The act authorizes $10 million in STO bonds for DOT to complete the Atlantic Street Underpass Project in Stamford.

§ 103 — Weigh Station Operations Report

As of January 1, 2008, the act requires weigh station personnel to maintain logs for each shift conducted at all weigh stations in Connecticut. The Department of Public Safety (DPS) commissioner must submit a written report that summarizes the information in the logs to the Transportation Committee by January 1, 2008 and semiannually thereafter. Each report must contain data for the preceding six months. The act also requires the commissioner's report to the committee to be posted on the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) and DPS websites.

The act requires the weigh station logs, which must be submitted to the public safety commissioner, to record the following information:

1. the location, date, and hours of each shift;

2. the hours the station's “OPEN” sign is illuminated;

3. the number of DMV and DPS personnel for each shift;

4. the number and weight of all of the vehicles inspected;

5. the type of vehicle inspections conducted;

6. the number and types of citations issued;

7. the amount of fines that may be imposed for overweight and other violations;

8. the operating costs for each shift; and

9. the number of vehicles that pass through the weigh station during each shift.

By December 15, 2007, the DPS commissioner, in consulation with the DMV commissioner, must develop and distribute a form for recording this information.

The state operates fixed commercial vehicle weighing and inspection stations on I-84 in Danbury and Union, I-95 in Greenwich and Waterford, and I-91 in Middletown. Both DMV and DPS enforcement personnel operate the facilities. Enforcement personnel also conduct weight and safety inspections away from these fixed facilities using portable scales.

§ 104 — UCONN-RELATED PARKING FACILITIES

The act authorizes up to $27 million in GO bonds to OPM to plan and fund UConn activities-related parking facilities. The act reserves up to $12 million of this amount for facilities in Mansfield and up to $15 million for facilities at Rentschler Field in East Hartford.

The act requires the OPM secretary to implement the project in two phases. Phase I is the Mansfield parking and Phase II is the Rentschler Field parking. The act requires the secretary to submit a status report on the Mansfield phase to the Finance, Revenue and Bonding and Appropriations committees by July 1, 2008 and prohibits him from starting the Rentschler Field phase until each committee approves the report.

The act gives each committee 45 days from the date its clerk receives the Mansfield status report to accept or reject it. The secretary can withdraw or change the report and resubmit it but, in that case, the 45-day clock starts over from the resubmission date. Under the act, a committee that does not act within its allotted time is considered to have approved the report.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2007

§§ 105-156 — CHANGES IN PRIOR GO BOND AUTHORIZATIONS

The act changes amounts and purposes of various GO bond authorizations, reallocates previously authorized funds, and cancels certain authorized but unallocated funds as shown in Tables 6 and 7. Overall, these changes constitute a net reduction of $5,464,472 in previous authorizations. (The amended authorization totals in § 123 and § 144 of the act for local grants and other purposes for FY 05 and FY 06, respectively, are incorrect. )

TABLE 6: CANCELLATIONS, REDUCTIONS, AND ADDITIONS

§

Agency/Grantee

For

Change

106

Environmental Protection

Mill Brook-Piper Brook flood control project in Newington & New Britain, including replacing bridges over Piper Brook - Reduced from $815,000 to $375,000

($440,000)

108

Mental Health & Addiction Services

Grants to tax-exempt private nonprofit organizations for community- based residential and outpatient facilities – purchases, repairs, alterations, and improvements, with at least $800,000 for First Step in New London – Reduced from $1. 25 million to $677,653

(572,347)

110

Eastern Connecticut State University

Campus security system - Reduced from $550,000 to $523,302

(26,698)

116

Environmental Protection

Residential Underground Storage Tank Replacement Program – Reduced from $5. 5 million to $4. 25 million

(1,250,000)

120

Public Health

Either (1) purchase and install modular-based portable hospital or (2) provide grant to CT hospital for patient isolation and treatment for smallpox event and grants to CT hospitals for up to 50% of total cost of physical plant modifications and renovations to isolate patients for smallpox – Reduced from $10 million to $9,999,533

(467)

122

Military

Southington Readiness Center alterations, renovations, & improvements – Reduced from $913,300 to $687,540

(225,760)

125

Milford

Upgrade Daniel Wasson Babe Ruth Field - Canceled

(50,000)

127

Hartland

Hartland Elementary School playground improvements - Canceled

(50,000)

128

Portland

Gildersleeve Elementary School playscape - Canceled

(50,000)

129

Ellington

Renovate and relocate Pinney House – Canceled

(500,000)

135

Windham Regional Community Council, Inc.

Old: Improvements to Windham Recovery Center - $764,000

New: Improvements to central office building in Willimantic - $814,500

50,500

136

Windham

Generations Family Center improvements - Canceled

(1,400,000)

137

Canaan

Falls Village Day Care Center, construction and equipment - Canceled

(50,000)

139

Fairfield

Administration building for Operation Hope - Canceled

(250,000)

146

Glastonbury

Glastonbury Riverfront Park Development Project – Canceled

(500,000)

147

Bridgeport

Beardsley Park improvements - Canceled

(100,000)

148

Brooklyn

Recreational facilities – Canceled

(250,000)

149

West Haven

Painter Park improvements – Canceled

(400,000)

150

Newington

Newington High School track repairs – Canceled

(275,000)

151

Plainville

Norton Park soccer field construction - Canceled

(175,000)

152

Children and Families

Old: Grants to private, nonprofit organizations, including Boys and Girls Clubs of America, to renovate and construct community centers for neighborhood revitalization or education, $5 million

New: Increase grant to $7 million and allocate: (1) $500,000 for Windham-Tolland 4-H Camp in Pomfret Center, (2) $1 million to Bridgeport Police Athletic League to construct and renovate anew gym and youth center, (3) $1 million for Regional YMCA of Western CT in Brookfield for capital improvements, including an indoor pool, (4) $150,000 for Milford/Orange YMCA for a new addition and ADA compliance projects, (5) $1 million for CT Alliance of Boys and Girls Clubs to develop and construct a new facility in Milford, (6) $250,000 for Boys and Girls Village, Inc. to acquire and rehabilitate program facilities in Bridgeport, (7) $150,000 for Ralphola Taylor Community Center YMCA in Bridgeport, (8) $1 million for Soundview Family YMCA in Branford to construct swimming pool complex, and (9) $1. 5 million for new YMCA on Albany Avenue in Hartford.

2,000,000

153

Farmington

Revitalize Unionville center - Canceled

(300,000)

155

Windham

Generations Family Center - Canceled

(1,400,000)

156

Norwalk Transit District

Build bus depot

250,000

156

Southington

Reconstruct Marion Ave. and Mount Vernon Rd. intersection

150,000

156

Coventry

Build sand and salt shed

350,000

TABLE 7: REALLOCATIONS AND LANGUAGE CHANGES

§

Total Prior

Authorization

Previous

New

111

$4,000,000

Mental Health and Addiction Services: Design and install sprinkler systems in direct patient care buildings

Add related fire safety improvements

112

$8,500,000

Environmental Protection: Grants to municipalities to improve incinerators and landfills

Earmark up to $600,000 for Plymouth

113

3,500,000

Mental Health and Addiction Services: Design and install sprinkler systems in direct patient care buildings

Include related fire safety improvements

114

30,000,000

Economic and Community Development: Grant to New Haven for economic development projects, including downtown improvement and a biotechnology corridor and related development

(1) Expand grantees to include New Haven Housing Authority, for-profit housing development corporations, and tax-exempt nonprofit organizations

(2) Specify that funded projects must be in New Haven

117

4,200,000

Veterans' Affairs: Renovate and improve existing facilities

Add option to build a new veterans' health care facility

118

896,607

Education: Grant to American School for the Deaf to buy amplification systems

Expand to cover purchase of equipment to test the effectiveness of hearing aids and the amplification system

124

300,000

Agriculture: Grant to Farmer's Cow, LLC for Connecticut Dairy Entrepreneurial Initiative

Change grant purpose to “business development”

126

50,000

Environmental Protection: Grant to East Hampton for watershed management at Crystal Lake

Change grantee to Middletown

129

141

250,000

Grant to Killingworth to restore and renovate Killingworth Old Town Hall

Transfer grant authority from OPM to Culture & Tourism Commission

130

4,500,000

Children & Families: Earmark $1 million for construction and acquiring property in Middlesex County for Makayla's House

(1) Change use of $1 million earmark to construction and acquiring property in either Middlesex or Windham counties for a residential facility

(2) Earmark an additional $1 million for improving, altering, and constructing residential facilities at Klingberg Family Center, New Britain

131

5,000,000

Children & Families: Grants to private nonprofit organizations, including Boys and Girls Clubs of America, for building and renovating community youth centers for neighborhood recreation and education

(1) Include YMCAs, YWCAs, and community centers

(2) Earmark (a) $3 million for Cardinal Shehan Center in Bridgeport to renovate a youth center and (b) $750,000 to Bridgeport for Burroughs Community Center

133

141

145

153

4,000,000

OPM: Grant to University of New Haven to establish and build Henry Lee Institute

Transfer grant authority to DECD

135

700,000

Social Services: Grant to Norwich for expanding Martin House

Change grantee to Martin House

138

1,000,000

Social Services: Grant to Danbury to buy buildings for Greater Danbury AIDS Project

Change grantee to Greater Danbury AIDS Project

140

500,000

Social Services: grant to West Hartford to relocate senior center

Change purpose from relocate to improve

141

142

250,000

Grant to Middlefield for Mattabeseck bridge improvements

Transfer grant authority from OPM to DOT

143

77,947,900

Gateway CTC: Implement master plan to consolidate campuses in a single location

Change purpose to: develop new comprehensive campus, including parking

154

750,000

Social Services: Grant to Killingly to alter and expand the facilities for United Services of Dayville

Change grantee to United Services of Dayville

§§ 157-161 — CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM 2020 PLAN

This act authorizes nearly $1. 076 million in GO bonds over 10 years starting in FY 10 for the Connecticut State University System (CSUS) 2020 plan, a systemwide capital improvement plan. The bond issuance requires a one-time approval by the State Bond Commission and annual approval by the governor.

The act authorizes the CSUS board of trustees to determine the sequencing and timing of the projects. It also allows the board to revise, delete, or add projects to the plan. The board must report annually to the governor and the General Assembly on the status and progress of CSUS 2020.

§ 158 — Purpose

The act's purpose is to finance a capital improvement plan for the CSUS that includes acquiring, constructing, buying, improving, and equipping facilities, structures, and related systems.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2009

§ 159 — Definitions

The act defines “CSUS 2020” as the projects in the CSUS facilities plan necessary to modernize, rehabilitate, renew, expand, and stabilize the system's physical infrastructure. The “CSUS 2020 Fund” is the fund the act creates to hold the GO bond proceeds used to finance CSUS 2020. The state treasurer holds and administers the fund separate from other accounts.

Under the act, a “project” is any CSU system or university building, including existing ones; real or personal property; related equipment; or improvements, except for current operating charges, unless the board of trustees includes such an amount in a financing transaction to ensure that the interest on the bonds is exempt from federal tax. A project may also include (1) any residential or other auxiliary service facility already defined in statute and (2) any state facility used for CSUS programs.

The “cost” of a project includes (1) all costs associated with purchasing, planning, designing, constructing, and financing; (2) working capital, including the costs incurred by DPW in supervising the design and construction process, and DPS for personnel to oversee code compliance; and (3) consulting or technical services (e. g. , accounting, engineering, and legal services).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2009

§ 160 — Board of Trustees' Powers and Reporting Requirement

Facilities Plan Revisions. The act authorizes the CSUS board of trustees to (1) revise, delete, or add projects to the facilities plan; (2) determine the sequencing and timing of the projects, to the extent the authorized funding allows; and (3) revise cost estimates. It also allows the board to reallocate funds between projects, if the facilities plan is revised accordingly and projects from which money is taken can still be completed within authorized amounts or are deleted from the plan.

CSUS 2020 Annual Report. By January 1, 2011 and annually thereafter, the board of trustees must report to the governor and the Finance, Revenue and Bonding; Higher Education and Employment Advancement; and other appropriate committees on the status and progress of CSUS 2020. The board may request from the treasurer information necessary to prepare the report. The report must include:

1. the number of projects and bonds authorized, approved, and issued;

2. project costs and timeliness of completion;

3. any issues that arise in the design or construction process;

4. a schedule of the remaining projects and their expected costs; and

5. any revisions to the facilities plan approved by the board.

Construction Management and Oversight. By law, DPW is authorized to supervise the design and construction of state buildings, including hiring design and construction firms. The act makes the DPW commissioner responsible for these functions as part of CSUS 2020. It requires him to provide the CSUS chancellor with quarterly information on (1) project costs, (2) timeliness of completion, and (3) any issues that arise in the design or construction process.

The act also requires the public safety commissioner and the chancellor to enter into and maintain an MOU that assigns DPS staff to ensure fire and building code compliance for CSUS 2020 projects. The MOU is to cover CSUS 2020 buildings and projects (1) whose construction begins while it is in effect and (2) that are under the state's threshold limits.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2009

§ 161 — Bond Authorizations

The act authorizes up to $1,075,891,409 over 10 years in state GO bonds. Table 8 shows the maximum amount of bonds authorized for each fiscal year. Any issuance costs and capitalized interest may be added to the annual maximums. If the board of trustees or the governor does not approve all or part of the maximum in a fiscal year, that amount is added to the maximum for the following year.

TABLE 8: CSUS 2020 BOND AUTHORIZATIONS

Fiscal Year

Amount

10

$90,113,409

11

111,002,000

12

144,384,000

13

122,493,000

14

87,135,000

15

98,790,000

16

107,376,000

17

124,025,000

18

99,455,000

19

91,118,000

Bond Commission Approval. The bond commission must approve the CSUS 2020 plan and authorize the total bond issuance. The act requires the CSU board of trustees to enter into an MOU with the OPM secretary and the treasurer regarding the bond issuance, including the extent to which federal, private, or other available funds should be added to the bond proceeds to finance CSUS 2020. The bond commission must approve the MOU, which satisfies the standard requirements for bond commission approval under the State General Obligation Bond Procedure Act.

Governor's Approval. The governor must approve the CSUS 2020 bond issuance for each year of the program. The board of trustees must submit annually, by March 1, the most recently approved facilities plan to the governor, through the OPM secretary. If the OPM secretary recommends it, the governor can disapprove all or part of the requested bonds if (1) she determines that, because of a change in the state's financial condition since the budget was adopted, reductions are needed because estimated budget resources are insufficient to fully fund all appropriations, or (2) the state has reached 90% of its statutory debt limit. The plan is deemed approved if the governor does not act within 30 days. Her approval of the bonds is deemed to be an appropriation and allocation of the bond amounts.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2009

§ 162 — CSUS Auxiliary Service Facility Financing

Prior law allowed the bond commission to issue up to $5 million in GO bonds to finance the design, construction, or renovation of residential and other auxiliary service facilities within the CSUS. It could do this if the General Assembly did not appropriate the lesser of (1) $5 million or (2) one-half the revenue from the student university fee for debt service on self-liquidating GO bonds or CSUS obligations financed through the Connecticut Health and Education Facilities Authority. The bond commission could issue the lesser of the amount the General Assembly failed to appropriate for debt service or $5 million. This authority expires on June 30, 2008.

The act extends the bond commission's authority until June 30, 2019. But it eliminates the alternative authorization amount of one-half the student fee revenue. Instead, it allows the bond commission to issue up to $5 million in GO bonds if the General Assembly does not appropriate at least $5 million to the CSUS for debt service. The new provision conforms the statute to the General Assembly's existing practice of annually authorizing $5 million in GO bonds for CSU auxiliary service facility capital expenses.

The act also revises the definition of auxiliary facilities to include student parking facilities and eliminates a specific list of dormitory and student center projects at the various CSU universities.

§ 163 — USE OF BIOMASS IN ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANTS

PA 07-5, JSS temporarily broadens the types of power plants where construction and demolition (C&D) waste and certain other biomass products can be used as a fuel and the resulting power considered a class I renewable resource. This act both limits and expands these eligibility criteria.

Under PA 07-5, JSS, a plant is eligible if it is certified as class I renewable resource by the Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC). This act limits eligibility for such plants only to those certified as a class I as of this act's effective date. But, it also expands the eligibility criteria to allow a plant to qualify:

1. if, as of October 10, 2007 (the effective date of PA 07-5, JSS), the DPUC has certified it as a class II renewable resource;

2. if it has an application for a class I renewable energy certificate pending before the DPUC; and

3. to the extent it (a) produces renewable energy from C&D waste and certain other biomass products derived from Connecticut sources under a long-term biomass supply contract entered into before November 1, 2007 and (b) was supplying biomass on or before June 1, 2007.

§§ 164-214 — CHANGES IN STATE CONTRACTING

§§ 164-168— State Contracting Standards Board (SCSB)

The act establishes the 14-member SCSB as a separate, independent, Executive Branch agency. The governor appoints eight board members, the Senate president pro tempore and House speaker each appoint two, and the Senate and House majority leaders each appoint one. If the governor is of the same political party as the majority in both chambers of the General Assembly, the top six legislative leaders each appoint one member.

Each member serves at the pleasure of the appointing authority up to a maximum term coterminous with that of the appointing authority. Each appointing authority fills any vacancy in his or her appointment. Eight members of the board, including at least one member appointed by a legislative leader, constitute a quorum, which is required to transact business. The governor appoints the board's chairperson.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon passage, except for the provisions on the board's powers and duties, which are effective October 1, 2008.

Budget and Compensation

The act requires the board's budget, upon approval of its members, to pay its reasonable expenses. Board members receive a $200 per diem.

Board Member Qualifications

Within five consecutive years of the 10 years immediately preceding their appointment, board members must have been educated or trained or had experience in one or more of the following areas:

1. procurement;

2. contract negotiation, selection, and drafting;

3. competitive bidding and proposal procedures;

4. real estate transactions, including real estate and building purchases, sales, and leases;

5. business insurance and bonding;

6. building construction and architecture;

7. ethics in public contracting;

8. federal and state laws, procurement policies, and regulations;

9. outsourcing and privatization analysis;

10. small and minority business enterprise development;

11. engineering and information technology;

12. human services;

13. personnel and labor relations; or

14. contract risk assessment.

“Contract risk assessment” means (1) the identification and evaluation of loss exposures and risks, including business and legal risks associated with contracting, and (2) the identification, evaluation, and implementation of measures available to minimize potential loss exposures and risks.

Board Staff

It requires the governor to appoint and the legislature to confirm an executive director who serves as an ex-officio, nonvoting board member. The executive director may contract as necessary to carry out his or her duties. The board must annually evaluate the executive director's performance and may remove him or her for cause. The executive director reports to the board's chairperson. The board must appoint a chief procurement officer (CPO) for a term not to exceed six years, unless reappointed. The CPO reports to, is annually evaluated by, and serves at the pleasure of the board. For administrative purposes only, the executive director supervises the CPO.

In consultation with the CPO, the executive director must:

1. prepare a comprehensive plan of the board's administrative functions,

2. coordinate the board's budget and personnel activities,

3. provide for the board's administrative organization to be examined for economy and efficiency,

4. act as the board's external liaison, and

5. perform any other duties the chairperson or board assigns, as appropriate.

Beginning July 1, 2008, the executive director may contract with consultants and professionals as necessary to carry out his or her duties.

The CPO is responsible for carrying out the board's policies relating to procurement, including oversight, investigation, auditing, agency procurement certification, procurement and project management training, and enforcement. He or she also ensures that state contracting agencies apply the policies when they screen and evaluate current and prospective contractors. The CPO may contract as necessary for the discharge of his or her duties, including recommending best practices and assisting state agencies that the board determines are violating the act.

The CPO must also:

1. oversee state contracting agencies' compliance with statutes and regulations concerning procurement;

2. monitor and assess each agency's procurement officer's performance;

3. administer a certification system (see below) and monitor compliance with procurement statutes and regulations, including the education and training, performance, and qualifications of agency procurement officers;

4. review and monitor the procurement processes of each state contracting agency, quasi-public agency, and institution of higher education; and

5. serve as chairperson of the Contracting Standards Advisory Council and an ex-officio member of the Vendor and Citizen Advisory Panel (see below).

Board Ethics and Operations

The act prohibits board members and staff from having a state or municipal position. It also prohibits board non-clerical staff, or their spouse, child, stepchild, parent, or sibling from having an association with any business that does business with the state. An associated business is one owned by an official, employee, or immediate family member, or in which any one of them (1) serves as an officer, director, or compensated agent or (2) owns at least 5% of the stock in any class.

It requires board members and employees to file with the board and the Office of State Ethics, by May 1 annually, a statement of financial interest required by the State Ethics Code. The financial statement is a public record and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Any board employee who violates the employment prohibition and any board employee or member who fails to file the statement violates the State Ethics Code and may be subject to the code's penalties, including a fine of up to $10,000.

The act requires the board to adopt any rules it deems necessary to conduct its internal affairs, including appellate rules of procedure and reviews of appeals by bidders.

§ 166 — Powers and Duties

The act permits the board to exercise the rights, powers, duties, and authority related to the state's procurement policies, now vested in, or exercised by, any state contracting agency. These consist of the right, power, duty, or authority:

1. to acquire, manage, control, warehouse, sell, and dispose of supplies, services, and construction;

2. related to any state contracting or procurement processes, including, leasing and transferring property; purchasing or leasing supplies, material, or equipment; retaining consultants or consultant services; making service agreements; or arranging privatization contracts; and

3. related to public building construction contracts.

“Consultant services” are professional services rendered by architects; professional engineers; landscape architects; land surveyors; accountants; interior designers; environmental professionals; planners; and people who perform professional work such as educational and medical services, information technology, and real estate appraisals.

Upon the board's request, each state contracting agency must give the board procurement information in a timely manner. The act gives the board access to all information, files, and records related to any state contracting agency. The act specifies that it does not require the board to publicly disclose records exempt from disclosure under FOIA.

Unless the board's actions show otherwise, its authority does not limit or restrict the rights, powers, or authority of the contracting agency.

§ 167 — Board's Oversight of Procurement Practices

Except as otherwise provided by law, the board is responsible for:

1. recommending the repeal of repetitive, conflicting, or obsolete state procurement laws;

2. making recommendations regarding information systems for state procurement including data element and design and the state contracting portal;

3. develop a guide to state statutes and regulations concerning procurement for use by all state contracting agencies;

4. helping state contracting agencies comply with state laws and regulations by providing guidance, models, advice, and practical assistance to their staff related to (a) buying the best service at the best price; (b) properly selecting contractors; and (c) drafting contracts that achieve state goals of accountability, transparency, and results-based outcomes and protect taxpayers' interests; and

5. adopting regulations and policies to carry out state procurement laws in order to facilitate consistent application and require the implementation of best procurement practices.

Review Procurement Legislation, Regulations, and Policies. The board must review and make recommendations concerning proposed legislation and regulations on procuring, managing, controlling, and disposing of supplies, services, and construction, including:

1. prequalification, suspension, debarment, and reinstatement of prospective bidders and contractors;

2. small purchase procedures;

3. conditions and procedures for delegating procurement authority, procuring perishables and items for resale, using source selection methods authorized by statute or regulation, making emergency procurements, and selecting contractors by processes or methods that restrict full and open competition;

4. opening or rejecting bids and offers and waiving errors in bids and offers;

5. confidentiality of technical data and trade secrets submitted by actual or prospective bidders;

6. partial, progressive, and multiple awards;

7. supervision of storerooms and inventories, including determining appropriate stock levels and the management, transfer, sale, or other disposal of publicly owned supplies;

8. definitions and classes of contractual services and procedures for acquiring them;

9. regulations for conducting cost and price analysis;

10. use of payment and performance bonds;

11. guidelines for using cost principles in negotiations, adjustments, and settlements; and

12. identifying procurement best practices.

The board must give the governor and the Government Administration and Elections Committee recommendations concerning procurement statutes and regulations.

Board to Coordinate Procurement and Contracting Officers. The board must train and oversee procurement and contracting officers in each state contracting agency.

The act requires the head of each state contracting agency to appoint an agency procurement officer to act as a liaison between the agency and the CPO on the agency's procurement activities. The activities include (1) implementing and complying with statutes and regulations on procurement and any policies or regulations the board adopts and (2) coordinating the training and education of agency procurement employees.

The agency procurement officer must assure that contractors are properly screened before a contract is awarded, evaluate their performances during and at the end of a contract, submit written evaluations to a central data repository that the board designates, and create a project management plan that includes annual reports to the board on the agency's procurement projects.

Agency Procurement Certification

Beginning January 1, 2009, the act requires the board to review and certify that a state contracting agency's procurement processes comply with procurement statutes and regulations. It must accomplish this by:

1. establishing procurement and project management education and training criteria;

2. certifying agency procurement and contracting officers; and

3. approving, in consultation with the Office of State Ethics, an ethics training course, including a course for state employees involved in procurement and prequalifying state contractors and substantial subcontractors.

The Office of State Ethics or any person, firm, or corporation may develop and provide the training, but the board must approve the course.

Employees must maintain the certification in good standing at all times while performing procurement functions.

The board must recertify each state contracting agency's procurement processes at least every three years, notify them of any certification deficiency, and exercise its enforcement authority if it finds noncompliance.

Contract Data Reporting

The act requires the board to “define the contract data reporting requirements to the board for state agencies. ” Although, it is unclear what this actually means, it may mean that the board must inform state agencies of their duties to report data on:

1. the number and type of state contracts that each state contracting agency has in effect statewide;

2. their client agencies;

3. contractors' names;

4. the contracts' terms and dollar values;

5. services purchased under such contracts;

6. their evaluations of contractors' performances, including records on suspensions or disqualifications and assurances that the information is available on the state contracting portal; and

7. all contracts and contractors awarded without full and open competition, including the reasons for the decisions and the names of the authorities that approved them.

Procurement and Project Management Training

The SCSB, with the advice and assistance of the DAS commissioner, must develop a standardized state procurement and project management education and training program. The board must adopt implementing regulations.

The program must develop education, training, and professional development opportunities for state contracting agency employees with procurement responsibilities. It must educate the employees on general business acumen and proper purchasing procedures as established in procurement statutes and regulations. The program must emphasize ethics, fairness, consistency, and project management.

The program must include:

1. training and education in federal, state, and municipal procurement processes, including the state procurement statutes and regulations and principles of project management;

2. training and education courses developed in cooperation with the Office of State Ethics, Freedom of Information Commission, State Elections Enforcement Commission, Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, Attorney General's Office, and any other state agency the board determines is necessary;

3. technical assistance to help state contracting agencies, quasi-public agencies, constituent units of higher education, and municipalities implement procurement statutes and regulations and regulations, policies, and standards the board develops;

4. training current and prospective contractors, vendors, and others seeking to do business with the state; and

5. training and education for state employees in best procurement practices in state purchasing with the goal of achieving the level of acumen necessary to achieve the objectives of state statutes and regulations.

The act requires state contracting agency employees responsible for buying, purchasing, renting, leasing, or otherwise acquiring any supplies, services, or construction to participate in the program. The board must give employees who complete the program a certificate acknowledging their participation. It must give the governor and legislature an annual status report on the training and education program.

§ 169 — Compliance Audits

The act requires the board to audit state contracting agencies at least once every three years and report on their compliance with procurement statutes and regulations. During the audit, the act gives the board access to all of the agencies' contracting and procurement records and authority to interview people responsible for awarding and negotiating contracts or procurement. The board can contract with the state auditors to conduct the audit.

The board must identify in the compliance report (1) any process or procedure that is inconsistent with procurement laws and regulations and (2) corrective measures to achieve compliance. It must deliver the report, which is a public record, to the contracting agency within 30 days after the audit is completed.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2010

§ 170 — Disciplinary Actions for Noncompliance And Other Violations

The board may review, terminate, or recommend to a state contracting agency terminating a contract or procurement agreement, for cause, after consulting with the attorney general and giving the agency and contractor 15 days notice. “For cause” means (1) engaging in activities prohibited under the State Ethics Code as determined by the Citizen's Ethics Advisory Board; (2) wanton or reckless disregard of any state contracting and procurement process by anyone substantially involved in the contract or with the state contracting agency; or (3) notification from the attorney general to the state contracting agency that a whistleblower investigation indicates that the contract process was compromised by fraud, collusion, or any other criminal violation.

Before terminating a contract, the board must (1) consult with the contracting agency to determine the impact of an immediate termination and (2) jointly decide with the agency that immediate termination will not cause imminent peril to public health, safety, or welfare. The board's decision to terminate must be approved by a two-thirds vote of its members present and voting, including at least one member appointed by a legislative leader. The board must notify the state contracting agency and the contractor of the opportunity for a hearing under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA).

The board may (1) restrict or terminate a state contracting agency's contracting or procurement authority or (2) recommend that a state contracting agency restrict or terminate an employee's or agent's authority to enter a contract or procurement agreement. Before taking this action, the board must (1) find that the agency or employee failed to comply with statutory contracting and procurement requirements and showed a reckless disregard for applicable policies and procedures; (2) provide 15 days notice and a hearing; and (3) decide the matter upon a two-thirds vote, including at least one vote by a member appointed by a legislative leader. Any restriction or termination stays in effect until the agency implements corrective measures and complies with procurement laws and regulations. Any agency restriction or termination must be in the state's best interest. The board must arrange for the exercise of the agency's contracting power during the restriction or termination.

This section does not limit the board's authority to perform compliance audits.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2010

§ 171 — Contracting Standards Advisory Council

The act establishes a Contracting Standards Advisory Council consisting of the CPO who serves as chairperson and representatives from the Office of Policy and Management; the departments of Transportation, Administrative Services, Public Works, and Information Technology; and three other contracting agencies that the governor designates, including one human services-related state agency.

The council must meet at least four times a year to discuss state procurement issues and recommend improvements to the procurement process to the SCSB. It may conduct studies, research, and analyses and make reports and recommendations with respect to matters within SCSB's jurisdiction.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2008

§ 172 — Vendor Advisory Board

The act establishes a 15-member Vendor and Citizen Advisory Panel. The governor appoints three members and the six top legislative leaders each appoint two. No more than six members can be vendors experienced in state procurement. The remaining nine must be citizen members with education, training, or experience, received in five consecutive years of the 10 years immediately preceding their appointment, in one or more of the following areas:

1. government procurement;

2. contract negotiation, drafting, and management;

3. contract risk assessment;

4. preparing requests for proposals, invitations to bid, and other procurement solicitations;

5. evaluating proposals, bids, and quotations;

6. real property transactions;

7. business insurance and bonding;

8. the State Code of Ethics;

9. federal and state laws, policies, and regulations;

10. outsourcing and privatization proposal analysis;

11. government taxation and finance;

12. small and minority business enterprise development;

13. collective bargaining; and

14. human services.

The CPO chairs the panel and serves as an ex-officio member. The panel makes recommendations to the board on best practices in state procurement processes and project management and other issues pertaining to system stakeholders.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2008

§ 173 — SCSB Legislation on Application of Procurement Laws And Regulations

On or before January 1, 2010, the board must submit to the governor and legislature necessary legislation to permit state contracting agencies, other than quasi-public agencies, institutions of higher education, and municipal procurement processes using state funds, to comply with procurement laws and regulations.

Within the next year, the board must submit legislation necessary to have (1) procurement statutes apply to constituent units of higher education and (2) privatization and procurement statutes and regulations apply to quasi-public agencies.

By January 1, 2012, the board must submit legislation to governor and legislature necessary to have procurement statutes and regulations apply to municipalities when state funds are involved.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2008

§ 174 — SCSB Assistance To Statewide Officers

The board must help the secretary of the state, comptroller, treasurer, and attorney general develop the best procurement practices specific to their constitutional and statutory functions and consistent with procurement statutes and regulations. Each of the statewide officers must adopt a procurement code on or before June 1, 2011.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2008

§ 175 — Judicial and Legislative Procurement Codes

By January 1, 2011, the act requires the Judicial and Legislative branches to each prepare a procurement code for their use when contracting for, buying, renting, leasing, or otherwise acquiring or disposing of supplies, equipment, or services, including consultant, personal, and construction services.

By the same date, the Judicial Branch must submit its code to the Judiciary Committee for review and approval.

The codes must:

1. establish uniform contracting standards and practices;

2. ensure the fair and equitable treatment of all businesses and people involved in the procurement system;

3. include a process for maximizing the use of small contractors and minority business enterprises;

4. provide increased economy in procurement activities and maximize purchasing value to the fullest extent possible;

5. ensure that they procure supplies, materials, equipment, services, real property, and construction in a cost-effective and responsive manner;

6. include a process to ensure accountability between contractors and each branch;

7. simplify and clarify contracting standards and procurement policies and practices, including procedures for competitive sealed bids or proposals; small purchases; and sole source, special, and emergency procurements; and

8. provide a process for competitive sealed bids and proposals; small purchases; sole source, emergency, and special procurements; best-value selection; and qualification-based selection, and the conditions for their use.

“Best-value selection” means a process to award contracts based on quality, timeliness, and costs. “Qualification-based selection” means a process to award contracts based primarily on contractor qualifications and a fair and reasonable price. “Emergency procurements” are those necessary because of a sudden, unexpected occurrence that (1) poses a clear and imminent danger to public safety or requires immediate action to prevent or reduce loss or impairment of life, health, property, or essential public services or (2) is needed in response to a court order, settlement agreement, or other similar legal judgment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2008

§ 176 — State Contracting Portal

The act requires DAS to work with the SCSB to establish and maintain on its website a single electronic portal of all contracting opportunities with Executive Branch state agencies, the constituent units of higher education, and quasi-public agencies. The portal must be called the “State Contracting Portal. ” It must at a minimum include:

1. all requests for bids or proposals, other solicitations, related material, and all resulting contracts and agreements;

2. a searchable database for locating information;

3. executed personal service agreements and purchase of service contracts;

4. any document DAS designates that describes approved contracting processes and procedures; and

5. prominent features to encourage small businesses and women-and minority-owned enterprises to participate in the state contracting process.

All Executive Branch agencies, constituent units of higher education, and quasi-public agencies must (1) post all bids, requests for proposals, and all resulting contracts and agreements on the portal and (2) develop written policies and procedures to ensure that information posted on the portal is timely, complete, and accurate as determined by the highest legal and ethical standards of state government. They must, with the assistance of DAS and the Department of Information Technology as needed, develop the infrastructure and capability to communicate electronically with the portal.

DAS must give the governor and the SCSB periodic progress reports on (1) the agencies' and units' development of the capacity, infrastructure, policies, and procedures necessary to communicate electronically with the portal and (2) DAS' progress in establishing and maintaining the portal.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2008

§ 177 — Accountability And Transparency

Beginning January 1, 2010, the act requires all Legislative Branch, Judicial Branch, and state contracting agency contracts that take effect June 1, 2010 to contain provisions to ensure accountability, transparency, and results-based outcomes. State contracting agencies' contracts must contain the outcomes prescribed by the SCSB.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2008

§ 179 — Privatization

Before privatizing any state service that is not currently privatized, a state contracting agency must develop a cost-benefit analysis and a business case. For the purpose of this section, “state contracting agencies” are Executive Branch agencies and constituent units of higher education. Any affected party may petition the SCSB to review the contract. The requirement does not apply (1) to a privatization contract for a service currently provided at least in part by a non-state entity or (2) if the state contracting agency determines the contract is required because of an imminent peril to public health, safety, or welfare and (a) the agency states, in writing, its reasons for such finding, and (b) the governor approves the finding in writing.

This section does not apply to procurements that involve the expenditure of federal assistance or contract funds if federal law provides procurement procedures are inconsistent with state procurement statutes or regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2009

Cost-Benefit Analysis

The cost-benefit analysis must document the direct and indirect costs, savings, and qualitative and quantitative benefits of the privatization contract. The analysis must (1) specify the minimum schedule required to achieve any estimated savings and (2) clearly identify any cost factor. Cost factors must be supported by all applicable records and reports. The state contracting agency's head must certify that, based on the data and information, all projected costs, savings, and benefits are valid and achievable. “Costs” means all reasonable, relevant and verifiable expenses, including salary, materials, supplies, services, equipment, capital depreciation, rent, maintenance, repairs, utilities, insurance, travel, overhead, interim and final payments and the normal cost of fringe benefits, as calculated by the comptroller. “Savings” means the difference between the current annual direct and indirect costs of providing the service and the projected, annual direct and indirect costs of contracting to provide them in any succeeding state fiscal year during the term of the proposed privatization contract.

If the cost-benefit analysis finds a cost savings of less than 10%, that the contract will not diminish the quality of services, and a significant public policy reason to privatize, the state contracting agency may develop a business case to evaluate the feasibility of entering the contract and to identify its potential results, effectiveness, and efficiency. If the cost savings is at least 10% and the contract will not diminish the quality of services, the agency must develop a business case.

If the contract would result in at least 100 layoffs, transfers, or reassignments, after consulting with unions, the contracting agency must notify the affected employees after the cost-benefit analysis is completed, give them the opportunity to reduce the costs of providing the services to be privatized, and give them resources to encourage and help them organize and bid on the contract. (It is not clear the effect this provision has on existing law that makes certain subjects, such as wages and hours, mandatory subjects of collective bargaining. )

Business Case

Any business case must include:

1. the cost-benefit analysis;

2. a detailed description of the service or activity that is the subject of the business case;

3. a description and analysis of the state contracting agency's current performance of the service or activity;

4. the goals to be achieved through the proposed privatization contract and the rationale for them;

5. a description of available options for achieving these goals;

6. an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each option, including potential performance improvements and the risks of terminating or rescinding the contract;

7. a description of the current market for the services or activities that are the subject of the business case;

8. an analysis of the quality of services as determined by standardized measures and key performance requirements, including compensation, turnover, and staffing ratios;

9. a description of the specific results-based performance standards that must be met to ensure adequate performance by any party performing the service or activity;

10. the projected time frame for key events from the beginning of the procurement process through the contract's expiration, if applicable;

11. a specific and feasible contingency plan that addresses contractor nonperformance and a description of the tasks involved in and costs required for implementing the plan; and

12. a transition plan, if appropriate, for addressing changes in the number of agency personnel, affected business processes, employee transition issues, and communications with affected stakeholders, such as agency clients and members of the public, if applicable.

The transition plan must contain a reemployment and retraining assistance plan for employees who are not retained by the state or employed by the contractor.

If the primary purpose of the proposed privatization contract is to provide a core governmental function, the business case must also include information sufficient to rebut the presumption that the core governmental function should not be privatized. The presumption cannot be construed to prohibit a state contracting agency from contracting for specialized technical expertise not available within the agency; however, the agency must retain responsibility for the core governmental function. A “core governmental function” is one whose primary purpose is (A) to inspect for adherence to health and safety standards because public health or safety may be jeopardized if the inspection is not done or is not done in a timely or proper manner; (B) to establish statutory, regulatory, or contractual standards for a regulated person, entity, or state contractor; (C) to enforce public health or safety statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirements; or (D) criminal or civil law enforcement. If any part of the business case is based on evidence that the state contracting agency is not sufficiently staffed to provide the core governmental function required by the privatization contract, the state contracting agency must also include within the business case a plan to remediate the understaffing to allow the agency to provide the services directly in the future.

Review by SCSB

Once the business case is completed, the state contracting agency must submit it to the SCSB. The SCSB cannot engage in any ex parte communications with a lobbyist, contractor, or union representative during the review. Each state contracting agency that submits a business case for review must give the board all information, documents, or other material the privatization contract committee requires to complete its review and evaluation of the business case. If the privatization contract is projected to cost more than $150 million annually or $600 million over its term, the state contracting agency must also submit the business case to the governor, the Senate president pro tempore, the House speaker, and any collective bargaining unit affected by the proposed contract.

SCSB Privatization Contract Committee

When the SCSB receives a business case from a state contracting agency, it must immediately refer it to a privatization contract committee that consists of five SCSB members appointed by the board's chairperson. The members must represent both gubernatorial and legislative appointments and no more than three members may represent any one political party. At least one member must be an expert in the area that is the subject of the proposed contract. The SCSB chairperson or his or her designee must head the committee.

The committee must employ a standard process for reviewing, evaluating, and approving business cases. The process must include due consideration of: (1) the state contracting agency's cost-benefit analysis; (2) the agency's business case, including any facts, documents, or other materials that are relevant to it; (3) any adverse effect that the privatization contract may have on minority, small, and women-owned businesses that do, or are attempting to do business with the state; and (4) the value of having services performed in the state and within the United States.

The privatization committee must evaluate the business case and submit its evaluation to the SCSB for review and approval. During the review or consideration, no board member can engage in any ex parte communication with any lobbyist, contractor, or union representative.

SCSB Approval of Business Case

Within 60 days after receiving a business case, the SCSB must transmit a report detailing its review, evaluation, and disposition to the state contracting agency that submitted it. In the case of a privatization contract with a projected cost of at least $150 million dollars annually or $600 million dollars over its life time, SCSB must also send the report to the governor, the Senate president pro tempore, the House speaker, and any collective bargaining unit affected by the proposed contract. The 60 days may be extended for an additional 30 days upon a majority vote of the board or the privatization contract committee and for good cause shown. A business case is deemed approved if the SCSB does not act on it within the 60 days, except that no business case may be approved because the board fails to meet.

The board's report must include the business case, the privatization contract committee's evaluation, its reasons for approval or disapproval, any recommendations of the board, and sufficient information to help the state contracting agency determine if additional steps are necessary to proceed with a privatization contract.

Generally, a majority vote of the board is required to approve a business case. However, a two-thirds vote, including the vote of at least one board member appointed by a legislative leader, is required to approve a business case to privatize a core governmental function. Before approval, the state contracting agency must provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the core governmental function should not be privatized and there is a significant policy reason to approve the business case. In no case can a state contracting agency's staffing level constitute a significant policy reason to approve a business case for privatizing a core governmental function.

Any state contracting agency may request an expedited review if there is a compelling public interest for doing so. If the board approves the agency's request, the review must be completed not later than 30 days after receipt. If the board fails to complete an expedited review within the 30 days, the business case is deemed approved.

The state contracting agency retains sole discretion in determining whether to proceed with the privatization contract if the SCSB approves the business case.

Amendments to SCSB-Approved Business Cases

Each state contracting agency must submit to SCSB, in writing, any proposed amendment to a board-approved business case so that the board may review and approve it. The board may approve or disapprove the proposed amendment within 30 days after receipt by the same vote that was required to approve the original business case. If the board fails to complete its review within 30 days, the amendment is deemed approved.

Solicitations for Privatization Contracts

A state contracting agency may publish notice soliciting bids for a privatization contract only after the board approves the business case. A contract that is estimated to cost over $150 million dollars annually or $600 million or more over its life must also be pre-approved by the legislature. The legislature, by a majority vote in either chamber, must either reject or approve the contract in its entirety. If the legislature is in session, it must approve or reject the contract within 30 days after it is filed. If the legislature is not in session when the contract is filed, the contract must be submitted not later than 10 days after the first day of the next regular session or special session called for that purpose.

A contract is deemed approved if the legislature fails to vote to approve or reject it within the 30 days, which period cannot begin or expire unless the legislature is in regular session. Any contract filed with the clerks within 30 days before the start of a regular session is deemed to be filed on the first day of such session.

Recourse by Adversely Affected Employees

Not later than 30 days after the board decides to approve a business case, the collective bargaining agent of any employee adversely affected by the proposed privatization contract may file a motion for an order to show cause in Hartford Superior Court on the grounds that the contract fails to comply with the act's substantive or procedural requirements regarding privatization. The court may: (1) deny the motion, (2) grant the motion if it finds that the proposed contract would substantively violate the act's privatization provisions, or (3) stay the effective date of the contract until any substantive or procedural defect has been corrected.

SCSB's Review of Existing Privatization Contracts

The SCSB may review existing privatization contracts and must review at least one currently privatized contracting area each year. For each privatization contract that the board selects for review, the appropriate state contracting agency must develop a cost-benefit analysis. Any affected party may petition the board to review the business case of any existing privatization contract. The SCSB cannot engage in any ex parte communications with a lobbyist, contractor, or union representative during the review.

If the cost-benefit analysis identifies cost savings of at least 10% and the contract does not diminish the quality of the service provided, the state contracting agency must develop a business case to renew the contract. The board must review the contract just as it does proposed privatization contracts and may approve the renewal by the applicable vote of the board. Any renewal that is estimated to cost over $150 million annually or $600 million dollars or more over its life must also be pre-approved by the General Assembly. If the renewal is approved by the board and the General Assembly, if applicable, the act's provision on proposed amendments applies.

If the cost-benefit analysis identifies a cost savings of less than 10%, the state contracting agency must prepare and begin to implement a plan to have the service provided by state employees. However, (1) after the plan is prepared, but before it is implemented, the state contracting agency may develop a business case for the privatization contract that achieves at least a 10% cost savings and must submit the plan to the SCSB for review and approval; (2) the privatization contract cannot be renewed with the vendor currently providing the service unless there is a significant public interest in doing so and the renewal is approved by a two-thirds vote of the board, including the vote of at least one member appointed by a legislative leader; (3) until the state contracting agency implements the plan, it may contract for the services for up to one year; and (4) funds may be transferred from the General Fund to allocate necessary resources to carry out this provision upon the governor's recommendation and after approval of the Finance Advisory Committee.

Renewal of a privatization contract with a nonprofit organization cannot be denied if the cost of increasing compensation to employees performing the privatized service is the only reason for the contract not achieving at least a 10% cost savings. A “nonprofit” is a not-for-profit business under § 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or any subsequent corresponding code as amended.

Policies and Procedures

OPM, in consultation with the SCSB, must: (1) develop policies and procedures, including templates for state contracting agencies to use when developing a cost-benefit analysis and (2) review with each state contracting agency the budgetary impact of any privatization contract and the need to request budget adjustments in connection with it.

The SCSB, in consultation with the DAS, must: (1) recommend and implement standards and procedures for state contracting agencies to develop business cases in connection with privatization contracts, including templates for them to use when submitting business cases to the board, and policies and procedures to help state contracting agencies complete the cases and (2) develop guidelines and procedures for helping state employees whose jobs are affected by a privatization contract.

§§ 178 & 180 — Application

The act, other than the provisions establishing and outlining the general duties of the SCSB, applies to all contracts state contracting agencies solicit or enter after the January 1, 2008. The SCSB provisions do not affect the four-year pilot program that creates jobs for people with disabilities established under PA 06-129.

Unless otherwise stated, the act's privatization and procurement procedures apply to every expenditure of public funds by any state contracting agency, irrespective of their source, involving any state contracting and procurement processes, including leasing and property transfers; purchasing or leasing of supplies, materials, or equipment; consultant or consultant services; personal service and purchase of service agreements; privatization contracts; and contracts for the construction, reconstruction, alteration, remodeling, repair, or demolition of any public building, bridge, or road.

The act's privatization and procurement procedures cannot be construed to apply to the expenditure of federal assistance or contract funds if federal law provides procurement procedures that are inconsistent with state procurement statutes or regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2010, except the provision on the pilot program, which is effective October 1, 2008.

§ 181 — Requisition System

The act requires the DAS commissioner to establish a requisition system for use by state contracting agencies to initiate and authorize the procurement process when obtaining supplies, materials, equipment, or contractual services, except infrastructure facilities. The SCSB must approve the system.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2010

§ 182 — Procurement Methods

The act requires that all state contracting agencies' purchases of, and contracts for, supplies, materials, equipment, and contractual services made under the competitive bidding process, be awarded by one of the following methods unless otherwise authorized by law:

1. competitive sealed bidding,

2. competitive sealed proposals,

3. small purchase procedure,

4. sole source procurement,

5. emergency procurement, or

6. waiver of bid or proposal requirement for extraordinary conditions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 2009

§§ 192 & 193 — Inspections and Audits

State contracting agencies' contracts must permit the agencies, at reasonable times, to inspect the part of the plant or place of business of a contractor or any subcontractor that is related to the performance of any contract awarded, or to be awarded by the state, to ensure compliance with the contract.

State contracting agencies may audit the books and records of a contractor or subcontractor under any negotiated contract or subcontract to the extent that the books and records relate to the performance of the contract or subcontract. The contractor must maintain the books and records for three years from the date of final payment under the prime contract and the subcontractor for a period of three years from the expiration of the subcontract.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2008

§ 194 — Anticompetitive Practices Among Bidders

When an affected party suspects collusion or other anticompetitive practices among any bidders or proposers for a state contract, the party must give the attorney general notice of the relevant facts. Affected parties include the state contracting agency or a bidder or proposer. A proposer is a business submitting a proposal in response to a request for proposals or other competitive sealed proposal by a state contracting agency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2008

§§ 187, 195 & 196 — Record Requests and Retention

The act permits state contracting agencies to request factual information reasonably available to bidders or proposers to substantiate the reasonableness of offered prices or costs. Under the act, each state contracting agency must retain and dispose of all procurement records in accordance with the public records administrator's records retention guidelines and schedules.

The act requires the agency procurement officer to maintain a record listing all contracts made under the uniform procurement code for a minimum of five years. The record must contain:

1. each contractor's name;

2. the amount and type of each contract; and

3. a list of the supplies, services, or construction procured under each contract.

All procurement records must be retained and disposed of in accordance with the public records administrator's records retention guidelines and schedules.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2008, except that the provision on the agency procurement officer is effective on January 1, 2010.

§ 197 — Disqualifications

General Provisions. The act allows the SCSB to disqualify any contractor, bidder, or proposer from bidding on, applying for, or participating as contractor or subcontractor under state contracts. The disqualification can run for up to five years.

In order to disqualify a contractor, bidder, or proposer, the board must (1) consult with the relevant contracting agency and the attorney general; (2) provide reasonable notice and hold a hearing; and (3) act through a subcommittee of three members, including at least one legislative appointee, appointed by the board's chairperson. In determining whether to disqualify a contractor, bidder, or proposer, the board must consider the seriousness of the affected party's acts or omissions and any mitigating factors.

The subcommittee must issue a written recommendation within 60 days after its hearing ends. The recommendation must state the reasons for the subcommittee's action and the length of any disqualification. A disqualification recommendation requires the vote of two subcommittee members present and voting. The subcommittee must submit the recommendation to the board for action and mail it to the contractor by certified mail, return receipt requested. Once the board receives the subcommittee's recommendations, but no later than 30 days after receiving any comments from the targeted contractor, it must issue a written decision adopting, rejecting, or modifying them. The board must mail the decision to the contractor by certified mail, return receipt requested. The decision is final and can be appealed to Superior Court.

Under the act, the grounds for disqualification include:

1. conviction of, or entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) or admission to (a) the commission of a crime in connection with obtaining or attempting to obtain a public or private contract or subcontract, or in the performance of a contract or subcontract; (b) the violation of any state or federal law for embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, receiving stolen property, or other offenses indicating a lack of business integrity or honesty that affects responsibility as a contractor; or (c) a violation of any state or federal antitrust, collusion, or conspiracy law arising from the submission of bids or proposals on a public or private contract or subcontract;

2. accumulation of two or more agency suspensions within a 24-month period;

3. a willful, negligent, or reckless failure to meet the terms of one or more state contracts or subcontracts, agreements, or transactions;

4. a history of failure to perform, or of unsatisfactory performance, on one or more state contracts, agreements, or transactions;

5. a willful violation of a statutory or regulatory provision or requirement applicable to a state contract, agreement, or transaction;

6. a willful or egregious violation of State Ethics Code provisions on prohibited activities and prohibited activities by consultants and independent contractors as determined by the Citizen's Ethics Advisory Board; or

7. any other cause or conduct the board determines to be so serious and compelling as to affect responsibility as a state contractor.

The last category includes: (1) disqualification by another state for cause; (2) the existence of an informal or formal business relationship with a contractor who has been disqualified from bidding or proposing on state contracts of any state contracting agency; and (3) the fraudulent or criminal conduct of any officer, director, shareholder, partner, employee, or other individual associated with a contractor, bidder, or proposer if the conduct was connected with the individual's performance of duties for, or on behalf of, the contractor, bidder, or proposer who knew or had reason to know of the conduct.

Modification of Disqualification. The act allows the board to reduce the period or the extent of a disqualification at the written request of a contractor, bidder, or proposer. It may do so if the affected party provides supporting documentation of:

1. newly discovered material evidence;

2. a reversal of the conviction upon which the disqualification was based;

3. a bona fide change in ownership or management; or

4. the elimination of other causes for which the disqualification was imposed.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2010

§ 198 — Agency Suspensions

The act allows the department head of any state contracting agency, after reasonable notice and a hearing, to suspend any contractor, bidder, or proposer for up to six months from bidding on, applying for, or performing work as a contractor or subcontractor under state contracts. The department head must issue a written decision within 90 days after the hearing ends, which must state the reasons for the action taken and the length of any suspension. In determining whether to suspend a contractor, bidder, or proposer, the department head must consider the seriousness of the acts or omissions and any mitigating factors. The department head must send the decision to the contractor and the SCSB by certified mail, return receipt requested. The decision is final and can be appealed to Superior Court.

The causes for suspension include:

1. failure without good cause to perform in accordance with specifications or within the time limits provided in the contract;

2. a record of failure to perform or of unsatisfactory performance in accordance with the terms of one or more contracts, other than those caused by acts beyond the control of the contractor, bidder, or proposer;

3. any cause the contracting agency determines to be so serious and compelling as to affect the responsibility of a state contractor, bidder, or proposer, including suspension by another contracting agency for cause; or

4. a violation of the State Ethics Code's ethical standards as determined by the Citizen's Ethics Advisory Board.

The act allows the SCSB to grant an exception permitting a suspended contractor to participate in a particular contract or subcontract upon its written determination that there is good cause for the exception and the exception is in the state's best interest.

Each state department head must review contractors and file reports pertaining to any of the reasons under the act that may be the basis for suspension.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2010

§§ 200 & 201 — Appeals From Agency's Suspension Decisions

The act permits contractors, bidders, or proposers to appeal an SCSB subcommittee's suspension decision to the full board within 14 days after receiving it. Each bidder or proposer must state the facts supporting its claim in enough detail for the SCSB to determine whether procedural elements of the solicitation or award failed to comply with the code or whether an unauthorized or unwarranted, noncompetitive selection process was used. (An incorrect internal citation establishes a procedure for appealing the way a contract is awarded rather than one for appealing an agency's decision to suspend a contractor, which was apparently the intention). The appeal does not automatically prohibit the award or execution of the contested contract.

The act requires the SCSB to create a subcommittee of three of its members, including one legislative appointee, to review these appeals and vote on whether an allegation has been substantiated. The appeals committee may not include any SCSB member who originally heard the case. Unless the subcommittee's vote is unanimous, the full board must review the appeal and dispose of it by a vote of two-thirds of its members present and voting, including at least one legislative appointee. (The act does not specify what happens if the full board's vote is less than two-thirds. ) And any three board members may request that the full board review an agency's deliberative or awards process.

The subcommittee, or the full board in the event of a split vote, must issue a written decision, or take other appropriate action, on each appeal and provide a copy of any decision to the bidder or proposer. The subcommittee must act within 90 days after receiving the appeal. The full board must act within 90 days after receiving the appeal from the subcommittee. If the subcommittee or full board decides in the bidder's or proposer's favor, the board must direct the state contracting agency to take corrective action within 30 days after the decision date. A decision by the full board or the appeals review committee is final and not subject to appeal.

The board must provide a copy of the decision to all parties, the head of the state contracting agency, and the chief procurement officer.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2010

§ 199 — Contesting State Contract Solicitations or Awards

The act establishes a process for bidders or proposers on state contracts to contest (1) the way the contracts were solicited or awarded or (2) an unauthorized or unwarranted, noncompetitive selection process. They may bring a claim to a SCSB subcommittee consisting of three members, including at least one legislative appointee, appointed by the chairperson. The claim must be in writing and submitted within 14 days after the claimant knew or should have known about the facts forming the basis for the claim. Claims must be limited to the solicitation or awarding procedures or of unauthorized or unwarranted, noncompetitive selection.

The act authorizes the subcommittee to resolve or settle the claim. If it is not resolved, the act requires the subcommittee to issue a written decision within 30 days after receiving the claim and provide a copy to the claimant. The decision must:

1. describe the procedure the agency used to solicit and award the contract,

2. indicate the agency's (apparently this means the subcommittee) findings on the claim's merits, and

3. inform the claimant of his right to review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2010

§§ 202 & 203 — Illegal Solicitations and Awards

Prior to an award, the SCSB must cancel or revise a solicitation or proposed award of a state contracting agency's contract that violates the law.

If the board makes the determination after the contract is awarded and the contract recipient did not act in bad faith, the contract may be (1) ratified and affirmed by the state contracting agency if the board determines doing so is in the best interests of the state or (2) terminated and the recipient compensated for the actual expenses reasonably incurred under the contract, plus a reasonable profit.

If the person awarded the contract acted in bad faith, the contract may (1) be declared null and void or (2) ratified and affirmed if doing so is in the best interests of the state, as determined by the SCSB. The determination must be in writing and without prejudice to the state's right to any appropriate damages.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2010

§§ 182-210 — Regulations Establishing Procurement Policies and Procedures

The act requires the SCSB to adopt regulations, in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, establishing state procurement policies and procedures. Generally, the deadline for adopting the regulations is January 1, 2010. For those concerning (1) contracting procedures for constituent units of higher education, it is July 1, 2010 and (2) establishing small purchase procedures, it is July 1, 2009.

Under the act, the SCSB must adopt regulations:

1. (a) defining competitive sealed bidding, competitive sealed proposals, small purchase procedure, sole source procurement, emergency procurements, and waiver of bid or proposal requirements for extraordinary conditions; (b) establishing the circumstances under which state contracting agencies use these methods; and (c) establishing the processes and criteria for awarding purchases and contracts in accordance with each method;

2. specifying the procedure for issuing invitations for bids, including (a) the required elements, (b) the process for opening bids, and (c) evaluation criteria for awarding bids;

3. specifying when contracts and purchase orders exceeding $50,000 do not have to go through the competitive sealed- bidding procedure;

4. in consultation with DAS, establishing small purchase procedures for procurements of $50,000 or less (see Below);

5. in consultation with the DAS commissioner, specifying when a contract for a supply, service, or construction item does not have to go through competitive bidding (see Below);

6. establishing procedures for waiving competitive bidding or proposal requirements;

7. in consultation with the DAS commissioner and any other appropriate awarding authority, permitting emergency procurements when a threat to the public's health, welfare, or safety exists (see Below);

8. in consultation with the DAS commissioner, establishing standards for preparing and maintaining the content of specifications for state supplies, services, and construction;

9. in consultation with the attorney general, specifying the types of contracts that state contracting agencies may use when procuring consultant services;

10. requiring proposed contractors, before the award of a contract, to submit documentation to the contracting agency confirming that their accounting system will permit timely processing of necessary cost data in the required format;

11. specifying (a) the process for procuring (1) architectural and engineering services in design-bid-build procurements, (2) construction in design-bid-build procurements, and (3) construction management at-risk and (b) project delivery methods;

12. requiring bid security for all competitive sealed bidding for construction contracts in design-bid-build procurement when the contracting agency estimates the price will exceed $500,000;

13. establishing the process for procuring consultant services (see Below);

14. in consultation with state contracting agencies and the attorney general, requiring state contracts with state contracting agencies concerning infrastructure facilities to include clauses for (a) price adjustments, (b) time performance, (c) remedies, (d) termination, or (e) other contract provisions necessary to protect the state's interests; (§ 209)

15. concerning the procedures and circumstances under which state construction contracts of more than $ 50,000 may undergo (1) contract modifications, (2) change orders, or (3) contract price adjustments (see Below); and

16. applying the act's procurement procedures to each constituent unit of higher education, taking into consideration circumstances and factors unique to them.

In addition, the State Insurance and Risk Management Board must adopt regulations, in consultation with the SCSB, specifying when a state contracting agency must require proposers to provide errors and omissions insurance to cover architectural and engineering services under the project delivery methods described above. Under the act, a “proposer” is a person, firm, or corporation that submits a bid in response to an RFP or other sealed proposal.

Small Purchase Procedures

The regulations establishing small purchase procedures for procurements of $50,000 or less must prohibit dividing a procurement to make use of the procedures. The act specifies that the SCSB, in consultation with the DAS commissioner, determines if a contracting agency has artificially divided a procurement. Upon making such a determination, the SCSB must prohibit the state contracting agency from utilizing the small purchase procedures.

In addition, the act authorizes the SCSB, in consultation with the DAS commissioner, to waive the competitive bidding or negotiation requirements in the case of minor, nonrecurring, or emergency purchases of $ 10,000 or less.

Contracts for Supply, Service or Construction Items

The regulations must cover situations when an agency contracting officer states, in writing, that there is only one source for the required item. They must specify that a sole source procurement is permitted when an item is available only from a single supplier.

Emergency Procurements

The act specifies that emergency procurements go through a competitive bidding process when practicable under the circumstances. The regulations must require the contract file to include a written determination of the basis for the emergency and for the contractor selection. The information must be transmitted to the Governor and the top six legislative leaders.

Types of Contracts

The regulations must specify that a cost-reimbursement contract may be used only when the agency procurement officer makes a written determination that (1) such a contract is likely to cost less than any other type or (2) that it is impracticable to obtain the supplies, services, or construction required, except under such a contract.

Modifications, Change Orders, and Price Adjustments

Under the act, the regulations must require prior written certification for every contract modification, change order, or contract price adjustment for a state construction contract over $50,000. The written certification may be signed by (1) the fiscal officer of the contracting state agency or the agency responsible for funding the project or (2) an official responsible for monitoring and reporting on the status of the total project or contract budget.

If the changes will increase the total project or contract budget, the agency procurement officer cannot execute the modification, change order, or adjustment unless sufficient funds are available or the scope of the project or contract is adjusted to permit the degree of completion that is feasible within the total project or contract budget as it existed before the contract change under consideration. However, “with respect to the validity as to the contractor, of any executed contract modification, change order, or adjustment in contract price which the contractor has reasonably relied upon, it shall be presumed that there has been compliance with the provisions of this section. ” It is unclear what this language means.

“Change orders” are written orders signed by an official designated by the department head directing the contractor to make authorized changes.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2008, except the provision requiring the SCSB to (1) establish a requisition system (§ 181) is effective January 1, 2010, and (2) establish the circumstances under which state contracting agencies may use other procurement methods (§ 182) is effective June 1, 2009.

§§ 211-213 — Appropriations and Fringe Benefits

The act transfers $800,000 from the Department of Labor's Workforce Investment Act Account to implement its provisions. It appropriates $700,000 to the SCSB from the General Fund for FY 08-09 to carry out the board's duties under the act.

The act requires the SCSB to transfer to the comptroller any amount she determines necessary to cover employee fringe benefits.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2008

§ 214 — Repealer

The act repeals An Act Concerning Clean Contracting Standards, PA 07-1, September Special Session.

OLR Tracking: JSL/KM/JF/RP/SNE/SS: TS