State House supports transportation lockbox

HARTFORD »The House was unable to find the votes for electronic tolls, but they found enough support for a resolution that attempts to dedicate certain revenue streams toward transportation improvements.

The so-called transportation lockbox proposal will be placed on the ballot for voters in 2018 if it’s approved by the Senate. The House approved the bill 101 to 50. Twenty-two Republicans joined all 79 Democrats in voting for the measure.

The step was a necessary one in order to win Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s approval for increasing any revenue streams earmarked for improving transportation. Malloy has said he won’t support additional revenue for transportation until a constitutional lockbox is in place.

The last time the House approved a lockbox was on Dec. 8, 2015. That year the House voted 100 to 40. Even though it passed, it failed to win the super majority it needed to get on the ballot in 2016. If the Senate approves the same resolution again, then it will be on the ballot in 2018.

House Minority Leader Themis Klarides, R-Derby, said the Democratic definition of a lockbox has a nice lock on the front, but big holes in the back.

“We appreciate the effort, it just doesn’t go far enough,” Klarides said.

She said “good enough isn’t good enough in this situation.”

State Rep. Laura Devlin, R-Fairfield, said the funds in the special transportation fund continues to be swept to deal with the fiscal mismanagement of our state.

“This lock box is not locked at all. In fact it could be opened with a hairpin,” Devlin said.

Devlin was one of 26 Republicans who supported the same lockbox in 2015.

State Rep. Doug Dubitsky, R-Chaplin, introduced an amendment he felt would make the proposal stronger because it would define the revenue that goes into the fund and the money that goes out of the fund.

He said the “temptation to grab this money is too strong” when we’ve overspent on other things. He said putting it in the constitution doesn’t make it a lockbox if the General Assembly still has the key.

Dubitsky said he took a lot of heat for voting against the lockbox in 2015, but he felt the amendment would make it stronger.

State Rep. Tom O’Dea, RNew Canaan, said the underlying lockbox proposal would allow for revenue diversions before the money gets to the fund.

“I believe the governor likes our lockbox better than the majority’s,” O’Dea said.

But amending the underlying resolution would require the House and Senate to approve it by a supermajority if it was going to get on the ballot by 2018.

Democrats who still hold a slim majority over Republicans weren’t going to let that happen.

“The fact is, modernizing our transportation networks is critical to the future economic health of our state,” Malloy said. “For too long, the state failed to make the necessary upgrades and maintenance on our roads, bridges, and railways and we are paying the price today for this neglect.”

He said it will be nice to get the issue on the table for Connecticut voters.

“People deserve to know that if they’re paying fees, and costs, and taxes that are associated with transportation that it’s actually going to go into transportation,” Malloy said Tuesday outside the state Capitol.

In order to win Democratic votes back in 2015, Malloy agreed to change the language he had initially proposed for a lockbox. However, that cost him Republican votes and ultimately the ability to get it on the ballot in 2016.

Asked if he preferred stricter language, Malloy said “In this building people tend of make perceived perfect the enemy of better … Right now our constitution doesn’t say anything.”

Some lawmakers opposed the lockbox because they felt it was the first step to moving toward electronic tolls. Immediately after passing the lockbox the House called an electronic toll study bill for debate. However, the debate was expected to be tabled before any vote was taken.

During the House debate on the lockbox, there was some confusion on the floor when state Rep. Art O’Neill, R-Southbury, called for a point of order regarding the actual physical copy of the resolution, which had been passed in 2015. He said the chamber operates on actual physical signed documents and not copies of documents.

“This may seem old-fashioned, it may seem something from a different era when people didn’t have duplicating machines,” O’Neill said. “But our system requires that you have the piece of paper.”

He said trying to change Connecticut’s constitution is a serious matter.

House Speaker Joe Aresimowicz, D-Berlin, called O’Neill’s point of order “shameful.”

“This is another example of showing the people of Connecticut that House Republicans really don’t care about looking for ways to fix our outdated transportation infrastructure, and that their only priority is looking ahead to the 2018 elections,” Aresimowicz said. This story has been modified from its original version. To view the original, visit ctnewsjunkie.com.