Legislative Council

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 3 PRIMROSE STREET, NEWTOWN, CT WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2021 MINUTES PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE: Jordana Bloom, Alison Plante, Chris Smith, Phil Carroll, Ryan Knapp, Judit DeStefano, Paul Lundquist, Chris Eide, Dan Wiedemann, Cathy Reiss, Andy Clure, Dan Honan ALSO PRESENT: First Selectman Dan Rosenthal, Finance Director Bob Tait, Attorney David Grogins, 24 public, 2 press. CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Lundquist called the meeting to order with the Pledge of Allegiance at 7:34 pm. VOTER COMMENT: Eric Paradis, 85 Riverside Road – Mr. Paradis urged the members of the Council to vote to move the firearms ordinance forward to the Ordinance Committee. Po Murray, 38 Charter Ridge Drive – Ms. Po submitted a petition which was signed by about 200 Newtown residents in favor of the firearms ordinance. She supports moving it to the Ordinance Committee for consideration. Helen Earnshaw, 42 Osborne Hill Road – Ms. Earnshaw supports moving the proposed ordinance to the Ordinance Committee for consideration. Don Lococo, 27 Hi Barlow Road – Mr. Lococo is in favor of referring the proposed ordinance to the Ordinance Committee. David Nault, 44 Hoseye Coach Road – Mr. Nault disagrees with the proposed ordinance and feels this should not be referred to the Ordinance Committee. Miranda Pacchiana, 21 Gelding Hill Road – Ms. Pacchiana supports moving it to the Ordinance Committee for consideration. Andrew Buzzi, 38 Obtuse Road – Mr. Buzzi does not agree with passing the proposed ban to Ordinance Committee. David Stowe, 15 Patricia Lane – Mr. Stowe believes there are many reasons to not allow open carry in our town and agrees with referring this to the Ordinance Committee. Alex Villamil, 11 Antler Pine Road – Mr. Villamil supports sending the proposed ordinance to the Ordinance Committee for their consideration. Adam Pacchiana, 21 Gelding Hill Road – Mr. Pacchiana supports sending the proposed ban to the Ordinance Committee. Richard Fisher, 46 Turkey Hill Road – Mr. Fisher proposes the ordinance. Heather Smith, Plainfield, CT, Board Member of the Newtown Action Alliance – Ms. Smith supports passing this to the Ordinance Committee for consideration. Dr. Walter Kupson, Middlebury, CT – Dr. Kupson is a NRA pistol instructor and he opposes referring this to the Ordinance Committee. Holly Sullivan, Southbury, CT, President of CCDL – Ms. Sullivan does not support sending the proposed ban to the Ordinance Committee. MINUTES: Acceptance of the minutes from the February 3, 2021 Legislative Council Regular Meeting postponed until March 3rd meeting. COMMUNICATIONS: Various emails and petition were submitted about referring the proposed ordinance. See separate attachment “LC Communications 2-17-21”. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Charter Revision Charge Committee – Mr. Lundquist reported that minutes from the last meeting have been posted. Questions should be submitted asap. March 3rd is the intended target to move forward in the process. FIRST SELECTMAN’S REPORT: First Selectman Dan Rosenthal reported the vaccination process is moving along well. Last week, the age range was expanded to over 65. We are getting about 200 doses a week. The latest statistic in the 75 and older group, it was estimated that there are about 85% vaccinated in Newtown. The First Selectman and Mr. Tait recently met with Deputy Director of Economic and Community Development Christal Preszler to review our S&P annual ratings. See attachment A. The First Selectman shared the Governor's budget as well. See attachment B. Municipal aid remains unchanged. An item to be of concern about is the proposal for a statewide mill rate. Mr. Clure asked if the age group for the Covid vaccine is dictated by the state or town. The First Selectman confirmed the rollout is from the state level. He believes expanding the rollout is dictated by how many doses of the vaccine the State of Connecticut is receiving. The Governor announced today that in a couple weeks, they will expand the open registration to essential workers. NEW BUSINESS Discussion and Possible Action  Approve Grant for Watershed Planning to Reduce Pollution in Pootatuck River Ms. DeStefano moved to approve the grant for watershed planning to reduce water pollution in the Pootatuck River basin of Long Island Sound in the amount of $73,993. Seconded by Mr. Honan. All in favor. Motion passes (12-0). Mr. Tait reviewed the watershed planning grant. See attachment C. He explained that the funding source is the US Environmental Protection Agency; the recipient is the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; and the Town of Newtown is the sub-recipient. The Pootatuck Watershed Association is managing the project. The matching contributions are in-kind. Newtown has a matching cash contribution which will come from contingency. Ms. Reiss asked Mr. Tait to confirm whether any money is to come from Newtown. Mr. Tait said none of this will not be put on the shoulders of Newtown, but it would require a $5,000 transfer from contingency. The First Selectman added that this project is just for overall watershed planning.  Consideration of Ordinance to Ban Open Carry Of Firearms on Town-Owned Property for Referral to Ordinance Committee Attorney David Grogins spoke on the letter which he submitted to the Council regarding his opinion of a ban to open carry on town-owned property. See attachment D. After reviewing the case, he concluded that he does not see a specific impediment to the town exercising this power if it chooses to regulate the open carry of firearms on town-owned property. However, he cautioned that there is a possibility that the town could be challenged and subject to various matters. He could not say whether a challenge would be successful. Mr. Knapp questioned whether Connecticut's permitting process and its various exclusions would be classified as a preemption claim. Attorney Grogins replied that he believes the statutes which regulate how you use a gun along with the permitting process would still apply, but over that would be the further regulation by the town and that would not be initiated by virtue of the permitting statutes. Ms. Reiss moved that this Council not expose the town to expensive and needless litigation as a result of its attempt to override state statute with a municipal firearms ordinance. Seconded by Mr. Carroll. Ms. Reiss, after doing her own research, it is her understanding that if there is a question about local powers or authority, then the local government does not receive the benefit of the doubt. Attorney Grogins replied that he does not believe this to be the case in every situation. He said that none of the challenges presented in other towns have succeeded at this point. Ms. DeStefano asked Attorney Grogins whether he feels there is a potential case where there could be a guarantee to not receive a challenge. Attorney Grogins stated that he cannot make a guarantee. He strongly believes that it is an unknown – there are some doctrines that could come into play and there is nothing prohibiting a challenge. Mr. Knapp stated that the attorneys on both sides have opined to different conclusions on this matter, but ultimately it would be a lawsuit against the town of Newtown that would come into play. Attorney Grogins agreed with that statement and that a scenario like that would look like a complaint being filed in superior court. It would depend on whether there was a specific situation or if it were a contested matter but in the end would depend on a judge's ruling. Ms. Bloom thinks that public opinion is changing and we can't know whether we would prevail in a lawsuit. She feels this is a public safety effort and it's in our best interest to at least try. Mr. Carroll believes the public safety aspect could sway to both sides, therefore does not feel it should be involved in this at all. Ms. Reiss asked if we did limit our approach to regulating the open carry of firearms, would that prevent us from having legal challenges. Attorney Grogins stated that it would not. Mr. Eide asked if Connecticut's open carry law was specific to open or concealed. Mr. Lundquist confirmed that it does not specifically state either. Mr. Eide continued to clarify that what is being argued is the manner in which one can carry – not whether one can carry or not provided you have a permit. Attorney Grogins agreed with his statement. Mr. Clure asked Attorney Grogins how much time could be estimated into defending a potential challenge. Attorney Grogins stated he could not give an estimate but noted that you certainly can be subjected to several levels of appeal and would be a very lengthy process. Mr. Knapp spoke again to the motion and feels this is about our municipal authority. He does not feel this will move forward because of the threat of challenges. As a matter of principal, he feels this should be handled at the state level. He worries that this hasn't been challenged yet. He believes the national spotlight on our community is more harmful than the financial cost associated with it. He does not feel it is worth it given that we do not have certainty whether this is even within our authority. Ms. Reiss moved to amend her original motion. Seconded by Mr. Eide. All in favor. Ms. Reiss moved to not refer a ban for open carry of firearms on town-owned property to the Ordinance Committee. Seconded by Mr. Eide. Motion fails (5-7). Ms. DeStefano moved to refer the ordinance to ban open carry of firearms on town-owned property to the Ordinance Committee for consideration. Seconded by Ms. Bloom. Motion passes (7-5). Ms. Bloom strongly believes that we need to allow the Ordinance Committee to do their job to research this and come up with a reasonable ordinance that we think could be passed. Mr. Knapp responded that he doesn't feel we will gain any more clarity. He is unclear as to what more research can be done that hasn't already been done. He does not see the need or cost benefit in sending this to Ordinance. Mr. Smith agrees with having more research being done on the topic and specifically defining carry. Mr. Wiedemann commented that we are being asked to legislate people's feelings and not something based on a need thus far. He feels we should not be trying to legislate something that hasn't happened. Mr. Honan thinks this is more of a quality of life issue instead of public safety. Mr. Eide feels that someone could very well feel threatened when nothing illegal is happening, and that police reports should not be used as a measure on whether someone felt threatened or not. Mr. Carroll stated that years ago they came to a fair and balanced ordinance and feels that's where it should stay. Mr. Lundquist feels that the two discussions being had on both sides of the spectrum should not replace what would be done on the ordinance level. He commented that if it does go to Ordinance Committee, we are still working on the premise of the need to work on a local problem with a local ordinance which does need to be defined. The opinion provided by the attorney is that you can do this with the consequence of a challenge, which can be true for any ordinance created. Mr. Knapp does not think we can legislate feelings of discomfort away. There are rules and regulations that act as deterrents towards retaliatory behavior. A prohibition on open carry will not solve the concerns that we've heard. Ms. Bloom said the research to be done by ordinance has to be about seeing what other towns have accomplished and what challenges they have been met with. This is not about people's political opinions or ideology, but what we can accomplish and what is possible. Ms. Reiss believes that Newtown will be dragged through a challenge and people are emotionally exhausted on this divisive issue. We don't really have the authority to do such a thing and it belongs at the state level. Mr. Eide said we are not talking about taking away people's guns, just talking about clarifying that it is to conceal it. Mr. Knapp said the situation and law have remained unchanged. Ms. Bloom thinks that laws are meant  to be changed and we should be given the authority. Mr. Lundquist added that we do not have a problem with all guns or gun owners in Newtown. It needs to be a worthy ordinance in order to pass. If the Council, as a group, can create that and believe it to be true, we should not be afraid of a challenge. He trusts the group to come up with the right answer. Ms. Reiss mentioned that there are four bills currently in front of the legislature to prohibit the regulation of firearms by other municipalities. She feels the Council should pay attention to this. Mr. Clure expressed concern about the possibility of being represented by an attorney pro-bono. The discussion continued before voting on the motion. VOTER COMMENT: Po Murray, 38 Charter Ridge Drive - Ms. Murray thanked the Council for following through with this process. She agrees that this should be brought to the state level and is willing to work with Council members to do that. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Announcement from NUSAR. See attachment E. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Mr. Wiedemann moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 pm. Seconded by Mr. Carroll. All in favor. Respectfully submitted, Rina Quijano, Clerk THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AT THE NEXT MEETING. Attachment A From: Barry Bernabe <bbernabe@muniadvisors.com> Date: Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 3:14 PM Subject: S&P affirms Newtown’s AAA Bond Rating To: Daniel Rosenthal (dan.rosenthal@newtown-ct.gov) <dan.rosenthal@newtown-ct.gov>, Robert Tait (Robert. Tait@newtown-ct.gov) <robert.tait@newtown-ct.gov>, Christal Preszler (christal.preszler@newtown-ct.gov) <christal.preszler@newtown-ct.gov> Cc: Glenn Santoro (gsantoro@rc.com) <gsantoro@rc.com>, Keisha S. Palmer (kpalmer@rc.com) <kpalmer@ rc.com>, Adam Tamzoke (atamzoke@rc.com) <atamzoke@rc.com>, Maduabueke, Samuel C. <SMadu- abueke@rc.com>, David Panico (dpanico@rc.com) <dpanico@rc.com>, Riley Green <rgreen@muniadvisors. com> Dan, Bob, & Christal – congratulations, S&P affirmed the Town’s AAA bond rating and assigned a stable out- look. Great job. Here is an excerpt from the report Very strong economy, with access to a broad and diverse metropolitan statistical area (MSA); Very strong management, with strong financial policies and practices under our Financial Management Assess- ment (FMA) methodology; Strong budgetary performance, with operating results that we expect could improve in the near term relative to fiscal 2020 • Strong budgetary flexibility, with an available fund balance in fiscal 2020 of 12.9% of operating expendi- tures; • Very strong liquidity, with total government available cash at 17.7% of total governmental fund expenditures • Very strong debt and contingent liability position, with debt service carrying charges at 6.9% of expenditures as well as low overall net debt • Strong institutional framework score. Barry J. Bernabe Managing Director Phoenix Advisors, LLC 53 River St., Suite 1 Milford, CT 06460 Tel. (203) 283-1110 Email: bbernabe@muniadvisors.com Summary: Newtown, Connecticut; General Obligation Primary Credit Analyst: Christian Richards, Boston + 1 (617) 530 8325; christian.richards@spglobal.com Secondary Contact: Charlene P Butterfield, New York + 1 (212) 438 2741; charlene.butterfield@spglobal.com Table Of Contents Rating Action Stable Outlook Credit Opinion Related Research WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT FEBRUARY 18, 2021 1 Summary: Newtown, Connecticut; General Obligation Credit Profile US$8.725 mil GO bnds ser 2021 due 03/15/2041 Long Term Rating AAA/Stable New Newtown GO Long Term Rating AAA/Stable Affirmed Newtown GO rfdg Long Term Rating AAA/Stable Affirmed Rating Action S&P Global Ratings assigned its 'AAA' long-term rating to Newtown, Conn.'s 2021 general obligation (GO) bonds. At the same time, we affirmed our 'AAA' rating on the town's existing GO debt. The outlook is stable. Newtown's full-faith-and-credit pledge and agreement to levy ad valorem property taxes, without limitation as to rate or amount, secure the bonds. Officials intend to use 2021 bond proceeds to fund various capital and infrastructure projects in line with the town's capital improvement plan (CIP). Credit overview The rating and outlook reflect the town's consistent financial results, leading to maintenance of very strong reserve levels, which we expect to continue. A very strong management environment, strengthened by a very strong economic profile and low fixed costs, further supports the rating. While economic growth has been slow regionally, management's conservative budgeting practices have led to consistently strong financial performance and improving reserves over several years. Despite broad macroeconomic pressures, we believe management will continue to adjust the budget to remain balanced while seeking to expand the local property tax base through ongoing development initiatives. We rate Newtown higher than the nation because we believe the town can maintain better credit characteristics than the nation in a stress scenario, based on its predominantly locally derived revenue base and our view that pledged revenue supporting debt service on the bonds is at limited risk of negative sovereign intervention. (For further information, please see our criteria, titled "Ratings Above The Sovereign: Corporate And Government Ratings—Methodology And Assumptions," published Nov. 19, 2013, on RatingsDirect.) In 2020, local property taxes generated 83% of general fund revenue on a generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) basis, demonstrating a lack of dependence on central government funding. The long-term rating further reflects our view of the following factors: WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT FEBRUARY 18, 2021 2  Summary: Newtown, Connecticut; General Obligation • Very strong economy, with access to a broad and diverse metropolitan statistical area (MSA); • Very strong management, with strong financial policies and practices under our Financial Management Assessment (FMA) methodology; • Strong budgetary performance, with operating results that we expect could improve in the near term relative to fiscal 2020, which closed with balanced operating results in the general fund and a slight operating surplus at the total governmental fund level in fiscal 2020; • Strong budgetary flexibility, with an available fund balance in fiscal 2020 of 12.9% of operating expenditures; • Very strong liquidity, with total government available cash at 17.7% of total governmental fund expenditures and 2.5x governmental debt service, and access to external liquidity we consider strong; • Very strong debt and contingent liability position, with debt service carrying charges at 6.9% of expenditures and net direct debt that is 59.0% of total governmental fund revenue, as well as low overall net debt at less than 3% of market value and rapid amortization, with 66.7% of debt scheduled to be retired in 10 years, but significant medium-term debt plans; and • Strong institutional framework score. Environmental, social, and governance factors Our rating incorporates our view regarding the health and safety risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Absent the implications of the pandemic, we consider the town's social risks in line with those of the sector. We analyzed Newtown's environmental and governance risks relative to the town's economy, management, financial measures, and debt and liability profile, and determined that all are in line with our view of the sector standard. Stable Outlook Downside scenario If Newtown were to experience budgetary pressure, resulting in negative operations leading to a significant deterioration of available reserves, we could lower the rating. Credit Opinion Very strong economy We consider Newtown's economy very strong. The town, with a population of 29,148, is in Fairfield County in the Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk MSA, which we consider to be broad and diverse. It has a projected per capita effective buying income of 146% of the national level and per capita market value of $157,620. Overall, market value grew by 0.8% over the past year to $4.6 billion in 2021. The county unemployment rate rose to 10.5% in July 2020, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and remained above 10% for two months of the year. We do not expect the county-level unemployment rate, which was 7.3% in December 2020, to change our view of the town's economic profile. Newtown residents have access to employment centers in the county and New York City. While the town is largely residential, management is working actively to expand the commercial base, particularly within the town's designated WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT FEBRUARY 18, 2021 3  Summary: Newtown, Connecticut; General Obligation business districts. Despite ongoing develop supported by management, we believe tax base growth will remain slow relative to peers outside the state. Nevertheless, management has been able to incorporate this into its budgeting and forecasts, and budgetary performance has been steady over many years. We do not expect to revise our view of the town's economic profile as a result of the pandemic and recession. We believe its wealth and income metrics, as well as underlying tax base, remain stable, further supported by participation in a broad and diverse MSA. We believe incremental growth in the tax base is likely to continue. Very strong management We view the town's management as very strong, with strong financial policies and practices under our FMA methodology, indicating financial practices are strong, well embedded, and likely sustainable. Highlights of the financial management environment include: • The use of three years of historical data to inform revenue and expenditure assumptions; • An annually updated budget forecasting tool, which projects out 10 years, to examine potential revenue or expenditure trend deviations; • A CIP that identifies projects and funding for the next five years and is updated annually; and • Monthly financial reporting, including reviewing revenue and expenditure performance and investment performance. Newtown also has a formally adopted investment policy, which mirrors state law. Its debt management policy limits debt service to 9% of general fund expenditures, requires 50% amortization of outstanding GO debt within 10 years, and sets a refunding target of at least 2%. We believe the town incorporates long-term debt monitoring and planning into its long-term financial and capital planning. Finally, the reserve policy calls for an unassigned fund balance of 8%-12% of total general fund expenditures based on cash-flow needs. Historically, management has adhered to its debt-management and reserve policies. Strong budgetary performance Newtown's budgetary performance is strong, in our opinion. The town had balanced operating results in the general fund of 0.4% of expenditures, and slight surplus results across all governmental funds of 0.8% in fiscal 2020. Our assessment accounts for the fact that we expect budgetary results could improve from 2020 results in the near term. General fund operating results of the town have been stable over the last three years, with results of 0.6% in 2019 and 0.6% in 2018. Our assessment accounts for the ongoing uncertainty from the pandemic and economic recovery. While Newtown has a long history of year-end operating surplus results due to its very strong financial management, we believe fiscal 2021 year-end results remain uncertain due to the pandemic and economic recovery. However, we also believe that the town is likely to outperform its budget, given current projections, likely resulting in continued strong budgetary performance. Local property taxes consistently account for more than 80% of audited revenues, while intergovernmental is less than 15%. We believe this provides inherent predictability in the town's budgeting. Management reports that fiscal 2021 WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT FEBRUARY 18, 2021 4  Summary: Newtown, Connecticut; General Obligation total revenues are coming in better than budget, with property taxes, conveyance fees, and state aid exceeding the budget, and outweighing interest income and certain departmental revenues that are below budget. Expenditures are also close to budget. The town has approximately $1.3 million appropriated into the budget it could access for additional flexibility, but we would not expect it to draw down reserves on a GAAP basis that would result in a material negative general fund operating result. We also expect approximately balanced results across all governmental funds. Strong budgetary flexibility Newtown's budgetary flexibility is strong, in our view, with an available fund balance in fiscal 2020 of 12.9% of operating expenditures, or $17.1 million. The town consistently maintain strong available reserve levels. We do not expect any material change in reserves as a percentage of operating expenditures, given recent performance and our expectation that over the long term, the town will maintain at least balanced financial results. Very strong liquidity In our opinion, Newtown's liquidity is very strong, with total government available cash at 17.7% of total governmental fund expenditures and 2.5x governmental debt service in 2020. In our view, the town has strong access to external liquidity if necessary. Newtown has consistently maintained very strong cash reserves, with its overall liquidity profile further supported by demonstrated strong access to external liquidity through frequent GO debt and note issuance. The town is not aggressive in its use of investments and it does not have any financial instruments that could strain its cash position. Very strong debt and contingent liability profile In our view, Newtown's debt and contingent liability profile is very strong. Total governmental fund debt service is 6.9% of total governmental fund expenditures, and net direct debt is 59.0% of total governmental fund revenue. Overall net debt is low at 1.9% of market value, and approximately 66.7% of the direct debt is scheduled to be repaid within 10 years, which are, in our view, positive credit factors. Negatively affecting our view of the town's debt profile are its significant medium-term debt plans. Following this issuance, the town has approximately $85.6 million in debt outstanding. According to its CIP, it expects to issue approximately $21.7 million in new-money debt over the next two years, which we believe could have a material effect on debt ratios. However, given the rapid amortization and low debt-to-market values, along with limited retirement liability credit pressure, we do not expect to revise our view of the town's debt profile. Pension and OPEB highlights • We do not view pension and OPEB liabilities or costs as a source of credit pressure for Newtown despite our expectation that costs will increase. • The town has made progress in adopting increasingly conservative assumptions, which we expect to continue. Newtown participated in the following pension plan as of June 30, 2020: • Newtown Employees' Pension Plan and Newtown Police Officers' Pension Plan, referred to collectively as "the town plan": 76% funded, $15 million net pension liability. WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT FEBRUARY 18, 2021 5  Summary: Newtown, Connecticut; General Obligation Newtown's combined required pension and actual OPEB contributions totaled 2.0% of total governmental fund expenditures in 2020. The town made 100% of its annual required pension contribution in 2020. The pension plan is closed to new hires, who participate in a defined-contribution plan. Newtown also offers OPEBs to some retirees in the form of a health-care plan. Eligible retirees receive benefits until Medicare age. The town contributes $200,000 to its OPEB trust, as well as annual retiree medical costs. Newtown's net OPEB liability is $5.2 million. Its liability is 37% funded. As the pension plan is relatively well funded with low annual costs, with management working to limit future liability growth and demonstrated funding of OPEB liabilities, we do not expect significant pressure from retirement liabilities or costs. Strong institutional framework The institutional framework score for Connecticut municipalities is strong. Related Research • Through The ESG Lens 2.0: A Deeper Dive Into U.S. Public Finance Credit Factors, April 28, 2020 • Criteria Guidance: Assessing U.S. Public Finance Pension And Other Postemployment Obligations For GO Debt, Local Government GO Ratings, And State Ratings, Oct. 7, 2019 • S&P Public Finance Local GO Criteria: How We Adjust Data For Analytic Consistency, Sept. 12, 2013 Certain terms used in this report, particularly certain adjectives used to express our view on rating relevant factors, have specific meanings ascribed to them in our criteria, and should therefore be read in conjunction with such criteria. Please see Ratings Criteria at www.standardandpoors.com for further information. Complete ratings information is available to subscribers of RatingsDirect at www.capitaliq.com. All ratings affected by this rating action can be found on S&P Global Ratings' public website at www.standardandpoors.com. Use the Ratings search box located in the left column. WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT FEBRUARY 18, 2021 6 Copyright © 2021 by Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC. All rights reserved. No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages. Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating- related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses. To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw or suspend such acknowledgment at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof. S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain non-public information received in connection with each analytical process. S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees. STANDARD & POOR’S, S&P and RATINGSDIRECT are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC. WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT FEBRUARY 18, 2021 7 Attachment B Municipal Resource and Service Center February 15, 2021 Governor’s Proposed FY 22 State Budget: Impact on Towns and Cities Contents Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Education Aid .................................................................................................................................... 1 Education Cost Sharing (ECS) ..................................................................................................................... 2 Alliance Districts .............................................................................................................................................. 2 ESSER II ................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Charter Schools ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Minimum Budget Requirement (MBR) ................................................................................................... 3 Non-Education Aid ........................................................................................................................... 4 PILOT: Colleges & Hospitals ....................................................................................................................... 4 Additional Support: Distressed Municipalities ................................................................................... 5 Municipal Revenue Sharing Account (MRSA) ...................................................................................... 5 Additional Items ................................................................................................................................ 5 Bond Funding..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Motor Vehicle Tax Cap .................................................................................................................................. 6 Municipal Spending Cap................................................................................................................................ 6 Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS) ........................................................................................................ 6 Stormwater Authority ................................................................................................................................... 7 Local Conveyance Tax ................................................................................................................................... 7 Recreational Marijuana ................................................................................................................................. 7 Gaming ................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Broadband Expansion .................................................................................................................................... 8 Highway Use Tax .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Transportation Climate Initiative Plan (TCI-P) ................................................................................... 8 Elderly Renters' Tax Relief ........................................................................................................................... 8 545 Long Wharf, 8 th Floor, New Haven, CT 06511 203-498-3000 www.ccm-ct.org  Overview On February 10, 2021, the Governor proposed his FY 22 state budget. The budget calls for combined expenditures of $22.6 billion. This equates to an increase of $442.2 million (2.0%) over FY 21 appropriations. The proposal would increase municipal aid by $317.7 million (9.9%) versus FY 21. Gov. FY 22 v. FY 21 Est. Gov. Prop. Change: FY 21 FY 22 $ % Municipal Aid 3,218,879,130 3,536,609,386 317,730,256 9.9% Education Aid Below are changes to statewide totals for major education grant programs. The budget includes education grants totaling $2.87 billion in FY 22. This represents an increase of $220.6 million (8.3%) compared to FY 21. Gov. FY 22 v. FY 21 Est. Gov. Prop. Change: FY 21 FY 22 $ % Adult Education 20,383,960 20,385,878 1,918 0.0% After School Program 5,750,695 5,750,695 0 0.0% Bilingual Education 1,916,130 1,916,130 0 0.0% Education Cost Sharing 2,093,587,133 2,093,587,133 0 0.0% Excess Cost - Student Based 140,619,782 140,619,782 0 0.0% Extended School Hours 2,919,883 2,919,883 0 0.0% Health Serv for Pupils Private Schools 3,438,415 3,438,415 0 0.0% Interdistrict Cooperation 1,537,500 1,383,750 (153,750) -10.0% Magnet Schools 295,033,302 292,223,044 (2,810,258) -1.0% Open Choice Program 25,982,027 27,980,849 1,998,822 7.7% Priority School Districts 30,818,778 30,818,778 0 0.0% School Accountability 3,412,207 3,412,207 0 0.0% School Breakfast Program 2,158,900 2,158,900 0 0.0% Vocational Agriculture 15,124,200 15,124,200 0 0.0% Youth Service Bureaus 2,626,772 2,626,772 0 0.0% ESSER II (Federal) 0 221,591,906 221,591,906 -- Total Education Aid 2,645,309,684 2,865,938,322 220,628,638 8.3% It is important to note that the significant increase in education funding is due to federal support. This is discussed in more detail below. CCM Municipal Resource and Service Center Gov. FY 22 State Budget 1 Education Cost Sharing (ECS) The governor’s plan retains the current ECS formula. His proposal, however, pauses for two years the phase-in of increases for towns that are underfunded according to the formula and decreases for towns that are overfunded. Towns would receive the same ECS amounts in FY 22 that they received in FY 21. Alliance Districts At this time, CCM has not seen anything in the proposal that indicates changes to the ECS breakdown for Alliance Districts. The municipal, or base, portion of the grant would continue to be the FY 12 ECS amount. The increase above the FY 12 amount is the Alliance District portion. If we do identify any changes to the Alliance District program, we will update this document to reflect that. ESSER II The Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSA) was signed into law on December 27, 2020. It provides an additional $54.3 billion for the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER II). Connecticut’s share of the funding is $492.4 million. Of that, $443.2 million would be distributed to local education agencies (LEA) over two years, FY 22 and FY 23. According to the Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA), however, federal guidelines indicate that this funding must be awarded to LEAs by January 2022. The State Department of Education (SDE) will oversee the allocation of ESSER II consistent with the ESSER I distribution from 2020. The funding will be provided to districts based on their FY 20 Title I allocation. This funding is separate from ECS and should be considered board-of-education revenue. Charter Schools The governor is proposing an increase in the per-pupil grant for charter schools. The grant would go from $11,250 to $11,525, which is identical to the ECS foundation level. CCM Municipal Resource and Service Center Gov. FY 22 State Budget 2 Minimum Budget Requirement (MBR) The governor is proposing an extension of the current MBR for FY 22. Here is the current MBR.  There would be no MBR for school districts that have an “accountability index score” in the top 10 percent of all districts in the state. This allows those districts to reduce their education budget with no restrictions.  Member towns of a newly formed regional school district would also be exempt during the first full fiscal year following its establishment.  The MBR for Alliance Districts, or those formally designated as such, would equal the prior year’s budgeted appropriation.  The MBR for all other districts would be the prior year’s budgeted appropriation plus any ECS increase. Reductions would be allowed for non-Alliance Districts under the following conditions.  If a district is set to receive a decrease in ECS funding in FY 21, it could reduce its MBR by the amount of the reduction.  The district can reduce its MRB if it demonstrate savings through increased efficiencies or regional collaborations. The budget outlines examples of what is eligible.  A district that does not maintain a high school and pays tuition to another school district and a student population attending high school as of the October 1 count two years prior that is less than the count for October 1 three years prior, may reduce its budgeted appropriation by such difference multiplied by the amount of tuition paid per student.  A school is closed due to lower enrollment. Approval would be required from the SDE commissioner. In calculating the MBR, an ECS grant increase or decrease is the difference between the FY 21 amount and the FY 20 amount (i.e., “base amount”). CCM Municipal Resource and Service Center Gov. FY 22 State Budget 3  Non-Education Aid Below are changes to statewide totals for major non-education grant programs. The budget includes non-education grants totaling $670.7 million in FY 22. This represents an increase of $97.1 million (16.9%) compared to FY 21. Gov. FY 22 v. FY 21 Est. Gov. Prop. Change: FY 21 FY 22 $ % Distressed Municipalities 1,500,000 1,500,000 0 0.0% Housing/Homeless Services - Municipality 575,226 607,063 31,837 5.5% Local Capital Improvement Program 30,000,000 30,000,000 0 0.0% Local and District Departments of Health 4,210,499 4,210,499 0 0.0% Grants for Municipal Projects 76,000,000 76,000,000 0 0.0% Municipal Revenue Sharing 36,819,135 36,819,135 0 0.0% Municipal Restructuring 63,614,629 61,977,710 (1,636,919) -2.6% Municipal Stabilization Grant 38,253,335 37,753,335 (500,000) -1.3% Motor Vehicle Reimbursement 32,331,732 32,331,732 0 0.0% Pequot-Mohegan Fund 51,472,796 51,472,796 0 0.0% PILOT: Colleges & Hospitals 109,889,434 108,998,308 (891,126) -0.8% PILOT: State-Owned Property 54,944,031 54,944,031 0 0.0% Property Tax Relief Elderly Freeze Program 40,000 10,000 (30,000) -75.0% Property Tax Relief for Veterans 2,708,107 2,708,107 0 0.0% Property Tax-Disability Exemption 364,713 364,713 0 0.0% School Based Health Clinics 10,550,187 10,678,013 127,826 1.2% Teen Pregnancy Prevention - Municipality 98,281 98,281 0 0.0% Town Aid Road 60,000,000 60,000,000 0 0.0% Venereal Disease Control 197,341 197,341 0 0.0% Additional Support: Distressed Municipalities 0 100,000,000 100,000,000 -- Total Non-Education Aid 573,569,446 670,671,064 97,101,618 16.9% PILOT: Colleges & Hospitals The decrease in overall PILOT: Colleges & Hospitals is due to changes in exemption claims in a handful of towns. The FY 22 amounts for most towns receiving this grant are identical to the FY 21 amounts. CCM Municipal Resource and Service Center Gov. FY 22 State Budget 4 Additional Support: Distressed Municipalities The additional support for distressed municipalities would be funded 50% from the Municipal Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) and 50% from new bonding. This means that use of half the funding would have to comply with CRF requirements. We don’t yet know how the remaining half would have to be used, but given that it is bonded funding, it may have some restrictions. Funding would be distributed based on population to the 25 municipalities designated as distressed in FY 20 by the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD). Municipal Revenue Sharing Account (MRSA) The governor’s budget delays the transfer of 0.5 percentage points of the sales tax into MRSA for two more years, until FY 24. The FY 22 revenue to towns and cities was projected to be $377.2 million. Additional Items Below are additional items in the FY 22 budget that affect towns and cities. Bond Funding The following are some of the governor’s recommended FY 22 bond authorizations that impact local government.  Urban Act: $50 million  STEAP: None ($45 million of authorized STEAP funding currently remains unallocated by the State Bond Commission)  Police body and dashboard recording equipment: $2 million  Distressed municipalities: $50 million in grants; $7 million for capital projects  School construction: $550 million  School Security Competitive Grant: $5 million  Clean Water Fund: $75 million  Bikeway, walkway, greenway grants: $3 million  Open space: $5 million CCM Municipal Resource and Service Center Gov. FY 22 State Budget 5   Grants for incinerator and landfill improvements: $2.9 million  Microgrid loans and grants: $5 million  Urban industrial site clean-up: $10.5 million  Brownfield remediation: $30 million  PFAS testing and remediation: $1.15 million  Crumbling Foundation Assistance Fund: $10 million  Grants and loans for housing projects and programs: $155 million  Grants and loans for deep water ports: $50 million  Local Transportation Capital Improvement Program: $67 million  Local Bridge Program: $10 million  Grants for facility improvements in low-performing schools: $5 million Motor Vehicle Tax Cap The proposal does not address the motor vehicle mill rate (MVMR). That would mean the FY 22 cap would remain at 45 mills. Municipal Spending Cap The governor’s proposal made no mention of changes to the municipal spending cap. Under current law, the spending cap remains in place. OPM must still calculate the cap and determine if towns have exceeded it. There is currently, however, no penalty for exceeding the cap. That is because there would be no MRSA funding again in FY 22, and that is from where the penalty would have been taken. Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS) The budget fully funds the actuarially determined employer contribution (ADEC) for the TRS. It also fully funds the state portion of the TRS retiree health account. CCM Municipal Resource and Service Center Gov. FY 22 State Budget 6 Stormwater Authority The governor’s proposal allows towns and cities to create stormwater authorities, which would be able to assess fees based on the amount of impervious surface of any real property. Each stormwater authority would present its annual budget to the legislative body of the municipality for approval. The budget would include a list of, and projected expenditures for, projects the authority would undertake during the year. It would also outline the fees the authority proposes to levy to pay for such expenditures. Local Conveyance Tax The proposal includes a local-option conveyance tax on real property.  The tax would be up to 0.5% on the amount above $150,000 for property valued below $800,000;  up to 1.0% on the value between $800,000 and $2.5 million; and  up to 1.5% on the value above $2.5 million. The funds would be held in a separate account and could be used for the following:  the purchase, preservation, or stewardship of open space or other interests in land, including, but not limited to, water resources, forest land, and farmland;  funding of a Climate Change and Coastal Resiliency Reserve Fund, created by the municipality, or for other municipal climate resilience, mitigation, or adaptation strategies;  matching of investments from state programs funded pursuant to section 4-66aa of the general statutes (community investment account);  funding of other environmental projects, including, but not limited to, urban forestry and tree planting; and  repayment of municipal bonds issued for any of the purposes described above. Recreational Marijuana The governor is proposing the legalization of recreational marijuana for adults beginning in May 2022. On top of the 6.35% sales tax, a state excise tax of 9.5% would be applied to cannabis products. Half of the excise tax revenue would be distributed to municipalities for PILOT grants beginning in FY 24. There would also be a 3.0% local excise tax on cannabis products. CCM Municipal Resource and Service Center Gov. FY 22 State Budget 7 Gaming The proposal includes the expansion of gaming. It allows the operation of sports betting, e- sports, and daily fantasy contests both on and off of tribal lands. It also allows the online expansion of casino gaming, Keno, and lottery games. Broadband Expansion The budget includes $2.85 million to help facilitate the expansion of broadband service. The funding would be used by OPM, DEEP, PURA, and Consumer Counsel for planning and policy development around the issue. Highway Use Tax The proposed budget includes a new highway use tax.  It would apply to tractor trailers and vehicles weighing 26,000 to 80,000 pounds.  Trucks above 80,000 pounds would be charged an additional amount.  Rates would increase by 2,000-pound increments from 2.5 cents per mile to 10 cents per mile.  Trucks above 80,000 pounds would be charged 17.5 cents per mile. The plan is projected to generate $90 million annually. Transportation Climate Initiative Plan (TCI-P) Another proposal in the budget is to enact the Transportation Climate Initiative Plan (TCI- P). TCI-P aims to reduce carbon emissions by 26% by the year 2032 by enacting a regional cap-and-trade mechanism for carbon fuel-based emissions. It would impose an excise tax on fuel wholesalers that could range from $0.05 to $0.09 per gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel. That revenue would be placed into the Special Transportation Fund and used for projects that would reduce carbon-based emissions, such as improvements to mass transit, traffic mitigation, and increased broadband connectivity. Elderly Renters' Tax Relief The proposal reduces funding for the Elderly Renters' Tax Relief program by $2.7 million in FY 22. The reduction is due to anticipated reduction in caseloads. ### If you have any questions, please contact George Rafael at grafael@ccm-ct.org or 203- 498-3063. CCM Municipal Resource and Service Center Gov. FY 22 State Budget 8 Attachment C Attachment D DAVID L. GROGINS Please Reply To Danbury e-mail: dgrogins@cohenandwolf.com February 12, 2021 Via Email Mr. Paul Lundquist Legislative Council Newtown Town Hall 3 Primrose Street Newtown, CT 06470 Re: Local (Municipal) Regulation of Firearms on Municipal Property Dear Chairman Lundquist: You have requested my opinion regarding the Town’s authority to regulate the open carry of firearms on municipality property. In this regard, I have examined state statutes, case law and ordinances from nearby towns. Set forth below is my legal analysis of the question and a recommendation based on my research. I have also attached a memorandum prepared by my partner, David Dobin, in 2014 on the same topic. While the situation and law have, for the most part, remained unchanged, many more local municipalities have adopted regulations prohibiting and/or regulating the possession of firearms on municipal property. Unfortunately, the sum of this research (both my own and David Dobin’s) does not provide a clear basis for concluding that the local (municipal) prohibition of the open carry of firearms on municipal property by ordinance will successfully weather a challenge in the State Court. Therefore, it is my recommendation that any attempt to so regulate should be limited in its approach by specifically describing the weapons to be restricted and the area to be regulated. Very truly yours, David L. Grogins David L. Grogins DLG:pld Enclosure From: Dobin, David <DDobin@cohenandwolf.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 12:46 PM To: Grogins, David L. <DGrogins@cohenandwolf.com> Cc: Dobin, David <DDobin@cohenandwolf.com> Subject: Newtown - Preliminary Firearms Research David - You have asked me to research the question of whether a municipality’s authority to prohibit the possession of firearms on or in municipal property is preempted by state statute. Research has revealed no Connecticut state statute or case directly answering this question. Summary Connecticut municipalities have certain general powers to enact ordinances to protect the health and safety of its inhabitants, but no specifically enumerated powers to regulate the possession of firearms on municipal property or otherwise. In addition, there are a number Connecticut cases holding that municipalities are prohibited from regulating hunting and the sale of firearms by virtue of state preemption of those fields, and cases in other jurisdictions holding that local bans on firearms on municipal properties are preempted by state statute. Finally, research has not revealed many towns who have enacted ordinances banning firearms on municipal property, although many towns have banned firearms from public parks and open space. Copied at the end of this email are examples of ordinances banning firearms from municipal property. Research Findings Although there are a number of statutes regulating firearm use, sale, transfer, possession, and transportation of firearms, there is no state statute expressly prohibiting a municipality from regulating the possession of firearms or expressly authorizing a municipality to do so. See “OLR BACKGROUNDER: FIREARM PREEMPTION ISSUES—DOES CONNECTICUT LAW PREEMPT MUNICIPAL FIREARM ORDINANCES?”, Mar. 11, 2011, available at http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0137.htm (“The statutes neither expressly prohibit municipalities from enacting firearm ordinances nor authorize municipalities to enact [firearm-related] ordinances.”). The following powers granted to municipalities may form the basis for prohibiting the possession of firearms on municipal property:  Regulate the mode of using any buildings when such regulations seem expedient for the purpose of promoting the safety, health, morals and general welfare of the inhabitants of the municipality; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7- 148(c)(7)(A)(ii)   Preserve the public peace and good order, prevent and quell riots and disorderly assemblages and prevent disturbing noises. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7- 148(c)(7)(H)(viii)  Provide for the health of the inhabitants of the municipality and do all things necessary or desirable to secure and promote the public health; See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-148(c)(7)(H)(xi)  Make and enforce police, sanitary or other similar regulations and protect or promote the peace, safety, good government and welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7- 148(c)(7)(H)(xiii).  Regulate, on any property owned by the municipality, any activity deemed to be deleterious to public health, including the lighting or carrying of a lighted cigarette, cigar, pipe or similar device. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7- 148(c)(7)(H)(xvi). In addition, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-28(e), concerning the licensing of pistol permits, provides that “[t]he issuance of any permit to carry a pistol or revolver does not thereby authorize the possession or carrying of a pistol or revolver in any premises where the possession or carrying of a pistol or revolver is otherwise prohibited by law or is prohibited by the person who owns or exercises control over such premises.” There are no Connecticut cases discussing this provision as applied to municipalities. Despite this general authority granted to Connecticut municipalities, it should be noted that Connecticut courts have held that the state legislature has preempted a number of fields related to firearms, including hunting and retail sales. In Kaluszka v. Town of East Hartford, 60 Conn. App. 749, 752 (2000), the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s holding in Kaluszka v. Town of E. Hartford, 46 Conn. Supp. 588 (Super. Ct. 1999) that “the state has manifested the intent to occupy the field of hunting regulation . . . [and] the town has no authority to regulate hunting on federal, state or private property within its borders.” Id. at 596. See also, e.g., Wings Over Connecticut Corp. v. Tolland Zoning Bd. of Appeals, CV 90-0046338S, 1991 WL 232581 (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 31, 1991) (“there is no doubt in the Court's mind that the State has preempted the regulation of hunting”); State v. Brennan, 3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 413, 417 (1965) (“the state has preempted the field of regulating and encouraging the hunting of wildlife on public and private lands and waters”); Kalaski v. Town of East Hartford, 24 Conn.L.Rptr. 405, 408 (1991) (municipal ordinance prohibiting hunting in certain areas is void); It has also been held that a local ordinance placing restrictions on the sale of handguns more substantial than those in the state statutes was preempted by the state statutes. See Dwyer v. Farrell, 193 Conn. 7, 14 (1984). In addition, although there are no Connecticut cases discussing whether the state has preempted municipal regulation of possession of firearms on municipal property, there are a number of cases from other jurisdictions in which it was held that such municipal regulation was preempted, where the state by statute expressly preempted local firearms regulation. See, e.g., Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. Clyde, 896 N.E.2d 967, 969 (Ohio 2008) (local ordinance, which “prohibit[ed] licensed handgun owners from carrying concealed handguns in . . . city parks,” was invalid as conflicting with state law, which permitted licensed handgun owners to “carry a concealed handgun anywhere in this state,” subject to specific exceptions that did not include municipal property); Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners v. City of Ferndale, 662 N.W.2d 864, 866, 871-874 (Mich. App. Ct. 2003) (a local ordinance banning the possession or concealment of weapons in municipal buildings was preempted by a state statute, which provided that “[a] local unit of government shall not ... enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ... except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state”); Doe v. Portland Hous. Auth., 656 A.2d 1200, 1202 (Me. 1995) (housing authority lease banning possession of all firearms was invalid on preemption grounds due to a statute which provided, “The State intends to occupy and preempt the entire field of legislation concerning the regulation of firearms, components, ammunition and supplies.... [A]ny existing or future order, ordinance, rule or regulation in this field of any political subdivision of the State is void”). These cases may be distinguishable on the grounds that in Connecticut there is no statute that expressly preempts local firearms regulation. However, because there are no Connecticut cases directly addressing local regulation of firearms possession on municipal property and there are at least some cases holding that local regulation of firearms is preempted, it cannot be stated with certainty that a court would uphold a ban on possession of firearms on town-owned property. Finally, research has not revealed many towns who have enacted ordinances banning firearms on municipal property, although many towns have banned firearms from public parks and open space. Below are examples of ordinances banning firearms from municipal property:  “It shall be a violation of this chapter for any person to commit any of the following actions with respect to the properties listed . . . To possess or discharge any firearm, fireworks or other hunting implement on any open space property, school grounds or Town-owned property except as permitted during Town-approved or -sponsored events or as permitted by the Town Manager or his or her designee; however, firearms and other hunting implements may be possessed and discharged in accordance with state law on open space property where hunting is permitted.” Town of Farmington Code of Ordinances, § 148-3(D)  “Rules for parks, recreational facilities and municipally owned property are the following . . . No person shall hunt, trap, or pursue wildlife at any time, and no person shall use, carry, or possess firearms, air rifles, spring guns,  bow and arrows, slings, or any kind of trapping device, or any other weapons potentially inimical to wildlife and dangerous to human safety.” Town of Meriden Code of Ordinances, § 150-2(A)(15). David Dobin | Cohen and Wolf, P.C. 1115 Broad Street | Bridgeport, CT 06604 | P: 203.337.4120 | F: 203.337.5520 ddobin@cohenandwolf.com | www.cohenandwolf.com This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity that is the named addressee and may contain information that is privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, or by telephone (203-368-0211), discard any paper copies and delete all electronic files of the message. AMONG THE LEGAL SERVICES THIS LAW FIRM PROVIDES IS DEBT COLLECTION AND ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY YOU WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. Please also be advised that if you are not my client and are not represented by counsel, I am not disinterested and I am not your lawyer. In addition, you are advised to secure counsel and have your counsel contact me. Attachment E FYI : NUSAR Certification Event Sun 2/21 Hello LC Members: Please consider attending this event on Sunday at 11:30am if you’re available. Sunday February 21 at 11:30-12:00 NUSAR will be at the Town boat launch on Hanover Road. At this time 7 members will be finishing their ice diving certification and 4 other members will participate with an ice dive! NUSAR would like to invite the board of selectmen and the legislative council to attend and find out and see what NUSAR does. I believe that most elected town officials do not actually under- stand what NUSAR is, does,and is capable of. This would go a long way for their understanding which should help during budget deliberations. See you ALL there Be Safe Mike Chief@nusar.org 203-788-2853