But municipal advocates urged Gov. Ned Lamont and the General Assembly Wednesday to reverse that trend, noting that while budget caps have kept state coffers flush, inadequate aid has left many communities struggling.

“It was a great injustice,” New London Mayor Michael Passero, president of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, said during a morning press conference at the Capitol.

“Revenues which were intended for municipalities — especially municipalities like mine — started to be diverted [in 2002] because of the state’s own fiscal woes,” he added. “That diversion has continued to this day, even though the state is much more healthier, financially.”

Technically, the General Fund for this year’s $27.2 billion state budget is projected to be $6 million in deficit, a miniscule shortfall that represents 1/40^th of 1% of spending.

But that doesn’t include more than $1.8 billion in income and business tax receipts that a special savings program withholds from the budget.

Those unspent dollars are more than 30 times the $52.5 million in casino revenues the state will share with its 169 cities and towns this budget cycle.

That $52.5 million is roughly 14% of the $365 million in video slot revenues the state will receive this fiscal year from tribal casinos through an arrangement that dates to the early 1990s.

Municipal advocates called Wednesday for a 50-50 split from now on, saying it would help restore towns to the level of support they received decades ago.

Weicker secured CT’s share of casino revenues

Connecticut’s first casino opened in 1992 when the Mashantucket Pequot tribe, having received federal recognition, opened Foxwoods on its sovereign land, located near the Ledyard-North Stonington border in New London County.

That casino originally opened only with table games.

It added the extremely popular video slot machines one year later when then-Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. negotiated a compact that ended the state’s legal objections to the game.

In return, the tribe has given Connecticut 25% of receipts from the video slots, an agreement that the Mohegan tribe agreed to follow when it opened the Mohegan Sun in 1996 on sovereign land within the boundaries of Montville.

Weicker, an opponent of casino gambling, argued that gaming centers would greatly increase demand for social programs, public safety, affordable housing and other services provided chiefly by municipalities, which should therefore get most of the state’s share of gaming revenues.

When state lawmakers crafted a budget for the 1993-94 fiscal year, they anticipated $113 million from the recently opened Foxwoods and pledged 78% of the funds, $88.1 million, to communities, according to state budget records.

Based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ inflation calculator, that aid would be worth almost $200 million now.

By 2000, the state’s share of revenues topped $300 million, and lawmakers increased the annual amount sent to communities to $135 million — but that didn’t last for long.

Just one year later, worsening state finances prompted legislators to cut towns’ share to $127.4 million.  And by 2003, as Connecticut moved out of recession, the portion was down to $77.5 million.

It would climb back to about $85 million in 2004 and remain close to that level until the next recession. But in the 2009-10 fiscal year it would hit a new low, reduced to $61.7 million, or about 16% of the $384 million Connecticut was set to receive from casinos.

The toll of that erosion has been felt by many cities and towns, municipal leaders say.

In New London, where 20% of families live in poverty, aid from all state grants represented 41% of the city’s revenues in 2017 but 33% now.

Towns face an uphill battle in pursuit of casino funds

But it remains uncertain whether towns will receive a greater share of casino receipts. That’s because there are many other initiatives, including some that also would help towns, fighting for a share of Connecticut’s flush coffers.

Lamont, who is seeking reelection this November for a third term, wants to spend $500 million on a one-time $200-per-person tax rebate to be paid out in late October.

Majority Democrats in the House and Senate still hope to find hundreds of millions of dollars to expand a $300 million initiative last June to increase affordable child care.

And many lawmakers also want to increase education aid to local school districts by $150 million or more next fiscal year.

Sen. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague, whose southeastern Connecticut district includes many communities around the Foxwoods Resort Casino and the Mohegan Sun, said lawmakers’ focus on boosting local aid for K-12 schools is necessary and appropriate. But Osten, a former first selectwoman, said cities and towns have pressing general government needs outside education that require state assistance as well.

“If we’re really going to address property tax reform, we have to address both sides of the ledger,” she said. Casinos have brought many jobs to Connecticut, but the state has a responsibility to help communities provide the support services that go along with this economic activity, Osten added.

Sen. Heather Somers, R-Groton, a former mayor of her home community, also supports giving communities half of annual casino revenues.

“This is a promise that was made to our municipalities when we first entered the agreement with the two tribal nations, and it is a promise that has not been honored,” she said. “For me, this is really about fairness.”

But state government is grappling with some big fiscal challenges, both new and old.

Despite generating huge annual surpluses since 2017, about $1.8 billion to $1.9 billion on average, Connecticut hasn’t used those dollars to expand programs but rather to pay down one of the largest pension debt burdens in the nation. And it entered this fiscal year still owing a hefty $33.5 billion, according to Lamont’s budget office.

Connecticut also expects to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in federal Medicaid assistance starting next fiscal year. Congress and President Donald Trump ordered big cutbacks last July to help finance federal tax cuts.

Lamont repeatedly has warned lawmakers the state can’t afford to cover all proposals on the table. His budget spokesman, Chris Collibee, said any plan to give towns more casino revenues “must be included in a balanced budget.”

“In the coming weeks, we will work with lawmakers to find a responsible solution that provides real relief where it’s needed most,” he said.

Keith M. Phaneuf is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (Ctmirror.org).

“Even if my mother could have believed me at the age of 3, I did not have the words,” Orsatti-Duffany said Tuesday. “It wasn’t until I was 43 that these memories came crashing through. During that time those closest to me were very affected. I couldn’t sleep in the same bed as my husband for years. I was an absolute wreck, mentally, physically, emotionally and spiritually.”

Following years of therapy, Orsatti-Duffany said, she was ready to speak out and seek justice but her attorney told her she was two months too late and that the statute of limitations had expired.

“All that abuse,” she said. “All those memories. All that suffering. Only to be told I’m two months too late. The halls of justice have been locked for many of us because of a date on a calendar here in Connecticut.”

Orsatti-Duffany and other survivors of sexual violence shared their stories at the Capitol Tuesday, calling for lawmakers to eliminate the civil statute of limitations for child sexual assault and also protect survivors of sexual abuse from online exploitation and AI-generated abuse.

There is no legislation proposed this session to eliminate the civil statute of limitations for child sexual assault. A bill that would have eliminated the civil statute of limitations for sexual assault failed in the legislature in 2020.

Sen. Gary Winfield, a New Haven Democrat, and co-chair of the Judiciary Committee, said he supported the change.

“I supported it because there are reasons why folks aren’t immediately able to process and deal with the trauma they’ve experienced,” he said. “I was a child who had a sexual assault and I wasn’t able to talk about it until I was in my mid-30s. I just have been someone who thinks it’s an important topic to have conversation about and see where the legislature lands.”

The Judiciary Committee recently advanced a bill, SB 292, that would expand the definition of child sexual abuse material to “include any photograph, film, videotape, picture or computer generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, digital, mechanical or other means of sexually explicit conduct,” according to the bill.

‘Many of us spend years, even decades trying to make sense of what happened’

Beth Hamilton, executive director at the Connecticut Alliance to End Sexual Violence, told the Courant “one in six men and boys and one in three girls and women are likely to experience sexual violence in their lifetime.”

But survivors of sexual violence do not experience harm on a schedule, Hamilton said.

“And we don’t heal on one either. Many of us spend years, even decades trying to make sense of what happened, trying to feel safe in our bodies again, trying to find the words to say something that never should have happened in the first place,” she said. “For many of us, coming forward, as you’ve heard, is not a single moment. It’s a long and painful process.”

But under current law, time runs out. Hamilton said survivors often wait because of fear, shame, manipulation or because they were threatened, among other reasons.

“In this post Me Too era, Gisele Pelicot, Epstein files era, it is no longer possible for anyone to pretend that they do not understand how prevalent sexual violence is and how it impacts survivors who are forced to navigate systems that deny and diminish their experiences,” Hamilton said.

Hamilton told the Courant that 14 states have already eliminated the civil statute of limitations for certain sexual assault crimes.

In 2018, the state passed legislation eliminating the criminal statute of limitations for any offense involving sexual abuse, sexual exploitation or sexual assault if the offense was against a minor.

“It did not address any of the harm that was experienced by survivors previous to that,” Hamilton said.

Also in 2018, Hamilton said, the state lengthened the criminal statute of limitations for sexual abuse, sexual abuse or sexual assault for 18 to 21-year-olds from 21 years to 30.

Rep. MJ Shannon, a Milford Democrat, advocated for his colleagues to eliminate the civil statute of limitations for child sexual assault and also protect survivors from online exploitation and AI-generated abuse.

“Every day childhood survivors of sexual assault live with trauma that doesn’t go away and far too often they are denied justice,” he said. “Survivors deserve to be heard and they deserve a chance to begin healing. Justice should not have an expiration date.”

‘It is about refusing to let the harm hide there’

Samantha McCoy, a mental health therapist turned attorney, said for a survivor “eliminating the civil statute of limitations is not about reopening the past.

“It is about refusing to let the harm hide there,” she said. “It does not presume guilt. It allows truth.”

LeAnn Mochel, a survivor and advocate at Jane Doe No More, said she was 5 when her abuse began.

“I did not tell anyone for years, not because I didn’t want justice, not because it didn’t matter, but because trauma doesn’t work on a legal timeline,” she said. “It works on survival.”

Carmelita Viega Rifkin said thoughts of her childhood abuse would haunt her continually even to her present age.

“They take over my life and make me feel unworthy, unworthy of love, unworthy of being,” she said.

Leah Juliett, also a survivor, still remembers the scarlet lockers at Wolcott High School where she was abused.

“I still remember my combination,” she said. “In my nightmares I see my abuser walking toward me in the hallway on the second floor. I cannot turn around. I cannot leave. This year was my 10-year high school reunion.”

She said her psychiatrist told her that her sleep is still broken and that night terrors are common for those living with PTSD.

“I recently read that people struggle to sit with the truth of survivors because it forces them to confront their own inaction,” she said. “Sit with it anyway. Sit with the discomfort. Sit with the fact that this system as it stands is just another layer of harm.”

There is no data confirming the total number of homeschoolers in Connecticut, which is one of 12 states with little regulation of homeschooling.

Some lawmakers say the bill provides a safety net for children by providing more oversight of homeschool families while other lawmakers say it goes too far to encroach on homeschool students’ rights and does not provide any added safety.

The bill was drafted in the aftermath of the cases of Jacqueline Mimi Torres and Matthew Tirado, Connecticut children who were reportedly withdrawn from public school before their deaths, and a Waterbury man who was allegedly rescued after being starved and held captive for decades after his withdrawal. Homeschool advocates argue that Torres and Tirado were not homeschooled and that DCF, which was involved with the families, should have protected them. Mr. S., as the Waterbury man is known, reportedly was malnourished and the subject of multiple reports to DCF before he was withdrawn.

In the latest case, the state Department of Children and Families and Enfield Police are continuing to investigate the untimely death this month of Eve Rogers, a 12-year-old Enfield girl. On Friday her stepfather was charged with sexual assault after authorities allegedly tied his DNA to a sample taken from the girl’s body. Eve was withdrawn from public school in 2022, according to a letter from her mother, Melanie Federline, sent to the Enfield School District and obtained by the Hartford Courant.

Rep. John Santanella, an Enfield Democrat, said “there is zero regulation or oversight of children who are homeschooled.

“Because of that we have this circumstance where children are taken out of the public view and are put in horrific circumstances and in this case resulted in a terrible thing happening to someone who is my constituent and that is not acceptable,” he said.

Rep Antonio Felipe, a Bridgeport Democrat and member of the Education committee, said “the bill definitely has the potential to improve child safety by ensuring there are check-ins on students who are in families with open DCF cases.”

Some homeschooling parents have said HB 5468 tramples on their rights to educate their children without government oversight.

The bill would require parents to notify the school district in person when withdrawing a child from public schools. It would also require the commissioner of the Department of Children and Families to check if a parent or guardian is the subject of an open case or on the child abuse registry. The legislation would also require parents to submit a portfolio to demonstrate that children are receiving “equivalent instruction” or submit a nationally normed standardized test.

House Speaker Matt Ritter said the bill would put more checks and balances in place.

“We have a lot of laws and I will acknowledge that,” Ritter said. “If there’s a nefarious actor out there who is hell bent on doing something horrible to somebody, sometimes all the laws in the world can’t prevent that.”

Even so, Ritter said, “that doesn’t mean that we don’t try to put more checks and balances in place to at least eliminate some of the risk, and at least give us a better shot.

“And I think what we have seen in a couple of cases is the withdrawal of students from school from people who did have prior substantiated complaints with DCF,” he said. “Just having that check and balance, it may not save every single person in every situation from disturbing events or physical violence, but if it saves one, if it saves two, if it serves as a check, it’s worth implementing.”

The state’s child advocate, Christina Ghio, also says the bill is a good first step and will help provide a safety net by identifying children who are not receiving an education.

“If a child is not receiving an education then that is something that should be reported to the Department of Children and Families as educational neglect, which provides an opportunity for an investigation,” Ghio said.

However, Ritter said that based upon the feedback from the Democratic caucus and the Education Committee, legislators are expected to remove the section requiring parents to submit a portfolio.

“I think based upon that feedback, I think the committee will remove that section and move forward with other parts of the bill,” he said. “I’ve heard different arguments against it: some based upon who would make the determination; what is a subjective standard as opposed to an objective standard? So not sure the rigorous standard applies because someone could just kind of fake it. But I think when you remove that section you have more support from the Democratic caucus.”

Rep. Jennifer Leeper, co-chair of the Education Committee, did not return repeated email requests for comment regarding the bill.

Ghio said it would be unfortunate if the portfolio piece in the legislation was taken out.

“I think the most value would be if we could have the annual assessment where the child is interacting with a teacher to do the assessment,” she said. “If you are ensuring that they are receiving an education, you can also know whether there is anything else going on too.”

Sarah Eagan, executive director of the Center for Children’s Advocacy, said it is important to have some follow up for the child “or you can’t prevent the problem of people lying to remove their child for a range of reasons, avoiding true secret complaints, parent convenience and hiding evidence of abuse and neglect.”

Eagan said the bill is a reasonable start.

“Nobody’s saying homeschooling is a safety concern,” she said. “We are saying that nobody following up is a safety concern.”

While Felipe said the bill had some good provisions, he voted against it because, he said, some parts went a step too far and also were not well explained. The Education Committee passed the legislation by a razor thin vote of 26 to 20 after four Democrats switched their votes from no to yes.

“I voted against the bill after speaking to families who felt left out of both sides of the conversation, families of color who removed their children due to discrimination, othering and general feelings that the system was failing their children specifically,” he said.

State Rep. Anne Dauphinais a Danielson Republican, said she does not believe the bill provides more safety for homeschooled children.

“This isn’t a homeschool problem,” she said. “This is a problem of evil people hurting harmless children and I would argue that I just don’t see how any of this would help them.”

Enfield Rep. Santanella said, as written, HB 5468 “extends too far in overseeing homeschooling families who are acting in good faith.

“That approach risks diluting the bill’s focus and places unnecessary burdens on homeschool families and school districts alike,” he said.

He said the legislature should move quickly to amend the bill.

“That includes closing any loopholes that may allow individuals to evade accountability under the guise of homeschooling, particularly in cases where there has already been interaction with state agencies,” he said. To the homeschool community “… with all due respect and appreciation for their rights as parents to homeschool their children, they have to take some responsibility as members of society and say they can’t allow that institution of homeschooling to have the opportunity or loopholes in it that allow things to happen to our most vulnerable children.”

At the core of the debate is a fundamental tension: giving industry enough space to innovate with the emerging technology while protecting the privacy, intellectual property and civil rights of state residents.

That tension hampered previous bills. But as national regulation stalls, AI technology continues to advance. And the widening gap between the burgeoning industry and the lack of safeguards around it is fueling some urgency among legislators.

“AI is growing and accelerating and entering every aspect of life,” Senate President Pro Tem Martin Looney, D-New Haven, said during a panel at an event hosted by the Connecticut Business and Industry Association last month. “The absence of federal action leaves it to the states to be moved to fill that vacuum.”

The exact way to do that is still under debate.

This year, despite the shorter session, a bipartisan group of lawmakers is taking a different approach from years past.

Instead of introducing a single broad bill that attempts to regulate all of Connecticut’s AI infrastructure at once, legislators are targeting a cluster of specific AI-related issues including data privacy, consumer protection, online safety of minors and expanding AI knowledge and capacity among the state’s emerging workforce.

“Something has to be done, because people do use it negatively, and that negatively impacts our constituents,” said Sen. Paul Cicarella, R-North Haven, the ranking senator on the legislature’s General Law Committee, and a regular participant in AI discussions. “It’s something we really have to get our heads around.”

But striking that balance could be easier said than done. Multiple bills have been raised on the topic — including two requested by Gov. Ned Lamont — with several clearing committees this year.

Some drew objections from tech policy groups and business organizations worried about new regulation. Others were praised for supporting AI developers and adopters, with critics arguing that more could be done to protect state residents.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s pledge to target state laws that conflict with the administration’s national AI framework looms in the background, with some states scrapping proposals in response.

With one month left, the focus at the Capitol now shifts to a challenging task: condensing a variety of AI-related proposals into a streamlined package. And after years of failed attempts, the question is if a General Assembly that has long been divided on AI policy can finally compromise.

A new approach

Much of the attention is on the General Law Committee, which has taken the lead on advancing AI-related bills in recent years. Work on those bills has been spearheaded by committee co-chair Sen. James Maroney, D-Milford.

Maroney authored legislation that fell short in prior sessions, including a compromise bill that died shortly after clearing the Senate last year. His efforts have largely been comprehensive “omnibus” style bills that attempt to regulate a variety of AI aspects in one piece of legislation.

Speaking to the Connecticut Mirror in December, Maroney noted that the committee would return to the topic in 2026, adding that while the ultimate goal of passing AI regulations that protects state residents would remain, the exact method would change.

“When you say AI, everyone kind of thinks of ChatGPT versus, you know, machine learning or algorithmic decision making,” he said. “The area where we want to look at is more the use than the technology.”

The approach was quickly made clear in the early days of the session, when Maroney, joined by Attorney General William Tong, announced new legislation aimed at online safety, data privacy and AI chatbot protections, with an explicit focus on Connecticut children and teens.

The proposals, inspired by pieces of regulation in other states, are included in two different bills in the General Law Committee. The first, Senate Bill 4, establishes new regulations for data brokers in the state, modifies some definitions under the Connecticut Data Privacy Act and creates a process for consumers to have their personal data deleted from data broker and data service provider registries.

The second bill, Senate Bill 5, focuses on a variety of artificial intelligence regulations, including guidelines around AI companion chatbots and employment-related decision making programs.

The bill also sets up several AI-related educational efforts and programs, including an Artificial Intelligence Policy Office. A bill with several overlapping workforce and AI “regulatory sandbox” provisions, Senate Bill 86, was requested by Lamont at the start of the session.

While there are sticking points, particularly around some of the data privacy provisions in SB 4, Cicarella said that there has been an intentional effort to limit the effect proposed AI regulations could have on businesses.

“If you look at the first couple of years of the legislation, it’s changed drastically each year,” he said. “I am definitely more supportive of the legislation before us this year than in years past.”

The difference in strategy has also been noticed by organizations like the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, which has been critical of the all-in-one approach adopted in previous years.

“It’s a shift in the conversation,” said Chris Davis, CBIA’s vice president of public policy. “What we have now this year is a more targeted approach about specific aspects of AI and how we can provide a scenario where businesses can comply and also provide that consumer protection.”

But even with the narrowed focus, the bills, SB 5 in particular, still raised similar concerns for CBIA and other policy groups worried that state lawmakers keep trying to enact a sweeping set of regulations.

“It’s kind of a Frankenstein approach, to be honest,” said Brianna January, the former northeast director for state and local government relations for Chamber of Progress, a national technology trade and policy association that is urging states to adopt a light touch on regulations. “Instead of just regulating potential harms of AI and the emerging industry in Connecticut, we see this bill trying to tackle a lot of things.”

That concern was echoed at a March public hearing on SB 5, with written testimony from organizations like NetChoice calling for the AI knowledge and workforce-related portions of the bill to be advanced alone.

“An unconstitutional law protects no one. A duplicative law confuses everyone,” Patrick Hedger, NetChoice’s director of policy, wrote in a letter submitted to the General Law Committee last month.

A focus on ‘unintended consequences’

Cicarella believes that legislation must avoid creating “unintended consequences” for AI users in the state.

The phrase comes up repeatedly in national discussions of AI policy. In Connecticut, the concern among some lawmakers, Lamont and pro-AI advocates is that with technology moving so quickly, regulation runs the risk of being too broad or confusing. If the enacted regulation feels daunting, some worry that companies will avoid Connecticut in favor of states with fewer rules.

Three areas have drawn the most attention: privacy, money and redundancy.

The first has been a concern largely in discussions of the companion chatbot provisions included in SB 5 and the online safety provisions of the second Lamont-requested bill, House Bill 5037. That bill, which would regulate how minors use social media, includes restrictions on the times of day that social media apps can send minors notifications, mandates that social media companies track the number of minors using their services, and requires platforms to display mental health warnings when a minor logs in and then at specific intervals throughout an online session.

Both bills aim to place more guardrails around technologies used by Connecticut youths, with the Lamont administration arguing that HB 5037 in particular is necessary to protect children online.

“I agree with all the restrictions we’re putting on the social bots,” Lamont said in February. “I think that’s my focus: protect the kids.”

In a landmark ruling last month, a jury in Los Angeles found that the design of social media platforms created by Meta and Google risked youths’ mental health and encouraged social media addiction.

Still, the legislative proposals have raised free speech and privacy issues. Some tech policy organizations note that the bills will require age verification of all social media users to be effective. To accomplish that task, more data about users across the state would need to be collected, just as legislators seek to further strengthen the state’s data privacy laws and help consumers pull their information offline.

Lawmakers counter that any information gathered during the age verification process will be deleted immediately after a verification attempt is made.

Money, both for organizations looking to comply with AI regulations and for the state agencies tasked with enforcement, could also pose a problem.

Smaller companies have been concerned that complying with regulations will be too expensive. Critics argue that regulation could ultimately price out these smaller businesses and technology adopters from using AI in the state.

This looms especially large in discussions of regulation around what are known as “automated employment-related decision systems,” a category of AI tools used to assist with workplace decisions.

In the Labor and Public Employees Committee, lawmakers advanced Senate Bill 435, a bill that would require significant disclosures around when these tools are used, while giving workers and job applicants the ability to view and request a range of information about how the tools were involved in worker assessments and hiring processes. The topic is also covered in SB 5.

And for state agency heads gaining new enforcement-related tasks under the proposed legislation, those new responsibilities and programs aren’t accounted for in the governor’s midterm budget, prompting questions of exactly how they would be funded.

In the Commerce Committee, lawmakers introduced Senate Bill 417, a bill calling for DECD to plan a program to support and expand the number of small businesses using and creating AI software.

When the bill received a public hearing last month, agency Commissioner Daniel O’Keefe, a former tech investor and strong proponent of AI technology in the state, noted that DECD currently lacks both the funding and the additional staff to implement the program.

The bill was still passed out of committee with unanimous support.

While Maroney maintains that his committee’s bills come with minimal costs, several of the AI measures do not yet have fiscal notes, leaving an open question about if the state can afford to implement them.

Beyond that, the final problem highlights a more fundamental concern from some opponents of regulation: that as the state builds out its AI infrastructure, new laws and a variety of new state programs could create a number of redundancies among various groups working on AI in the state.

Critics also note that AI-based infractions could already be addressed by a variety of state laws, pointing to a February AI memo from the Connecticut Attorney General’s office to support its argument that new AI-specific rules and penalties are unnecessary.

Federal policy framework adds new wrinkle

With just weeks left and multiple bills in line, lawmakers have limited time to determine which will be put up for a vote and what the final versions of those bills will look like.

Much of that work falls on Maroney in particular, with lawmakers unsure of AI technology or policy often turning to him to provide guidance. Several lawmakers deferred to Maroney when the Connecticut Mirror asked them to comment on aspects of AI legislation introduced this year.

The senator did not respond to multiple requests for comment on this year’s bills.

In focusing on AI and data privacy, Maroney has placed himself at the forefront of one of the most contentious — and active — policy debates in the country. According to multistate.ai, an online tracker for proposed state regulations, more than 1,500 AI-related bills have been introduced so far in states this year, already surpassing the entirety of what was introduced in 2024.

The topic has become more prominent as the Trump administration seeks to preempt state AI laws, arguing that the federal government must take the lead by establishing a national framework. Last year, the president supported a proposal in Congress that would set a 10 year moratorium on state AI regulations. The measure, which was included as part of an earlier version of the president’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, was ultimately removed.

In December, the White House released a long-expected executive order on artificial intelligence that threatened to take action against states that adopted “onerous” regulations.

And in March, the administration issued its national AI framework, focusing on protections for children, calling for support for small businesses and encouraging Congress to adopt legislation to address energy costs. The proposal, which has been called “empty” by some policy experts due to vague language and a lack of penalties, gives tech companies considerable freedom.

The measure faces an uncertain future in Congress, and legislators in states including Connecticut have continued to work on regulations despite the president’s call to stop.

Even so, the threat of presidential action has further bolstered arguments from some tech policy groups worried about a patchwork of state AI laws.

“A lot of these questions that bills are trying to really answer, which is like, what are the limits of safety and what are the limits of security implications and things like that, those are really national questions that need to be answered,” January said.

In an interview before the release of the national framework, she explained that comprehensive AI regulations in particular could face an uncertain future. Omnibus efforts have stalled in recent years in Connecticut and other states, and even when comprehensive proposals are adopted, as they were in Colorado in 2024, questions over implementation have led to delays and revisions.

For some experts, a better approach could be something like New York’s RAISE Act, a measure passed last year that focuses on the most serious AI-related violations, including large-scale loss of life or significant property damage “through either: (a) creation or use of … weapons, or (b) AI engaging in conduct with limited human intervention that would constitute a crime requiring intent, recklessness, or gross negligence if committed by a human.” The law, which went into effect in March, focuses on a defined group of “large developers” who have created “frontier models,”  larger AI programs of a specific computational size and cost. The law includes sizable civil penalties, up to $30 million, for violations.

The New York measure shares several key definitions and requirements with California’s Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, which was adopted last November. The new laws will be closely watched by tech policy groups and other states to see if they offer a viable framework for AI policy.

As Connecticut proceeds with its own multifaceted approach, the looming question is if this year’s changes are enough to get something over the finish line. Even with the hurdles before them, supporters of AI regulation hope the answer is yes.

That goal has been emphasized by Maroney during discussions of SB 4 and SB 5 during the session, including at a General Law committee meeting last month.

“This is a caucus priority,” he said.

None of the three candidates mentioned the president, whose approval rating recently dropped to a new low in national polling, at a meet-and-mingle event at a beachfront hotel in Madison, a community that Trump lost by 24 points in 2024 and 2020.

Betsy McCaughey, Ryan Fazio and Erin Stewart each had five minutes to impress during a format that was closer to speed dating than a debate. All projected energy and confidence, heaping scorn on Gov. Ned Lamont and delivering gentle jabs at their rivals for the GOP nomination.

First up was McCaughey, a 77-year-old wild card in a contest that once seemed certain to feature only Stewart and Fazio, two 30-somethings who had succeeded in Democratic arenas: Stewart as a mayor in New Britain; Fazio winning reelection in 2024 to the state Senate from a Fairfield County district Trump lost by 17 percentage points.

“I have two rivals in this race for the governor’s nomination, both very fine people,” McCaughey said. “But this election is too important for small ideas like taking $200 off your electric bill or offering a vague promise for ‘something different.’ We have to go big to win this race.”

The first was a dig at Fazio, the second at Stewart.

McCaughey is a Newsmax cable host who smiles big, talks fast and touts audacious promises — foremost among them, a vow to eliminate the income tax in Connecticut, an idea that was central to Republican Bob Stefanowski’s losing campaign for governor against Lamont in 2018.

Without a Republican legislative majority — an optimistic take on the GOP prospects in 2026 is avoiding losses in a midterm — McCaughey insists she somehow will repeal the affordable housing law signed by the man McCaughey calls “Lefty Lamont” and end state-mandated real estate revaluations.

Along with her cable flash, McCaughey brings a dash of conservative national recognition, a potential asset in a Republican primary and probable liability in a northeast general election. She was a featured speaker in Texas last week at CPAC, the annual convention of conservatives that Trump skipped this year.

“Last week, CPAC endorsed me for governor of Connecticut, the only candidate for any office in Connecticut that won that coveted endorsement from CPAC, partly because I fight for God as well as for Connecticut,” McCaughey said to a round of uncertain applause.

She is an outlier on two significant metrics: Uncertain is her ability to raise the funds necessary to qualify for public campaign financing or attract the necessary support at the GOP convention in May to qualify for the primary in August. A test will come on April 10, when first quarter fundraising reports become public.

Stewart and Fazio each qualified early for public financing under the revised Citizens’ Election Program, which will provide each about $3.2 million for the primary and another $15.4 million to the eventual nominee. Both have begun advertising, and no one questions their ability to win at least 15% of the convention vote, the ticket to the primary.

Fazio turned 36 last month, and Stewart is 38. They hope to offer a youthful contrast to the 72-year-old Lamont, who is seeking a rare third term with a solid approval rating. One thought is that even a losing run could help position them for 2030, but both insist the goal is a win now.

“This is a great turnout and is exactly the energy we need to turn Madison and the entire state of Connecticut red in 2026,” Fazio said.

Stefanowski, the Republican nominee against Lamont in the past two cycles, won his hometown of Madison in their close race for the open seat in 2018. But Lamont carried Madison by 15 points in their 2022 rematch, slightly better than his comfortable statewide margin.

Madison was emblematic of Lamont’s appeal — and broader Democratic gains — in well-to-do suburbs that once skewed Republican. Democrats now hold super majorities in Hartford of 25-11 in the Senate and 102-49 in the House.

Connecticut’s high cost of living is central to the campaigns of Fazio and Stewart.

“One thing is clear to me as I travel all across this state, and it’s that people are hurting in the state of Connecticut,” Fazio said. “They’re suffering under the weight of the third-highest tax burden and the second-highest electric bills in the entire country after only Hawaii, which is detached from the mainland, and California, which is detached from reality.”

The latter is a well-practiced line, and it got laughs.

“I make this pledge to you: If after two terms in office, I’m still presiding over a state with the third-highest taxes on electric bills in the country, I will not run for a third term,” Fazio said. “And yet, that’s exactly what this governor is doing, and that’s exactly why I’m running for governor.”

Stewart offered herself as a different candidate, a digital native comfortable on social media, a former chief executive of diverse city, and a bit of a life coach to a state party searching for traction in a state where every statewide and congressional office is held by Democrats.

“My name is Erin Stewart, and I’m going to beat Ned Lamont in November. I’m going to tell you how, and I’m going to tell you why. We have to have a little bit more confidence in ourselves. Let’s start that again,” she said, her voice louder. “We’re going to beat Ned Lamont …”

Cheers drowned out the next few words.

“… building confidence within ourselves that something’s got to change, something has to give. We have to do something differently, and we are going to kick Ned Lamont to the curb. Eight years of him is far too much.”

The daughter of a retired firefighter who also served as mayor of New Britain, Stewart sounded a populist note, separating herself from Lamont and her two Republican rivals, all of whom live in Greenwich.

“I’m not a trust fund baby,” Stewart said. “I might be the only one in this race that isn’t one.”

The line and its implicit criticism of Fazio and McCaughey fell flat.

She pressed on.

“I’m the only one that engages with a lot of people on social media. I’m sure you all have seen that. I have a little bit too much fun with that sometimes,” Stewart said. “But you know what? In one month alone, and without having to spend a dime, 3 million people in this state looked at our social media pages. That’s the type of attention that Republican Party needs in Connecticut to get everybody’s attention.”

Eight years ago, Republicans already had held four gubernatorial debates by April 4. This year, there have been none.

The Madison meet-and-mingle was organized by Connor Favre, the Republican town committee chair, and Amy Stefanowski, a former Republican state central committee member and the wife of the former two-time nominee.

“I think we’re in a different environment,” Favre said. “Not that I’m opposed to having a debate of some kind, but I think at this stage, when we’re going into the convention, not the primary, it’s good for especially delegates to meet them face to face and chat.”

And they did. Attendees, including some who had been chosen as convention delegates in the previous week, lined up to talk them after after the speeches.

“There were probably more people in the room who are delegates than those candidates have seen in one place previously,” said Ben Proto, the state GOP chair.

With a common focus on affordability, the candidates stepped lightly on national issues like immigration and vaccines.

Fazio, who has voted against revisions to the Trust Act, said he would make clear Connecticut is not a  “sanctuary state” but one more accommodating of ICE.

“If you have been convicted of manslaughter, stealing a firearm, or other felonies, you should not have the protection of this governor and this state,” he said.

Stewart sided with homeschooling parents, who are fighting state legislation that would impose oversight and standards on what is now largely unregulated, and those who object to vaccine requirements that have preserved Connecticut’s high rate of vaccinations and the herd immunity that comes with that.

But she suggested litmus tests would be unproductive.

“We’re going to respect homeschoolers. We’re going to not do vaccine mandates. We’re going to repeal the housing laws. We’re going to do all of these things and then some,” Stewart said. “But you can’t do it if you don’t win.”

So far, the rest of the statewide GOP ticket is largely uncontested. Several down-ballot candidates briefly addressed the crowd of about 150: Matt Corey, lieutenant governor; Peter Lumaj, secretary of the state; Jen Tooker, comptroller; and Fred Wilms, treasurer.

The only mention of Trump came from Lumaj. It was a joking reference to Lumaj’s claimed common ground with billionaire Elon Musk: Like him, Lumaj is an immigrant to the U.S.

“Both he and I love Donald Trump,” Lumaj said. “And both he and I can be deported by Donald Trump.”

It got laughs.

He turned serious, warning against internal division.

“We need to be united. Let’s go to the convention. Let’s go to the primary,” he said. “In the end, no matter who makes the primary, get with me behind him or her.”

Mark Pazniokas is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (ctmirror.org).

Senate Bill 515 was voted out of the Finance Revenue and Bonding Committee Monday, 34-20 with Republicans opposing it. It now goes for consideration by the legislature.

The bill directs the Office of Policy and Management to create a plan for “a workforce and productivity gap surcharge on employers to recapture lost revenue from displaced employees while providing a permanent tax exemption for increased productivity achieved through the augmentation of a stable workforce using collaborative technology.”

CT state comptroller warns of AI bubble and impact on ‘regular people’

Sen. John Fonfara, a Hartford Democrat who co-chairs the committee, introduced the bill before the vote, saying that while his initial thought on the issue was the loss of state revenue, his concern is more for workers and their families.

“At a high level we all know that we can not get through a day today without hearing the two letters that are most prominent in the dictionary these days, AI, and that while it seems to be futuristic, I personally believe it is not. I believe it is already impacting our economy and maybe for the better right now but at some point it could be anything but.

“This initiative is not about discouraging companies from advancing, using technology — by no means. … This is about cognitive displacement and the real likelihood that artificial intelligence could render many folks in this very room unnecessary, as scary as that might be and should be.”

Fonfara said the issue is a grave one with implications that will likely see AI replacing workers in the next decade.

“I don’t know what that means for society in general. I don’t know what that means for the worth of the individual and their family.”

‘AI hallucinations’ case lands in hands of CT high court. Lawyers used computer generated details.

But Republicans on the committee said the bill would harm Connecticut businesses.

Sen. Ryan Fazio, a Greenwich Republican on the committee who is running for governor, voted against the bill. Fazio said instead of taxing companies for their use of technology, the state should aim to make its “workforce more productive with higher wages and more jobs than ever before” through its labor rules and tax policy.

“I fear that if we impose a new tax on job creators or businesses, that at the end of the day we’re going to see fewer jobs than otherwise.”

State Rep. Dave Rutigliano, a Trumbull Republican, echoed Fazio, saying that the business climate in Connecticut in some cases is forcing businesses toward technology.

“Some of this stuff that’s going to happen has been imposed by the state of Connecticut. We are raising costs on certain businesses so much that they’re going to have to adapt or die. So I don’t think we can just look at this in a vacuum of AI, which I may share your perspective on it, but there’s more to it than that,” he said.

Rep. Nicole Karides-Ditria, a Seymour Republican, said the bill would “fund the future by penalizing progress.”

Christopher Davis, vice president of public policy for the Connecticut Business & Industry Association, said SB 515 takes “a fundamentally flawed approach” by “taxing increased productivity.”

“By linking a surcharge to changes in revenue, payroll, and workforce metrics, the bill effectively punishes employers for becoming more efficient—even when those gains are driven by investments in technology, process improvements, or capital upgrades,” Davis wrote in testimony.

“Connecticut employers must continually invest in new tools, automation, and collaborative technologies to remain viable. Senate Bill 515 creates uncertainty around how those investments will be evaluated and taxed, discouraging businesses from pursuing efficiency improvements that would otherwise benefit workers and consumers alike.”

Neither Daniel O’Keefe, commissioner of the Department of Economic and Community Development, nor Dr. Kelli-Marie Vallieres, the state’s chief workforce officer, offered criticism of the proposal. Both noted that funding to enable it was not included in the governor’s budget.

Vallieres, of the Office of Workforce Strategy, cited “the rapid expansion of the use of artificial intelligence (AI) intelligence in the workforce” and lauded the bill’s intent.

“Unfortunately, funding for the development and implementation of this plan was not included in the Governor’s Budget, so resources would need to be identified for this to move forward,” she said in written testimony. “OWS appreciates the intent of this bill and looks forward to the continued discussion on how to best protect the workforce while supporting the growth of our state.”

And the $6 million shortfall Scanlon is tracking, roughly equal to 1/40^th of 1% of the $27.2 billion budget’s General Fund, wouldn’t exist if the state still followed the pre-2017 budget rules.

Those laws bar the comptroller from counting more than $1.8 billion in income and business tax receipts that a special savings program withholds from the budget.

Those funds can be used after the fiscal year ends on June 30 to close any operating deficit. But since Lamont took office in 2019, those saved dollars have been used to build reserves and pay down pension debt.

The administration downplayed the shortfall and insisted state finances remain robust, but Republican legislative leaders said the governor and his fellow Democrats in the General Assembly’s majority have abandoned honest budgeting.

“Thanks to the progress we’ve made, the governor and legislature have numerous ways to address this small gap,” Scanlon said. Besides $1.8 billion in the income and business tax savings program, Connecticut holds a record-setting $4.3 billion in its emergency reserve, commonly known as the rainy day fund.

Together, those resources could close the projected $6 million surplus 1,000 times over.

Lamont’s budget spokesman, Chris Collibee, said Connecticut remains in a fiscally strong position, even as other states struggle.

“We’ve continued to build up our historic rainy day fund, while still making meaningful investments in education, infrastructure and public safety,” Collibee said. “Under Ned Lamont’s leadership, Connecticut has consistently ended the year with surpluses — not deficits — and that discipline is paying off. We’re going to stay focused, keep a close eye on the budget, and make sure we continue moving Connecticut forward on the strong path we’re on.”

Legislators built a modest 1% cushion of about $300 million into this year’s General Fund, and income and sales tax receipts have come in hundreds of millions higher than expected.

But, Scanlon noted, the budget was weakened by federal policy changes.

Connecticut links its state corporate tax system to the federal code, as do several other states. And since Congress and President Donald Trump last July extended federal corporate tax breaks that had been set to expire, Connecticut’s taxes on big business have come in $352 million below projections.

But that’s only part of the problem. Lamont and the legislature also failed to budget adequately for certain legal obligations.

One is Medicaid, a federal entitlement program run in partnership with states. That means it’s pointless for Connecticut to budget less for Medicaid than the projected demand, because federal rules stipulate all patients who qualify for health care assistance are entitled to it.

But Medicaid demand has remained greater than pre-pandemic levels, even though enhanced federal health care funds ordered in response to COVID expired in 2023.

Lamont’s budget staff projects the state Department of Social Services will overspend its $3.7 billion Medicaid line item by $85 million this fiscal year. The department overspent on Medicaid by more than $300 million last year and almost $160 million two fiscal years ago.

A second legal obligation pushing state finances into the red involves health benefits pledged to retired state workers.

Both the governor and General Assembly ignored Scanlon’s warnings one year ago to budget more for retiree health care.

When Lamont projected nearly two weeks ago that state finances still were on pace for a razor-thin $33 million operating surplus, that report ignored Scanlon’s estimate that the retiree health care was shy by $39 million.

The legislature’s nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis agreed last Friday that the retiree health care costs and other problems create a small deficit projection.

“Our health care costs are growing, as they are for every state and every health care plan in the United States of America,” Scanlon said Wednesday. “I have tried to very clearly state those challenges … and to ask [the governor and legislators] to reflect what we believe is coming in the budget.”

Scanlon added, “I’ll let them answer for why they have not done that.”

Budget proposals from Lamont and from the legislature’s Appropriations Committee both underfunded retiree health care by roughly $90 million, based on the comptroller’s projected needs.

Many of Lamont’s fellow Democrats in the legislature’s majority argue Connecticut’s budget caps are too strict, siphoning too much money from core programs.

Republican lawmakers, who have been more supportive of the caps, say the governor and Democratic legislators simply are ignoring legal obligations rather than making cuts that would be tougher to defend politically.

The GOP has said Connecticut could reduce spending by trimming raises for state employees, finding more efficiencies at public colleges and universities, further shrinking agency staff and eliminating Medicaid eligibility for undocumented residents.

Underfunding of Medicaid and retiree health care together totals more than $120 million this fiscal year. Republican leaders in the House and Senate, Vincent J. Candelora of North Branford and Stephen Harding of Brookfield, said the scope of the budget problems being ignored is getting dangerously large.

“We’re not only raiding couch cushions now, we’re raiding under the mattress,” said Candelora.

“I think we’ve been playing funny math on our own budgets for years now,” Harding added.

Democrats counter that, in many years, at least one of the minority caucuses has failed to even create a balanced budget proposal, preferring to criticize without showing how it would solve tough problems.

Both Candelora and Harding said this week their caucuses would deliver a budget proposal for the next fiscal year before the regular 2026 General Assembly session ends on May 6.

Lawmakers are now considering legislation that would require public higher education institutions to provide “an on-campus problem gambling program at least once each academic year,” according to an analysis of SB 381.

“This bill is a good first step to addressing the issue and getting students the help they need,” said Sen. Derek Slap, co-chair of the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee and a West Hartford Democrat in an email. “The massive expansion of sports betting is creating real problems — not just on college campuses, but especially on college campuses. I fully expect we will need to do more than this bill to adequately combat it.”

The Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee passed SB 381 in a 17 to 1 vote.

Diana Goode, executive director of the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling, said in her testimony that the bill is a “practical, prevention-focused policy that strengthens student support systems without imposing unnecessary administrative burdens.

“It ensures that gambling-related harm is addressed proactively, just as campuses already address substance use, mental health, and suicide prevention,” she said. “The need for this legislation is clear and data driven.”

Goode wrote in her testimony that “sports betting has rapidly become one of the most significant gambling-related risks facing college campuses.

“National research from the National Collegiate Athletic Association indicates that sports wagering is widespread among college-age populations, with surveys finding that 67% of students living on campus report placing sports bets, and many do so at higher frequency than their non-student peers,” Goode said.

Goode said that “public health researchers warn that this normalization of sports betting can contribute to financial stress, academic disruption, and mental-health concerns among students, while also creating pressure and harassment toward student-athletes tied to gambling outcomes.”

Nathan Hirschfeld, a college student at Wesleyan University, wrote in his testimony that “as a college student this is my reality.

“I cannot count how many times I have seen friends lose thousands of dollars on parlays and isolate themselves, not only succumbing to the financial burden of gambling addiction but the mental deterioration and academic decline as well,” he said. “Thousands of students in our state struggle with this issue, and it shows up in missed classes, drained bank accounts, damaged friendships, and declining mental health. It’s also important to consider how other people, like student athletes, are affected by gambling problems as well. They should not be reduced to statistics over a lost bet.”

Haritha Subramanian, vice president of the undergraduate student government at UConn, said in a text message she is “concerned with the increase in gambling opportunities, given that it is now easily accessible 24/7 on mobile devices and individuals can gamble on just about anything.

“I have seen students casually speak about gambling, particularly sports betting and I worry about the normalization of gambling culture and the lack of adequate regulation surrounding these gambling programs,” she said.

Chuck Bunnell, chief of staff to the Mohegan Tribe, wrote in his testimony that “The Mohegan Tribe supports this legislation because it reflects a shared understanding that problem gambling is a serious issue and that education, early intervention, and collaboration are essential tools in addressing it.”

The bill now heads to the Senate.

Hwang’s decision leaves open two Republican seats in Fairfield County districts that will be a challenge for the GOP to hold, providing an opportunity for Democrats, who hold a 25-11 majority, to shrink the minority to single digits for the first time since the post-Watergate election of 1974.

President Donald Trump’s domination of Republican politics has coincided with the collapse of the GOP as a competitor for control of the Connecticut General Assembly, beginning with the midterm election of 2018.

In January 2017, Republicans began Trump’s first term in the White House with an 18-18 tie in the Connecticut Senate and only four seats shy of a majority in the 151-member Connecticut House.

Successive elections have been disastrous. Early polling indicates that Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025, his trade wars and more recently his actual war on Iran make for a difficult midterm election for the GOP.

“The current climate makes it very difficult for a moderate, common-sense Connecticut Republican to either get through a primary or win in a general election,” said Brenda Kupchick, the former first selectwoman of Fairfield.

Kupchick, a Republican who also served in the House when Republicans rebounded from steep losses during Barack Obama’s win in 2008, said she will not seek the GOP nomination.

Amybeth Laroche of Newtown, a conservative Board of Finance member, is the only declared Republican candidate in a district generally dominated by its largest community, Fairfield. She could not be reached.

Laroche, a guest in the House chamber during Gov. Ned Lamont’s State of the State address on the opening day of the 2026 session in February, joined a handful of Republican lawmakers in walking out in protest of the governor’s criticism of federal immigrant agents’ training and tactics.

“I will not  stay  silent while those who serve and protect our communities are disrespected,” she wrote on Instagram.

Rob Blanchard of Fairfield, the Democrat who lost to Hwang two years ago, said Tuesday he intends to open a campaign for the Democratic nomination this week. He is planning to resign as communications director for Gov. Ned Lamont and join the governor’s reelection campaign.

Dan Rock, a member of the Fairfield Board of Finance, also is seeking the Democratic nomination.

The other open Republican seat in Fairfield County is the 36th Senate seat of Greenwich, New Canaan and Stamford that Democrats flipped in 2018. Sen. Ryan  Fazio, R-Greenwich, recaptured it in a special election five years ago, but he is running for governor, not reelection.

The best Republican chances for maintaining their numbers in the Senate may lie outside Fairfield County, the source of the greatest wealth in Connecticut and formerly the GOP’s most reliable base.

Republicans are expected to focus on flipping seats narrowly won two years ago in the northeast corner by Sen. Mae Flexer, D-Windham, a six-term senator, and in the Farmington Valley by a freshman, Sen. Paul Honig, D-Harwinton.

Flexer faces a rematch in the 29th Senate District with Republican Chris Reddy of Scotland. She beat narrowly beat him two years ago, 49.8% to 48.4%, with a minor-party candidate also on the ballot.

The district includes Mansfield, the home of the University of Connecticut and the source of young voters who have used same-day voter registration to Flexer’s advantage, as well as smaller rural communities that lean Republican.

Honig unseated Republican Lisa Seminara of Avon two years ago with 50.2% of the vote in the 8th Senate District, an 11-town district dominated by Avon, Canton and Simsbury.

Harwinton First Selectman Michael Criss is seeking the Republican nomination. Andrew Ziemba of Canton, who had filed for the race, withdrew Friday and has endorsed Criss.

Two Democrats also are not seeking reelection: Sen. Jan Hochadel of Meriden and Sen. Ceci Maher of Wilton. Their districts favor Democrats.

Hwang did not return a call for comment Tuesday, but Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding, R-Brookfield, confirmed that Hwang informed the caucus of his decision not to run.

He was elected to the House in 2008 and to the Senate in 2014. Ubiquitous at public events in his district, Hwang had prevailed as the country trended Democratic.

But he had gathered enemies in the GOP over his supposed deliberate distance from others in the party.

Amid a special election for first selectman of Fairfield that Hwang lost this year, Tim Herbst, the former Republican first selectman of Trumbull and a candidate for governor in 2018, wrote an opinion piece deeming Hwang too self-centered to be fit for running a town.

“Tony Hwang does not financially support other Republican candidates, nor does he meaningfully assist those on his own team,” Herbst wrote. “He treats public office like a personal branding exercise, routinely appearing at public events wearing clothing emblazoned with his own name, as if he were promoting a personal clothing line. It may seem like a small thing, but it perfectly captures a larger problem: for him, it is always about the spotlight.”

Hwang was the only Senate Republican to vote in February for emergency legislation, Senate Bill 298, that spend through the General Assembly without vetting by committees or at public hearings. Other Republicans complained it was an abuse of process by  the Democrats.

In 2016, Hwang campaigned for John Kasich and against Trump in the Republican presidential primary in Connecticut.

He frequently broke with other Republicans on climate and environmental issues. He joined Lamont at a press conference in 2023 celebrating the publication of proposed regulations ensuring Connecticut would continue to meet evolving California standards for passenger-car emissions, a commitment made 20 years ago during the administration of a Republican governor, John G. Rowland.

“Clean air is critical, and it’s a non-partisan issue,” Hwang said then.

That assertion was suspect. While other measures have generated broader support, Hwang was the only Republican legislator to vote in 2022 for passage of the Connecticut Clean Air Act.

Mark Pazniokas is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (ctmirror.org).

The effort, put forward this month as part of a recently filed land-conveyance bill, would force Connecticut’s Department of Administrative Services to hand over ownership of the Torrington transfer station to the Northwest Resource Recovery Authority for no more than the cost of paperwork and other administrative expenses related to the transaction.

If successful, the bill would also require the NRRA — an arm of the Northwest Hills Council of Governments — to operate the transfer station in perpetuity, as a public facility for handling municipal waste. The facility currently only accepts trash from municipalities, not individual residents.

The state has been operating the transfer station through DAS since last year, when lawmakers quietly inserted language into the budget blocking the sale of the facility to a private company, Enfield-based USA Waste and Recycling. Earlier this year, DAS said it would cease operations at the facility as of June 30, at which point funding would no longer be available to subsidize the cost of the station’s tipping fees.

Or — as lawmakers are now proposing — it could hand the facility over to NRRA.

Leigh Appleby, a spokesman for the agency, said in an email last week that the administrative costs of land conveyances “tend to be very low, if anything.”

“We continue to work with local officials and legislators on next steps for the Torrington property, and this proposal is a potential step forward,” Appleby said.

The bill is backed by a bipartisan delegation of lawmakers representing towns in the Litchfield Hills, who described the NRRA as part of a broader effort to regionalize public services that has proven popular and cost-effective for residents. Five members of the delegation jointly submitted testimony in favor of the conveyance on Tuesday.

“The conveyance of this critical regional facility to the NRRA will preserve municipal access to a publicly owned transfer station and help maintain competitive, stable pricing for solid waste disposal,” the testimony read.

The legislation, Senate Bill 521, is schedule for a public hearing Wednesday.

But the existence of a competing offer from USA Waste to pay $3.25 million to purchase the facility has complicated the NRRA’s efforts, as well as the long-term outlook for trash disposal in the region.

Frank Antonacci, the chief executive of USA Waste, has sought to build support for his company’s bid to purchase the property by offering local towns 10-year contracts that he estimates will save them between $8 to $10 for every ton of trash handled at the transfer station.

And without state funds subsidizing the cost of tipping fees, the transfer station’s rates could rise, Antonacci said.

“If they were able to do it cheaper than the market, they would come right out and say that,” Antonacci said. “They don’t say that anywhere… the silence is deafening on what their rates will be.”

Supporters of the so-called public option, however, argue that USA Waste’s offer would effectively consolidate much of the region’s waste-disposal business with a single company. Once the company’s initial contracts expire, they say, USA Waste would be able to dictate much higher prices that would get passed along to residents.

Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding, R-Brookfield, who is among the members of the delegation supporting the bill, said town officials “don’t want to end up in a situation where you have just one for-profit organization taking care of all the hauling in the area, and not being able to negotiate with anyone else for reduced tipping fees.”

The NRRA, which came into existence last year, does not have the staff nor the budget to compete with USA Waste’s offer, necessitating the bill to give the property away for a nominal fee. The authority received a $350,000 grant from the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection last year to ramp up its operations.

For the time being, the work of the authority is being led by Rista Malanca, the director of economic and community development at the Northwest Hills COG. Malanca could not be reached for comment this week regarding the conveyance bill.

Another potential wrinkle in the fight for control of the facility is the interest of political leaders in Hartford, where the trash collected at the Torrington transfer station was, for many years, shipped to be burned at the Materials Innovation Recycling Authority’s waste-to-energy plant.

When MIRA ceased operations in 2022, that kicked off the process of selling the authority’s other assets, including the Torrington transfer station.

Under the original terms of the proposal to sell the facility to USA Waste, the $3.25 million in proceeds from that sale were supposed to have been directed to help pay for the cleanup of the MIRA property in the city’s South Meadows. Antonacci — the owner of USA Waste — said the money his company is offering should still go to fund that effort, which is projected to cost somewhere between $48 million and $334 million.

But Hartford Mayor Arunan Arulampalam said Tuesday there is no longer a mechanism in place to ensure that any money from the sale of the Torrington property would go toward the eventual cleanup of the South Meadows.

“Essentially, we have no interest in the current sale of that property,” Arulampalam said. “I mean, taxpayers of Connecticut would be taking a haircut on the [NRRA] deal, but it wouldn’t directly impact Hartford.”