Most Valuable States in America: Connecticut Ranks #3

A recent study estimates that the combined value of all land in the contiguous United States is worth nearly $23 trillion. The most valuable state, according to the survey, is California, which accounted for 17 percent of the total value of the 48 bordering states. New Jersey, however, had the most valuable real estate relative to its size, estimated at $196,400 per acre, or 16 times the average value per acre across the contiguous U.S. Connecticut ranked third overall.  Although the third smallest state in the country, containing just over 3 million acres, Connecticut is also one of just four states where land is valued at over $100,000 per acre on average. By contrast, the estimated value of an average acre across the country is just over $12,000.

The study, authored by William Larson, senior economist at the Federal Housing Finance Agency and previously at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, estimated the value of different property types, including agricultural areas, federal land, and developed suburban and urban areas.  The study is featured on the website 24/7 Wall St.

States with generally larger rural areas tended to have a lower value relative to their size, while more densely populated states that contain large urban centers had the highest estimated worth per acre. The value of Connecticut’s land is reflected in the higher cost of a house in the state. The typical house is worth $267,200, compared to a national median home value of $181,200, according to the analysis.

Key data for Connecticut includes:

• Value of land per acre: $128,824
• Total value: $400 billion (18th highest)
• Total acres: 3.1 million (3rd lowest)
• Percent land mass rural: 62.3% (4th lowest)

The top 10 “most valuable” states:  New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, Delaware, New York, California, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.  Next are Florida, Michigan, Illinois, Virginia, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Indiana, Washington, North Carolina and Tennessee.

The analysis points out that the type of land in a given area has a significant impact on its worth. Agricultural and other largely undeveloped areas are generally worth significantly less than cities and suburbs land.  Developed land, or land where housing, roads, and other structures are located, is valued at an estimated $106,000 per acre, while undeveloped land was estimated at $6,500 per acre, and farmland at only $2,000 per acre, according to the analysis.

That said, the analysis notes that it is not surprising that most of the states with the highest per acre land values are predominantly urban, such as New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. These Northeastern states are smaller and have less rural acreage “to bring the average value down.”  The data reflects that the six most valuable states were also among the 10 smallest states by landmass. In New Jersey, for example, 39.7 percent of the area is considered urban, compared to a national urban share of just 3 percent.

The entirety of Delaware is worth just $72 billion, the second smallest total value compared to the other states in the lower 48, the analysis notes. On a per acre basis, however, the state is valued at $57,692 on average, the sixth highest in the country. Just behind Delaware is New York, with more than 30 million acres worth $41,314 each, on average. In total, the Empire State’s acreage is worth $1.25 trillion, based on the analysis. Because of the large rural areas in the state, the analysis explains, less than 10 percent of New York’s total area is considered developed. However, that developed property is so valuable it accounts for roughly two-thirds of the state’s total value.

All 10 of the states with the largest proportions of federally-owned land are west of Kansas, reflecting the way in large swaths of that land entered the United States at various junctures in U.S. history.   The Louisiana Purchase and the conclusion of the Mexican-American War left considerable areas across the western United States in the hands of the federal government.

While less than 25 percent of all land in the lower 48 states is owned by the federal government, in Nevada, as one prime example, the third least valuable state by acre, 86.8 percent is federal, the highest share in the country.  As a result, western states with a lot of federal land tend to have lower average values per acre. More than 30 percent of land in nine of the 15 “least valuable” states was federally-owned as of 2009.

Six State Commissions, Victims of Budget Consolidations, Disappear After Decades-Long Record of Achievement

After 43 years, the ironically-named Permanent Commission on the Status of Women began the organization’s final newsletter with an ironic observation:  “the PCSW had its most successful legislative session ever, celebrating the passage of four bills instrumental in protecting women's health and safety.” The PCSW is one of six legislative commissions eliminated in a last-minute budget compromise at the end of the legislative session a month ago.  The six ceased to exist on Thursday (June 9).  In their place will be two Commissions, each a mash-up of three of the organizations.

Wiped from the roster of state agencies are the PCSW, Legislative Commission on Aging, Commission on Children, Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission, African American Affairs Commission and Asian Pacific American Affairs Commission.  Replacing them will be the Commission on Women, Children and Seniors and a Commission that merges the Latino, African-American and Asian Pacific American Commissions.

All staff members were effectively laid off, some applied for the handful of jobs that are to exist in support of the new Commissions.  The volunteer Commissioners will be holdovers, meaning that 63 Commissions will remain in place to set policy direction.

The 23 year old Commission on Aging was eliminated as Connecticut rapidly approaches a new, long-term reality—older adults will comprise an increasingly large proportion of the population.  At least 20 percent of almost every town’s population in the state will be 65 years of age or older by 2025, with some towns exceeding 40 percent.  Already, Connecticut is the 7^th oldest state in the nation.

The Asian Pacific American Affairs Commission, the most recent of the six, was established in 2008 to respond to a growing population in Connecticut.  With the smallest budget, the agency struggled to gain traction, and was just beginning to fulfill its mission when the end arrived.  Connecticut's Asian American population grew from 95,368 in 2000 to 157,088 in 2010 – a 65% increase. Asians represent the majority minority in 40 percent of Connecticut school districts, according to the Commission. 

The Permanent Commission on the Status of Women was formed in 1973 to study and improve Connecticut women’s economic security, health and safety; to promote consideration of qualified women to leadership positions; and to work toward the elimination of gender discrimination.

Over the next four decades, the organization played a pivotal role in the passage of more than 50 significant pieces of legislation, often placing Connecticut at the forefront of progress towards greater justice or equal treatment for women.

That was certainly true in 2016, in what turned out to be, as was once said in a different context, the best of times and the worst of times.  This year, PCSW advocated for major initiatives that gained legislative approval:

• Allow judges to remove firearms during temporary restraining orders in domestic violence;
• Make affirmative consent the standard for investigating alleged campus sexual assaults;
• Establish a working group to study possible labor violations in the nail salon industry;
• Eliminate the discriminatory tax on feminine hygiene products and diapers;
• Dramatically strengthen anti-trafficking laws by: shifting the focus of arrests in prostitution cases to the "demand side"; raising penalties against buyers of sex; removing the "mistake of age" defense; and requiring hotels and motels to keep records of those who rent rooms by the hour; and
• Give judges authority to remove parental rights from rapists in cases of clear and convincing evidence of sexual assault resulting in pregnancy.

Established in 1997, the mission of the African-American Affairs Commission (AAAC) was to improve and promote the economic development, education, health and political well-being of the African-American community in the State of Connecticut.  The Commission has been at the forefront of a range of issues impacting the African American community in Connecticut, and its demise occurs when race relations and equal opportunity remain under heavy scrutiny in Connecticut and across the country.   

Glenn A. Cassis Executive Director of the African-American Affairs Commission, when the consolidation plan was announced, said merging the panels will cause "irreparable damage to the African-American community in Connecticut."

"The elimination of AAAC tells the African-American community that their issues are not important to the state,'' Cassis wrote in an open letter to the leaders of the General Assembly. "The message that resonates is that despite the successful efforts of the past to eliminate the disparities that exist for this constituency in education, health, economic development, criminal justice and incarceration, and social well-being have become marginalized. Years of progress made has been cut short from being fully impacted to the level that this growing segment of Connecticut’s population deserves and expects."

The Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission (LPRAC) was created by an act of the Connecticut General Assembly (CGA) in 1994. This 21 member non-partisan commission is mandated to make recommendations to the CGA and the Governor for new or enhanced policies that will foster progress in achieving health, safety, educational success, economic self-sufficiency, and end discrimination in Connecticut.  As of 2014, the state’s Hispanic population exceeded 500,000, about 15 percent of the state’s overall population.

In an Open Letter, LPRAC Executive Director Werner Oyanadel said “The decision to eliminate LRPAC does not in any way diminish the significant pride of the Commissioners and LPRAC staff, present and past, in the far-reaching and often ground-breaking work that has been accomplished to advance the quality of life for our state’s steadily growing Latino population.”  He added that “the end of a distinguished and impactful decades-long history does not diminish or eviscerate the landmark laws, policy-changing research and enduring impact of LPRAC on countless families, businesses and individuals of Hispanic heritage, and all the citizens of Connecticut.”

The Commission on Children, established in 1985, was borne of the legislature’s desire for the development of “policies that would ensure the health, safety, and education of Connecticut children.”  Said long-time Executive Director Elaine Zimmerman: “We feel we’ve succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest hopes, taking a leading role in issues as important—and diverse—as closing the achievement gap in reading, school climate, immunization, disaster planning for families, school readiness, children’s mental health, home visitation, youth employment, equity, and poverty reduction.”

One of the testimonials on the PCSW website, said succinctly: “The commission boldly tackles the issues that matter to my survival and prosperity! Their work to identify and eradicate inequality (whether of the deliberate kind or not), to serve as a public voice for women’s issues which are underrepresented in all public spheres, and to engage the public is integral in working toward a fair and just society.”

Regarding the state’s Latino population, Oyanadel said “the successor combined Commission will not be nearly the same; we can only hope that its impact will not be diluted or weakened, though we are concerned that our community will have a softer voice advocating for those issues of particular importance in and impact on the Latino community.”

Back in 2011, when consolidations and eliminations were under consideration by legislators, but ultimately not approved, as was the case repeatedly since the 2008 recession, Gov. Malloy told the CT Mirror: "If they asked my advice, I'd consolidate a bunch of them."

And in 2016, it came to pass.

Most CT Residents Concerned About Loss of Jobs, Access, Care in Aetna-Humana Merger, Poll Shows; Missouri Decision Points to Adverse Impact

The State of Missouri raised a red flag today, waving it directly into the headwind that is the pending merger between health care giants Aetna and Humana.  Missouri’s action came just as a public poll was released in Connecticut by consumer advocates opposing the merger which indicated a general lack of public awareness about the merger plan and substantial concern about potential job losses and adverse health care affordability and choices here if the merger goes forward. The Missouri Insurance Department issued an order banning Aetna and Humana from selling certain types of insurance in the state if the companies’ planned $37 billion merger comes to fruition. The order states that Aetna and Humana should “cease and desist from doing business” throughout Missouri with respect to individual and small group insurance and the group Medicare Advantage market if Aetna’s acquisition of Humana is completed.

In Connecticut, the Connecticut Campaign for Consumer Choice coalition released results of a recent poll which found that most Connecticut voters “didn’t know that the five major national health insurance companies – UnitedHealth, Anthem, Cigna, Aetna, and Humana - are attempting to merge down to three companies from five. The new research found that only 27 percent of respondents were aware of the plans.

After they were given more information about the consequences of the mergers among the five national health insurance providers (Aetna-Humana and CIGNA-Anthem), 71 percent of Connecticut voters were opposed to State Insurance Commissioner Katherine Wade approving the mergers in Connecticut.

Nine in ten state voters (91 percent) think that it’s either very or somewhat important that Commissioner Wade “considers the impact of these mergers on the affordability of insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs, and their potential to limit health care choices, in her decision making process.” And those surveyed were overwhelmingly concerned that the proposed mergers will lead to job losses in Connecticut.

The Connecticut survey, conducted earlier this month by Public Policy Polling, found that 89 percent of Connecticut voters are either very or somewhat concerned that the proposed mergers will lead to job losses in Connecticut. Additionally, 89 percent of those polled believe it’s either very or somewhat important that the impact of these mergers on job losses in Connecticut be considered by state regulators.

Missouri is the first state regulator to release findings against the proposed deal, announced last year, published reports indicated. The deal is being reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as state regulators and antitrust authorities, who are also reviewing competitor Anthem’s plan to buy Cigna Corp. Aetna has filed for regulatory approval in the 20 states where Humana is domiciled and of those, 15 have approved the deal thus far, including Connecticut.  Because of Humana's limited footprint in Connecticut, the review was more form than substance.  The Cigna-Anthem merger, however, is to receive a much fuller review, according to state insurance officials, as Cigna is a state-domiciled company.

Regarding Aetna-Humana, the Missouri Insurance Department “found that in its current, unmodified, form – as to a few specified lines of insurance – that the proposed acquisition would violate the competitive standard set forth in Missouri law, meaning that as to those lines the acquisition would substantially lessen competition in this state.”

The Missouri Insurance Department stressed that the decision “is not a final order. The statute provides that Aetna and Humana may submit a plan to remedy the anticompetitive effect of the merger as to those specified lines.”  If that step is taken, the department “would evaluate the plan and may modify or vacate” the order issued today banning the merged company from certain lines of insurance in the state.

"The Missouri order does not impede the Department of Justice approval process," Aetna said in a statement. "We're disappointed, but expect to have a constructive dialogue with the state to address their concerns."

In addition to the public poll, Connecticut Campaign for Consumer Choice – a coalition that includes the Universal Health Care Foundation, Connecticut Citizen Action Group and Connecticut State Medical Society -  released a letter to Commissioner Wade signed by 17 state legislators calling for multiple public hearings on the merger, intervenor status for interested consumer advocates, and a study that would “analyze the potential impact on cost, access, and the Connecticut economy, including jobs” and warning that if the merger is approved, “the resulting mega-insurer will cover 64 percent of covered lives in Connecticut, with an even greater concentration in some regions of our state.”

The Missouri decision comes following a public hearing held on May 16.  In testimony provided as part of the public record, Consumers Council of Missouri expressed “profound concern,” warning that the merger would result in a “significant reduction in competition (that) will most certainly result in increased cost to consumers,” adding that “the results will be catastrophic and we will have no power to undo it.”

The Missouri Hospital Association, in offering a detailed 21-page analysis, indicated that “Consolidation will affect the ability of hospitals and other health care providers to bargain competitively for contracts containing appropriate fees for medical services. In turn, such providers are less able to invest in the resources to maintain and improve the quality of care. An anticompetitive suppression of healthcare payments will suppress innovation, to the detriment of consumers.”

CT Aims to Keep Ultra-Wealthy in State; Tracks Tax Payments of 100 Top Earners

Connecticut is ranked second in the nation in the number of millionaires per capita.  Only Maryland has more.  But with Connecticut’s precarious financial situation amidst what has been described as a “new economic reality,” any drop in the plethora of extremely wealthy residents can almost instantly have far-reaching consequences, officials say. In Connecticut, as well as California, Maryland and New Jersey, the top 1 percent pay a third or more of total income taxes, The New York Times reported this month. “There's an outmigration trend. It's real,'' Sullivan recently told The Hartford Courant, describing the departure of wealthy residents from Connecticut.

But Connecticut is not sitting idly by.  The state is trying to keep its wealthy residents right here in the Land of Steady Habits.

Connecticut, the Times reported, now tracks the quarterly estimated payments of 100 of its top earners. State Revenue Services Commissioner Kevin B Sullivan told Inside Wealth columnist and CNBC wealth editor Robert Frank that about five or six of the highest earners could have a "measurable impact on the revenue stream."

By way of example, Sullivan said that when one of the state's rich hedge fund executives planned to move his family and company to a lower-tax state, state officials met with him and persuaded him to leave some of his work force in Connecticut, the Times reported.  "We knew we were going to lose him," Sullivan said, "but we wanted to keep some of the higher-paying jobs."

He added, “We advised him that there are ways to be close to family and friends in Connecticut on occasion that are perfectly legal.  We're trying to send a more welcoming message to the high earners as a group." Homeowners who spend more than 183 days in the state are considered residents for tax purposes.

The top 10 states in millionaires per capita, after Maryland and Connecticut, are Hawaii, New Jersey, Alaska, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Virginia, Delaware and the District of Columbia, according to Phoenix Marketing International’s Global Wealth Monitor.

Earlier this year, the Courant reported that one of three Connecticut residents with an 11-figure net worth, according to the latest Forbes magazine list of the wealthiest individuals, had relocated from Greenwich to Florida, the second individual in that tax bracket to do so recently.  The exits, the Courant reported, “leave Connecticut with 13 billionaires, including Ray Dalio ($15.6 billion) and Steven Cohen ($12.7 billion), both hedge fund owners who live in Greenwich.”  Eight of those 13 state residents list Greenwich as their home address, according to Forbes.

Connecticut is not alone in keeping a watchful eye on its billionaires.  New York is now more closely monitoring wealthy taxpayers who have homes in New York but claim Florida as their tax residence. And New Jersey is collecting data on all of the taxpayers who make more than $1 million to forecast their tax payments more accurately, the Times reported.

As is true in a number of states with wealthy residents, including New York, New Jersey and California, even as some of the state's wealthiest residents head to warmer climates and more favorable tax structures, the number of millionaires in the state grows.

Just three years ago, in 2013, the number of millionaires in Connecticut topped 100,000 for the first time.  In 2015, it exceeded 101,000.  That compares with just over 84,000 in 2006.  Millionaires made up 6.2 percent of state residents that year, compared with 7.3 percent in 2015, based on data from Phoenix Marketing International.

Awards Will Recognize Innovative Efforts Invigorating CT Main Streets

A local theater helping to re-energize downtown Fairfield and a New London developer and property manager who took it upon himself to improve a neighborhood by offering attractive housing that is also affordable are just two of the initiatives being recognized with a 2016 Award of Excellence from the Connecticut Main Street Center (CMSC). In total, five recipients have been selected to receive the prestigious awards, including organizations and initiatives from Fairfield, Farmington, Mansfield, New London and Waterbury.

Also being recognized with awards are a public outreach effort in Farmington that resulted in hundreds of residents voicing their opinion on plans for a new gateway into the town; a holiday window display competition that draws shoppers back to downtown Waterbury while garnering extra press and marketing for the businesses; and a new Town Square in Storrs Center, built around the unique needs of the space and the people that use it.

This year's awards will be presented on June 6th at E.O. Smith High School in downtown Storrs.  CMSC’s mission is to be the catalyst that ignites Connecticut's Main Streets as the cornerstone of thriving communities. CMSC is dedicated to community and economic development within the context of historic preservation, and is committed to bringing Connecticut's commercial districts back to life socially and economically.

In addition to the competitive Awards of Excellence, where CMSC members submit applications that are reviewed by a jury of industry-related professionals and CMSC staff, CMSC also named Upper Albany Main Street (a CMSC member community) and the University of Hartford to receive the Founder's Award for their long and fruitful partnership - a relationship that has not only helped improve the appearance of the Avenue, but empowered many of the small business merchants in the neighborhood as well.

In addition, the Jack Shannahan Prize for Public Service was awarded to the Legislative Commission on Aging in recognition of their Livable Communities initiative.  This initiative aims to create thriving places for residents to grow up and grow older, notably by helping prepare Connecticut for the challenges presented by a rapidly increasing aging demographic through education, awareness and advocacy.

"This year's crop of winners is really special, because they demonstrate how important incorporating the voice of the people is in the final success of a project," said CMSC President & CEO John Simone. "In Farmington, Fairfield and Mansfield especially, each one either specifically asked - or was smart enough to observe - what people wanted in the space, and made changes accordingly.  As a result, there is greater support and usage of their public spaces and private businesses, meaning more people on Main Street and more money for the town coffers."

The June 6 awards ceremony will be followed by interactive experiences in the new Storrs Center.  Activities will include guided tours of the downtown development, a collaboration with the Ballard Institute and Museum of Puppetry, time for dinner and exploration among the Center's many shops and restaurants, and a closing concert featuring the Funky Dawgz Brass Band.

Created in 2003 to recognize outstanding projects, individuals and partnerships in community efforts to bring traditional downtowns and neighborhood commercial districts back to life, socially and economically, the Awards of Excellence are presented annually at CMSC's Awards Gala.  The evening’s welcome Reception Sponsor is United Illuminating and awards are presented with support from Webster Bank and Eversource Energy. 

Connecticut Earns A+ in Government Data Transparency

Connecticut is one of five states providing state residents with the most comprehensive online access to government spending data, according to an analysis by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG). Nationwide, government spending transparency is improving, but many states still lag far behind, according to “Following the Money 2016: How the 50 States Rate in Providing Online Access to Government Spending Data,” the sixth annual report by the organization’s Education Fund.  Some states have improved their spending transparency web portals significantly, earning perfect scores in this year’s report, while others are still barely achieving the minimum standards.

Based on an inventory of the content and ease-of-use of states' transparency websites, the report assigns each state a grade of “A+” to “F.” The leading states with the most comprehensive transparency websites are Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Oregon, and Connecticut, with each receiving an A+ grade.

“This A+ is great news – and comes at an important time as Connecticut navigates new fiscal challenges and prickly public policy debates. Facts and truth – not shadowy special interests – should be driving our discussions here at the capitol. The only way to ensure an honest discussion about our financial future is to open government and deliver the truth to the public," said State Comptroller Kevin Lembo. "We are doing everything we can to deliver state financial information in bigger and better ways each year. With a few keystrokes, all of us can find out where state money is going and where it came from. Most recently we have been working to extend that transparency to our quasi-public agencies, as well as towns and cities across the state. We are grateful that ConnPIRG recognized our efforts – and promise that we will treat this grade as a starting point, not a finish line, in making Connecticut the most open and accountable state in the country.”

The Comptroller’s Office website providing state government financial data is www.osc.ct.gov/openCT

The report indicates the cost to maintain the website at $18,000, with start-up costs from existing budgetary resources.  Among the state programs cited as providing easily accessible data to the public are the Enterprise Zone and Urban Jobs Tax Credit, Film and Digital Media Tax Credits, Jobs Creation Tax Credit, Manufacturing Assistance Act, and Small Business Express programs.

Connecticut’s most significant improvements include the addition of a page that details what data is excluded from the site, allowing citizens to better understand the universe of information the state is providing, according to the state Comptroller's Office. The state also added more information about the projected and actual public benefits of some of its largest subsidy programs. The state could continue to improve its transparency efforts by expanding its site to include spending information from municipalities and more local government bodies, the report noted.

USPIRG officials point out that states that have created or improved their online transparency have typically done so with little upfront cost. Top-flight transparency web portals can save money for taxpayers, while also restoring public confidence in government and preventing misspending and pay-to-play contracts.

“Citizens deserve to be able to follow their tax dollars, from the most minor state expenditures to the most major development subsidies,” said Michelle Surka, program associate with U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund. “This year, it’s clear that several states made a commitment to meeting the high national standards for spending transparency. Other states continue to lag behind, unable to overcome some of the barriers that prevent comprehensive spending disclosures.”

“States’ online spending transparency efforts are paying off in better informed citizens and a more efficient government,” said Elizabeth Ridlington, policy analyst with Frontier Group and co-author of the report. “Our research found that top-ranked states have been making steady improvements to their transparency websites over the years, giving citizens in most states unprecedented access to information on where their tax money goes.”

While many states continue to improve, the states that most distinguished themselves as leaders in spending transparency are those that provide access to types of expenditures that otherwise receive little public scrutiny. Only 11 states- including Connecticut - provide checkbook-level information that includes the recipients of each of the state’s most important subsidy programs.

This year, most states have met basic standards for providing online access to information about state contracting and an increasing number provide information about economic development subsidies and off-budget agencies.  Several states have made substantive upgrades to their transparency sites or added new features that give the public unprecedented ability to monitor how their government allocates resources. Of particular note, as highlighted in the report:

• Michigan streamlined its transparency data and added functionality to its transparency website, including allowing bulk download of all its data.
• West Virginia launched a new site with data on projected and actual public benefits of the state’s major subsidy programs.
• Utah and Arizona have joined several other states in adding data from localities, municipalities and school districts to their state transparency portals. This provides an inexpensive way to improve the transparency of the spending that often affects ordinary citizens most directly.
• Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire and Washington now prominently feature data on quasi-public entities with web pages dedicated solely to these agencies, boards, authorities and commissions.

State spending transparency is a non-partisan issue, USPIRG stressed. The report compared transparency scores against party control of Governors’ offices and the state legislatures. For neither measure did higher levels of spending transparency correspond to Republican or Democratic control, according to the report.

Structural Problems Seen in the Connecticut Economy

In an analysis highlighted by the Connecticut Institute for the 21^st Century, well-known economist Don Klepper-Smith, in a newsletter to clients of economic forecasting consultancy DataCore Partners, is voicing concerns about Connecticut’s economic prospects, short and long-term.  His views come as the legislature grapples with approximately a billion dollars in projected deficit, and the Institute is signaling a heightened profile in the state, with a new director visibly sharing the organization’s economic concerns. Klepper-Smith’s latest findings, headlined “Troubling Trends,” are the result of comparisons between economic activity in different parts of Connecticut and Massachusetts conducted over the last several years, the Institute website reports. Although both states share many of the same characteristics, Klepper-Smith notes the Massachusetts labor market is notably healthier than the Connecticut market and that seems to be a key factor holding back the Connecticut economy.

The job recovery rate in Connecticut since 2006 is 76.6 percent, according to DataCore, compared with the Massachusetts job recovery rate of 240.3 percent. The significantly lagging job recovery rate in Connecticut has “led to negative impacts in other parts of the Connecticut economy.” Examples cited include that the median price for single family homes in Connecticut dropped 3 percent in 2015, while it went up by 3 percent in Massachusetts during the same period.

Similarly, over the last six months, Connecticut’s unemployment rate has edged upwards, while the Massachusetts rate has dropped slightly. Technically, according to DataCore, this is a sign of a growth recession in which the local economy is not strong enough to prevent a rise in the jobless rate, the Institute indicates.

The website goes on to state that “The DataCorp findings, when combined with other recently published reports, provides continuing evidence of a fundamental shift in the basic foundations of the Connecticut economy.”

Scott Bates, a Connecticut native, has recently been named as executive director of the Connecticut Institute for the 21^st Century.  He previously served in the administration of Virginia’s Governor, for the U.S. House Select Committee on Homeland Security, and as president of The Center for National Policy in Washington.

In an article appearing in this week’s Hartford Business Journal, Bates describes Connecticut’s fiscal dilemma as both a spending problem and revenue problem, indicating that “our state will only return to a sustainable fiscal model when incremental changes - taken together – substantially reduce the cost of government.”

Bates adds that “the tax problem is a major issue that may take years to sort out,” suggesting that available savings be pursued immediately.  Among the suggestions, moving to embrace a policy of “aging in place,” a change in approach that could save more than $650 million over the next 20 years according to a recent report from the Institute and the Connecticut Economic Resource Center.

The Connecticut Institute for the 21st Century is a non-partisan non-profit organization of businesses and civic groups dedicated to identifying effective and efficient ways for state and local government to deliver services while reducing cost to the taxpayer and making Connecticut’s economy strong.

The organization researches best practices, publishes reports, and educates policymakers and the public on key spending and policy issues including transportation, public pensions, smart growth and social service spending.

Connecticut Tax Bite on Powerball Big Winner Would Be 15th Highest in US

If you happen to win a $1.5 billion Powerball lottery jackpot, you’d be well advised to be a resident of one of nine states that do not tax such winnings.  Connecticut is not among them. Connecticut’s take on such a jackpot would be 15^th highest in the nation, among the states that do tax such winnings at various income tax rates.  An analysis by Bloomberg found that the amount of state income taxes owed would be highest for residents of Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, New Jersey, Washington D.C., Vermont, New York, Maine and Wisconsin.

Connecticut residents would need to pay the state $62.3 million, which, when combined with the federal tax bite, would leave the Powerball winner with just under $500 million of the $1.5 billion jackpot.

According to the analysis, the IRS takes 25 percent off the top. The winner will then have to pay the federal government an additional 14.6 percent at tax time, for a total of 39.6 percent–the maximum individual tax rate. That means the most a winner can hope to take home is $561.7 million.

Then the home state – with the exception of the nine states that don't go after such winnings – take their share, ranging from $92.1 million for an Oregon resident to $29.9 million for a North Dakota resident.  Connecticut is approximately in the middle of the pack.

States can also receive a revenue boost when there isn't a Powerball winner for quite awhile, as happened between November 2015 and January 2016.  As the jackpot grew each week, sales of tickets increased.  According to published reports,  the state of Connecticut received more than $20 million out of the $50.1 million in Powerball tickets sold.

Increased Municipal Burden, Disproportionate Impact on Low-Income Drivers Among Possible Effects of Highway Tolls, Report Finds

If Connecticut opts to introduce a system of tolls on the state’s roads to help fund a significant expansion of transportation infrastructure projects in the years ahead, the toll system instituted could run the risk of causing an increased use of local roadways that “could shift the burden of maintenance and congestion to municipalities,” and lower income residents in the state could be faced with “a higher burden relative to their incomes than wealthier Connecticut residents.” Those warnings to policy makers are included in an Issue Brief  by Inform CT that reviews the various tolling options and respective challenges posed.  Connecticut eliminated tolls more than 30 years ago in the aftermath of a horrific accident at the Stratford toll plaza, and state leaders have been in a “perpetual debate about whether to reinstate them ever since,” the paper points out.

With overhauling the state’s transportation system is a leading element in Governor Malloy’s agenda to boost the state’s economy, renewed attention is being paid to methods of generating sufficient revenue to support those initiatives, and to issues raised in the 2015 policy brief.  Spurred by advances in technology, the possibility of imposing a system of electronic tolls, such as those in use in other states, are among the considerations, with border tolling, distance tolling and congestion pricing among the options.

The issue brief indicated that a disadvantage of a distance toll system on all limited access highways in Connecticut would be that it “could create an incentive for people to use alternative roadways. The increased use of these roadways could shift the burden of maintenance and congestion to municipalities.” The advantage would be that distance tolls “could help to more efficiently allocate the cost of these roadways to drivers who use them the most.”

In analyzing the potential impact of tolls placed at Connecticut’s borders, the policy paper notes that while such an approach would “help to ensure that out-of-state residents driving through Connecticut pay for their use of Connecticut’s roadways,” border tolls “place a disproportionate burden on residents of Connecticut who commute out-of-state to work. This burden is further amplified if we believe that, on average, these out-of-state commuters use a smaller share of the roadways than their in-state commuting counterparts.”

Congestion pricing, which provides for higher toll charges at peak traffic times, “helps to limit traffic on major roadways and create an incentive for people to use more environmentally friendly forms of public transportation,” the policy paper indicates.  However, a congestion pricing system “could polarize roadway use by displacing low income commuters during peak driving hours. Congestion pricing could also create displacement effects whereby the increased use of local roadways could shift the burden of maintenance and congestion to municipalities.”

The report suggests that “congestion pricing and distance tolls could become more affordable for low income residents if electronic payment systems were implemented that allow for income-based rate reductions.”

Earlier this year, a study panel recommended installing tolls and raising taxes in order to pay for Malloy's 30-year, $100 billion transportation program.  Legislators have said that any decision on the imposition of tolls is at least a year away, as attention focuses during the current session on establishing a method to assure that money allocated to transportation is not redirected to other areas of government.

The issue brief also stress that “a key consideration when trying to outweigh the benefits and costs of implementing tolling in Connecticut is how the revenue from the tax will be redistributed to the residents of the state.” It goes on to highlight that “as the bill stands, the monies raised would go into the Special Transportation Fund but allocation of the monies from there is not specified. The allocation of these funds is an important discussion that needs to take place before the impact of the legislation can be considered in earnest.”

InformCT is a public-private partnership that currently includes staff from the Connecticut Economic Resource Center and the Connecticut Data Collaborative. The mission of InformCT is to provide independent, non-partisan research, analysis, and public outreach focused on issues in Connecticut, and to act as the convener for fact-based dialogue and action.

Award-Winning Start-Up Accelerator to Launch Largest Class of Social Enterprises, Fledgling Businesses

When the Hartford-based Social Enterprise Trust, known as reSET, was among the winners of the U.S Small Business Administration’s Growth Accelerator Competition last year – the only Connecticut organization to do so and one of 80 nationwide – it was not known what earning that designation, and  the $50,000 that came with it, would mean for reSET’s Impact Accelerator program. Now, the picture is becoming clearer – and boosting Hartford’s reputation as a city for socially committed entrepreneurial start-up businesses.  The expanding initiative is attracting not only home grown companies, but start-ups from elsewhere across the country, including as far away as California.

Tailored for impact-driven businesses but available to all early-stage ventures, reSET’s Impact Accelerator, now beginning its fourth year, has as its primary objective to test and hone entrepreneurs’ models, and to connect them to networks, mentors, customers, and resources.

A cohort of 22 businesses have been accepted to the program and most of their models are impact focused, serving the educational technology, health and health tech, energy, and agriculture industries. More than 60 percent of them are already generating revenue.  It is the largest group of companies to take part in the accelerator program at reSET, and the first to include a handful of out-of-state participants.

Running from January 20 to June 2, reSET’s accelerator will feature a more flexible program designed for busy, full-time entrepreneurs, as well as a ‘pay what you can’ model.  Entrepreneurial teams will attend five weekend summits, with 30+ optional workshops, mentor office hours, and consultations with an Entrepreneur in Residence conducted during the week.

At program’s end, a $25,000 accelerator funding pool will be available to the cohort, and they'll have priority access to reSET’s investment fund as well, via mentors and advisors that can help them put their best foot forward with their applications, according to reSET officials.

The 2016 cohort includes: Agyncy (www.agyncy.com), AmRide (www.amride.com), Asarasi (www.asarasi.com), BLT Robotics (www.bltrobotics.com), Doors to Explore (www.doorstoexplore.com), DopaFit (www.mydopafit.com), Enviro Power, LLC (www.enviropowertec.com), Keep Sight (www.keepsight.com), Lion’s Heart (www.lionsheartservice.org), Mivy (www.mivyapp.com), Movia Robotics (www.moviarobotics.com), Muni (www.muni.info), myHomeProNetwork (https://myhomepronetwork.com), Plucked (www.pluckedadmissions.org), RepVisits (www.repvisits.com), ScripFlip (www.scriptflip.org), SnapSeat (www.snapseatbooths.com), Tainted Inc. (www.tainted-beauty.com), Text Engine (www.textengine.info), The TubieGuard (the-tubieguard.myshopify.com), Trekeffect (https://trekeffect.com), and Untapped Potential (www.upotential.org).

“We’ve made a strategic shift with our accelerator model so it can accommodate more participants at one time, which we feel will really encourage more collaboration,” said Rosie Gallant, reSET’s Director of Programs. “The shift will help tee up the accelerator for our annual Impact Challenge as well, since the program will wrap in the spring right around when applications will open for the competition in which participants will vie for this year’s $100,000 prize purse.”

reSET is a non-profit organization whose mission is to advance the social enterprise sector.  Its strategic goals are threefold: to be the “go-to” place for impact entrepreneurs, to make Hartford the Impact City, and Connecticut the social enterprise state.  reSET aims to inspire innovation and community collaboration, and to support entrepreneurs in creating market-based solutions to community challenges.  reSET’s goal is to meet entrepreneurs wherever they are in their trajectory and to help them take their businesses to the next level.