The 2001 Connecticut General Assembly met in regular session from January 3 to midnight on June 6. A special session was concluded on June 29 to deal with passing a state budget. No significant matters affecting our industry were dealt with during the special session. During the regular session, the HBA of Connecticut testified on over 25 bills (i.e., proposed laws) and worked on many additional bills and amendments. This report is a brief synopsis of the significant bills that died and the bills that became law in 2001 (the HBA’s position is also noted):
Bills that were passed and signed by the Governor
Senate Bill 1037 (Support) – Authorizes a new voluntary mediation process to resolve all land use disputes appealed to court. Public Act 01-47; Effective 10/1/01.
House Bill 1370 (Support) – Instructs the Dept. of Labor to improve its "out-of-ratio” relief application process for licensed trade contractors who want to hire outside of the current 3:1 hiring ratio. This was a compromise bill between changing the hiring ratio to 1:1 and keeping the status quo. Effective 10/1/01.
House Bill 6609 (Support) – Changes the time frame within which a planning commission must return approved subdivision plans to the applicant after the time for appeals has lapsed or an appeal has been resolved. Current law required a minimum 30-day waiting period. New law provides that maximum time to return plans for filing is 30 days. Public Act 01-52; Effective 10/1/01.
House Bill 6604 (Support) – Changes the time within which to file a lawsuit over a zoning commission action when the lawsuit is based on a defective public hearing notice from 2 years to 1 year. Public Act 01-110; Effective 10/1/01.
House Bill 6716 (Support in part, Oppose in part) – Changes the substance of and process for adopting local plans of conservation and development. There are now minor changes in what must be contained in local plans and the organization of the statute is much improved. The emphasis on providing housing opportunities is now more obvious. The original bill contained more serious changes in the process for adoption of local plans. In response to our concerns the bill was amended but questions remain about implementation and only time will tell whether corrective legislation is needed in the future. Effective 7/1/01.
House Bill 6615 (Support) – Provides for new consumer protections by requiring home improvement contractors who finance projects to abide by certain provisions of the Truth in Lending Act, allows homeowners to repay the balance owed without penalty and caps the interest rate at 12%. This bill also allows the Commissioner of the Dept. of Consumer Protection to deny the issuance or renewal of a home improvement contractor registration to any contractor who is on the state’s sexual offender registry. Effective 10/1/01.
Senate Bill 1323 (Support residential exemption) – Establishes a new license for telecommunications infrastructure layout technicians, but at the HBA’s urging the bill does not require such license for work in residential buildings. Effective 1/1/02.
Senate Bill 1081 (Neutral) – Delays the implementation of new licensing programs for sheet metal workers, glaziers and pool maintenance workers to January 1, 2002. Public Act 01-66; Effective now.
House Bill 6890 (Support) – Clarifies the legal duties and responsibilities of board members for both business corporations and nonstock corporations (i.e., nonprofits such as the HBA). Effective 10/1/01.
Bills that were not passed by the legislature
House Bill 6547 (Oppose) – Would have allowed each municipality, at its option, to require fire sprinkler installations in all new one and two-family homes.
House Bill 6260 (Oppose) – Would have allowed each municipality, at its option, to require buffer areas on all new residential developments that are adjacent to active agriculture. Municipalities would also be able to require the placement of screening (e.g., tree plantings, fencing) on these buffer areas.
House Bill 6897 (Support) – Would have clarified an appellate court decision that said an appeal of a site plan decision by a zoning commission has to be appealed to the zoning board of appeals. The bill would restore the long-standing practice of taking such appeals directly to superior court.
House Bill 6599 (Oppose) – Would have required municipal zoning ordinances to "be consistent with” rather than "shall consider” the local plan of conservation and development. This essentially requires apples to be consistent with oranges and would give planning commissions effective veto power over zoning changes wanted by zoning commissions.
House Bill 6600 (Oppose) – Would have created a new state grant fund to provide financial assistance to rural municipalities that agree to adopt a land use management plan that preserves and protects its rural character. Since the state already has an effective open space grant fund and a program for the purchase of development rights to preserve prime farmland, this new fund could have become a state supported no growth tool.
House Bill 6601 (Opposed as passed by committee) – Would have allowed zoning commissions to "modify and adopt” a petition to change the zoning map or ordinance, in addition to the current adopt or deny the application as presented. The bill as passed by the Planning & Development Committee needed an amendment to prohibit an unnecessary second round of public hearings and to limit the modifications to those that are within the scope of the public hearing notice.
House Bill 6603 (Support and Oppose) – Would have permitted municipalities to include in their zoning ordinances and maps areas intended for "new urbanism” or " traditional neighborhood developments” which we supported. However, the bill also contained apparently non-operative language regarding priority investment areas, and we urged removal of these latter provisions for clarity.
House Bill 6175 (Support) – Would have prohibited public utilities from unfairly competing with the private marketplace in conducting their energy efficient lighting programs. The bill passed all committees and the full House but ran out of time in the Senate.
Senate Bill 1125 (Oppose) – Would have changed the makeup of the State Traffic Commission by adding a number of members, such as the Commissioner of the Dept. of Environmental Protection and the directors of regional planning agencies, to get the STC to consider environmental and broader planning issues when issuing permits for access to state highways. Bill would have complicated process and delayed time to obtain an STC permit.
Senate Bill 1268 (Support) – Would have recognized three conditions of lead-paint (i.e., good, fair and poor) that would lead to improved lead-paint abatement and repair requirements.
House Bill 6984 (Neutral) – An amendment on this fire safety code bill would have directed the Department of Public Safety to list and publish common code modifications for the rehabilitation of buildings. This was a compromise amendment between adoption of a separate rehabilitation building code and the status quo.
Senate Bill 1325 (Oppose) – Would have substantially changed the mechanic’s lien process by establishing a procedure for recording a notice on the land records when commencing work or furnishing materials to a job site (i.e., prior to filing a lien).
House Bill 5779 (Oppose) – Would have required the Dept. of Consumer Protection and the Dept. of Public Utility Control to post all complaints on the internet. Since most complaints are not validated nor investigated and many are unjustified, unwarranted or simply false, this would have created an unfair burden on businesses.
A number of other land use, affordable housing and contractor regulation bills died this year. Please call the HBA of CT office with any questions or comments (860-232-1905). More detailed explanation of a number of these bills and the HBA of Connecticut's position appear below.
AA = An Act; AAC = An Act Concerning
House Bill 6599, AAC Local Zoning (Oppose: This bill requires that local zoning ordinances "be consistent with” rather than "shall consider” the local plan of conservation and development. We understand the desire to make local plans of conservation and development more relevant to the actual land use makeup of a community but this bill is not the way to do it. Local plans of conservation and development re very different types of documents than zoning ordinances. Forcing consistency between the two is like forcing apples to be consistent with oranges. Also, many local plans of conservation and development are outdated so requiring consistency with these plans does not make sense. Even if a local plan is more recent, this consistency requirement will force all zoning change requests, many of which are desired by local zoning commissions and economic development proponents, to first seek a change in the local plan of conservation and development from the planning commission. Thus, an additional delay is created and planning commissions would effectively have veto power over all zoning change proposals. A better alternative to this strict consistency requirement is to require zoning commissions to explain why its zoning ordinances differ from the local plan (e.g., "shall consider and comment on”). The bill was not acted upon by the House and died on the calendar.
House Bill 6716, AA Revising the Process for Adoption of Municipal Plans of Conservation and Development (Support and Oppose various provisions: This bill rewrites section 8-23, which governs local plans of conservation and development. The substantive components of local plans (i.e., what plans shall or may contain) are essentially the same as current law with the following exceptions: (1) consideration for the conservation and protection of traprock ridges are expanded from traprock ridges as defined under 8-1aa to all "traprock and other ridges”; (2) consideration of the use of cluster and other development patterns is required in all towns, rather than just certain towns; (3) consideration of regional plans of conservation and development is added to consideration of the state plan; and (4) for municipalities contiguous to Long Island Sound, the plan shall be consistent with the Municipal Coastal Program requirements (section 22a-101 to 22a-104), although that program appears to already require changes to local plans. Any concern about these changes is offset by the improved organization of and ability to read the revised law. However, the process for adopting and approving local plans has been changed, as follows: (1) Local planning commissions can create broad-ranging special committees to develop and recommend different parts of a local plan, and each such committee can hold public informational meetings; (2) following adoption of the plan, the commission shall regularly review and maintain such plan, but it is not clear if this requires review more frequently than every ten years; (3) following adoption of a new plan by the commission, the legislative body of the municipality may hold one or more hearings on the proposed plan and may endorse the plan for the municipality - endorsement by the legislative body is necessary to receive LoCIP funding; (4) the commission may override the legislative body’s disapproval of its plan by a two-thirds vote; and (5) the LoCIP grant statute is changed to allow use of such funds to pay for a portion of the cost of developing or amending the local plan, provided such plan is approved by the legislative body. While the substantive elements of a local plan as outlined in this bill can be supported, the procedural changes could complicate the process of adopting a local plan and could add substantial delay to any amendment, even minor ones, a community may wish to adopt. The House adopted an amendment that addresses some of these process concerns and the revised bill was passed by both the House and Senate. The Governor is expected to sign it.
House Bill 6609, AAC the Time For Filing of Subdivision Plan (Support: This bill fixes the subdivision statutes by stating that approved subdivision plans must be returned to the applicant not more than – rather than the current not less than – 30 days after the time for taking an appeal of a subdivision approval has elapsed, or after an appeal has been resolved. This is a necessary clarification in the subdivision statute. The land subdivision process works likes this: If a subdivision is approved and any appeals have run their course, an official of the local planning commission must sign the approved plans and return them to the applicant. The applicant must then take the signed plans to the town clerk and record them on the land records. This bill deals with when the planning official must return the signed plans to the applicant. After appeals have run their course, there is no reason to force an applicant to wait a minimum of an additional 30 days before getting back the signed approved plans so the applicant can then record them. This bill will fix the flawed language of current law and gives the town up to 30 days to return the signed plans to the applicant.) - passed House and Senate (May 16). The Senate amended the bill to address the situation where the applicant has to first revise the plans and return them to the planning official so they can be signed. The Governor signed this bill. Public Act 01-52.
House Bill 6604, AAC The Time To Appeal Notices of Zoning Decisions (Support: This bill changes the time within which to appeal zoning notice violations from 2 years to 1 year (original bill changed the time period to 6 months). The shorter time frame will bring more certainty to the land use process. The bill does not create an unreasonable period of time in which to challenge local land use decisions. The current period is too long and creates too much uncertainty about the viability of local land use decisions. The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities also supports this bill.) - Passed House and Senate. Governor is expected to sign this bill.
House Bill 6897, AAC Appeal of Site Plan Reviews (Support: This bill corrects a ruling by a judicial decision, Borden v. P&Z Commission, 58 Conn. App. 399 (2000), which said that appeals from local site plan decisions must be appealed to the local zoning board of appeals rather than to superior court. The court determined that zoning commission decisions on site plan applications are enforcement actions. A zoning enforcement officer’s issuance of a citation to a land owner for violating the conditions of a site plan approval or for working on land without a site plan approval when one is needed is an enforcement decision that is appealable to the local zoning board of appeals. But the zoning commission’s decision to approve or deny a site plan application is an administrative decision, not an enforcement action. Thus, zoning commission decisions on site plan applications have always been appealed to the superior court. This bill corrects the confusing court decision and returns this aspect of local land use practice to where it should be.) - Passed Judiciary Committee; Passed by Planning & Development Committee 4-23-01. Passed House and sent to the Senate May 9, but the Senate did not act upon this bill.
House Bill 6600, AAC Protection of Rural Conditions (Oppose: This bill creates a new state fund to provide grants to rural communities to protect their rural condition. However, there are no safeguards or constraints on the use of such funds that guarantee that receiving towns will use these funds in a way consistent with preserving its rural condition. Also, since the state already has a successful open space grant program and an agricultural preservation program, we question the need for this new fund. Protecting rural conditions, however that might be defined, may be a town’s choice but all of Connecticut’s taxpayers should not have to subsidize a town’s choice to adopt and implement "a land use management plan [that] will perpetuate and protect the rural conditions.” This bill died in the Appropriations Committee.
House Bill 6603, AA Providing Financial Incentives for Development of Livable Communities (Support with amendments: This bill authorizes, but does not mandate, mixed-use, pedestrian-scale land use designs (known as "new urbanism” or "neo-traditional development”) in both local plans of conservation and development and under local zoning regulations. Unlike the original bill and prior bills on this subject, which mandated these types of designs, this bill is permissive and does not require municipalities to adopt such areas or applicants to design their projects using these design principles. Within available appropriations, funding is authorized through OPM up to $50,000 to help municipalities adopt these principles. However, sections 4 – 6 of the bill allow municipalities to identify areas adopting these principles as "priority investment areas” and such areas shall be identified as such in the state plan of conservation and development, but otherwise these sections of the bill do not seem to have any operative provisions. We question, therefore, the need for sections 4 – 6 or at least the terminology of "priority investment areas." Finally, the last section of the bill creates preferential consideration for all state funding programs for those municipalities adopting these planning principles. It is very unclear how preference is to be incorporated into state funding programs that rely on formulas, criteria or scoring systems to determine discretionary grants of funds. And by essentially threatening to reduce state funding for those municipalities choosing to not adopt these planning principals, this seems to be much more of a penalty than an incentive. This last section needs to be removed from the bill. This bill died in the Appropriations Committee May 1.
House Bill 6601, AAC Modification of Zoning Petitions (Requires Amendment: When a change is sought to local zoning ordinances or zoning maps, all of which such requests must receive a public hearing, zoning commissions are limited to either approving or denying the requested change. However, often the best course of action is for the zoning commission to modify the request, sometimes in only minor or technical ways, and then approve it. Many local commissions do this already despite the strict wording of the law. This bill will authorize a zoning commission to approve, modify and approve, or deny such zone change requests. However, the bill also requires an additional public hearing if the zoning commission proposes to modify the request. Additional public hearings should not be required and would greatly delay current practice that benefits applicants and the community. Thus, the additional public hearing provision needs to be removed from the bill. We have suggested language to fix this bill to the House co-chair and ranking member of the Planning & Development Committee.) The bill was not acted upon by the House and died on the calendar.
Senate Bill 1323, AAC Licensing of Telecommunications Infrastructure Layout Technicians (Requires Amendment: The intention of the proponents of this bill is that this licensing requirement does not apply to residential applications of telecommunications layouts. However, the bill as passed by the General Law Committee does not exempt residential structures from the license requirement. An amendment was made in the Senate to exempt residential buildings and, therefore, codify the intent to license only those telecommunications layout technicians that work on nonresidential buildings.) The bill was then passed by the House and the Governor is expected to sign it.
House Bill 6175, AAC Energy Efficient Lighting Programs (Support: This bill merely requires that electric utility run programs to develop and implement energy conservation and energy efficient lighting, which programs are financed by a customer charge of 0.3 cents per kilowatt-hour, cannot unfairly compete with private suppliers of energy efficient lighting products. It will help level the playing field and helps to remove the reluctance on the part of private manufacturers of lighting products to enter into the efficient lighting products market due to unfair competition by public supported utility programs.) Bill was taken up several times in the House and the House eventually passed three amendments. The Senate rejected one of the amendments and sent it back to the House. Unfortunately, the House ran out of time and this bill died on the calendar.
House Bill 6615, AA Establishing Consumer Protections for Home Improvement Contractor Financed Programs (Support: This bill requires home improvement contractors who provide financing to home owners to pay for the home remodeling work to abide by certain lending practices, such as following certain provisions of the Truth in Lending Act, allowing homeowners to pay off the full amount and caps the interest rate at 12%, essentially following the financing limitations applied to certain retailers. The bill also allows the Commissioner of DCP to refuse to issue or renew a home improvement contractor registration if the applicant is on the state's sexual offender registry). This bill passed both chambers and is expected to be signed by the Governor.
We Opposed Raised Bill 6547, AA Allowing Municipal Ordinances Regarding Fire Sprinklers In New Homes
Note: This bill died in Legislative Management Committee on May 15. This bill originally authorized municipalities to adopt a local requirement to require the installation of fire sprinkler systems in all new one and two family homes. As changed by the Planning & Development Committee, it authorized the State Fire Marshal to study the issue and, in his sole determination, require the installation of fire sprinklers in all new one and two family homes.
Requiring fire sprinklers in all new one and two family homes does not address the issue of preventing fire deaths, injury or property damage – because the vast majority of residential fires occur in older homes. Homes today are built much better than they used to be, using better fire stopping materials, draft stopping in all floor penetrations, better electrical systems and installations, better egress (i.e., pathways to get out) and hard wiring of smoke detectors. One California study showed that OVER 90% of all residential fires occur in homes built prior to 1972.
Therefore, the argument by proponents that we have to start somewhere misses the point. The problem with fires in residential buildings is a problem with older homes that were built differently under older codes. Putting sprinklers in newly built homes doesn’t start solving any problem because you’d be "starting” in the wrong place.
Local adoption of fire sprinklers also does not address the fire fighting manpower needs in our towns because those needs are dictated by national worker safety (not building code) standards and federal OSHA regulations.
Authorizing municipalities to vary Connecticut’s statewide building code is a huge step backward. Thus, the change by the Planning & Development Committee addresses only this concern and see below regarding the authority of one code official. Local variation of our statewide building code has not been allowed for thirty years. Our statewide code (a minimum/maximum code) has brought uniformity and consistency to how we construct buildings. It has been developed through a national consensus process by building and safety experts and is updated on a regular cycle every three to five years.
· The dollar cost to society is tremendous. The legislature’s own task force on residential fire sprinklers (report issued December, 1996) showed that the average cost to consumers from installing residential fire sprinklers in homes would be up to $400 million per life saved (based on an installation cost of $2.00/square foot). Sprinkler advocates on the task force could not (and cannot today) refute this astronomical number. Rather, to "counter” the weight of this number, the task force included a ridiculously low installation cost of $0.37/square foot to come up with an alternative of $105 million per life saved. The formula and numbers used to reach these cost estimates are as real and relevant today as they were five years ago. Installation costs today are still $1.50 to $2.50/sq. ft. and even higher.
Practical problems also exist: There is little to no consumer demand for sprinklers and there is, in fact, consumer rejection of these systems. If one town adopts this requirement, consumers will go elsewhere (i.e., existing housing or other towns). Thus, this requirement becomes a local no growth tool and makes it difficult for builders in these towns to compete. Finally, the workforce (licensed fire sprinkler installers) does not exist to satisfy the demand if adopted on a widespread basis.
No one is opposed to public safety, but this bill will not give Connecticut the safety gains sought and will cause major other problems.
We Opposed House Bill 6260, An Act Concerning Buffer Zone Requirements
This bill died in the House without a vote. The bill would have authorized municipalities to impose a buffer area on new residential developments adjacent to active agricultural areas. It would have allowed municipalities to require plantings, fencing or other screening to be erected on this new buffer area to separate home buyers from farms.
The bill imposes additional costs on producing new homes. These costs could be substantial depending on the size of the buffer area and the type and extent of the screening that is required by a municipality. It’s another land grab and an assault on property rights with no benefit to the home buying public or to the farmer (see below).
A presumption of incompatibility (i.e., the supposed basis of any buffer area between land uses) does not exist as between residential and agriculture uses. In fact, farmland with its vistas and open spaces are an attraction that draws new homeowners to live next to them.
Home buyers should be able to choose whether they want to be screened from adjacent farms rather than impose this on all new homeowners in these areas. If a home buyer wants plantings, a fence or other screening, a builder will provide it. Residential development currently has imposed on it side yard and setback requirements under our zoning laws that already offer adequate areas upon which these screens can be placed. Thus, municipalities do not need any new blanket authority regarding these buffer zone requirements.
The bill is unnecessary to protect farmers. Farmers already have substantial protection under the Right to Farm law (see existing statute on reverse) that protects them from neighbors’ nuisance lawsuits.
Active agriculture is not defined in the bill, nor is the extent of the buffer area or the extent of any screening a town may impose. This open-ended and vague authority creates many questions, opportunities for abuse and potential litigation.
Finally, this bill does not serve its intended purpose. No amount of reasonable buffer area and associated screening will prevent the noise, dust or smells generated by farming activities from traveling to adjacent property. How deep does a buffer area have to be on a warm day with a slight breeze blowing in the right direction, after the farmer’s application of manure or churning of the soil? But buffer areas and screening will destroy the benefit of living next to farms (i.e., the views, vistas and open spaces enjoyed by the homeowners).
Please oppose this unnecessary and potentially very expensive requirement.
We Supported House Bill 1037, AAC The Mediation of Appeals of Decisions of Planning and Zoning Commissions
This bill has passed both the Senate (May 9) and the House (May 17) with an HBA written amendment that addresses the final issues we had with this good proposal. The Governor signed it and is now Public Act 01-47. This bill merely authorizes but does not mandate the mediation of land use appeals.
This bill will benefit all parties by simply authorizing a needed yet permissive mediation process to resolve land use appeals. Too much time and money is wasted on all sides with land use appeals. Land use appeals are one of the top major categories of cases in our court system. By authorizing a mediation alternative in our land use appeals statute, even if litigants could agree to it already, the parties will be more apt to pursue mediation because of its legislative sanction. If this bill moved only ten percent of all land use appeals out of the courts and into mediation, there will be a significant benefit to all involved.
The mediation process in the bill is all-inclusive. All parties, including intervenors, would be part of the mediation process. Even nonparties, such as neighbors and government agencies not a party to the action or other persons significantly involved in the decision being appealed may be involved in the mediation process at the mediator’s discretion. This new tool will greatly help land use applicants as well as land use commissions and our communities throughout the state resolve their land use disputes. Connecticut will get better land use decisions for all concerned when we get win/win agreements through mediation versus win/lose decisions from litigation.
This mediation process is voluntary – all parties must agree to mediate an appeal, and any party may withdraw from mediation at any time and send the appeal back to court. Thus, it does not change the traditional judicial appeal process if any party wishes to proceed with that venue.
This bill enjoys widespread support. It passed the Planning & Development Committee 17-1. In addition to the HBA of Connecticut, many different constituent groups testified in support of the bill, including the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, CT Chapter American Planning Association, CT Association of Zoning Enforcement Officers, UConn Land Use Law Professor Terry Tondro and others. Nobody testified in opposition to this bill. The JFS language that was passed addresses all issues of wordsmithing that were raised at the public hearing.
Thank you to all who supported Raised Bill 1037.
We Supported Raised Bill 6873, An Act Concerning Apprentice To Journeyman Ratios
NOTE: This bill was passed by the Workforce Development Committee but died due to staff's error in failing to deliver the bill to the Legislative Commissioner's Office by the committee's deadline. Due to the HBA of CT's and the CT ABC's urging, the bill was adopted as an amendment on another workforce development bill, Senate Bill 1370, which was passed by both chambers and is expected to be signed by the Governor.
Conn. Regulations at Section 20-332-15a(e) requires the licensed occupational construction trades (e.g., electricians; plumbers; heating, cooling and piping contractors; fire sprinkler contractors) to hire at a ratio of three licensed journeyman to one registered apprentice after the first apprentice is hired. A ratio of one licensed journeyman to one registered apprentice is allowed to work on a job site. To hire an apprentice "out-of-ratio” an employer must file an application with the Department of Labor for relief from the hiring ratio.
Raised Bill 6873 does not change the hiring ratio but only requests the Department of Labor to report back on its progress on improving the "out-of-ratio” relief application process, as DOL has promised it would do.
The bill is a compromise between advocates for the status quo and other interests, such as the HBA of Connecticut, that believe the hiring ratio should be on a one to one basis.
The "out of ratio” relief application procedure at DOL is not fair to the apprentice or the contractor. The process discriminates against nonunion shop licensed contractors, which are 80% of the state’s work force. Nonunion shop employers are penalized because DOL monitors the contractor sponsor. Each such nonunion shop sponsor gets an "incomplete” record if the apprentice leaves its employ, whereas union apprentices are indentured to the union hall, which acts as the sponsor, even if the apprentice actually moves from union shop to union shop. Thus, the union hall sponsor almost never gets an "incomplete.” Raised bill 6873 requests the Dept. of Labor to track the apprentice versus the sponsor to help equalize the playing field and be fair to all employers and apprentices.
Improving the Dept. of Labor’s ratio relief application process will do the following:
Improve job opportunities for high school and trade school graduates trying to enter the licensed trades.
Help grow the workforce, grow businesses and increase tax revenues.
Improve the training of apprentices since they are best trained on a 1 to 1 basis with a licensed journeyman. Training on a 3 to 1 ratio places the apprentice in the position of a "gopher” running to get parts and coffee. It reduces an apprentice’s incentive to remain in the field. Improving the ratio relief application process will help provide continuity in training because if laid off due to work shortages an apprentice has a good chance for rehire with a new or previous employer.
Senate Bill 1370 (which now incorporates the language of Raised Bill 6873) will help grow Connecticut’s workforce in the licensed occupational trades. THIS IS A PRO JOBS BILL.