[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6575599,"mediaKeyId","3086712-b7fc0b0f170cf14affd07bf4b4b5d62a","parentId",3086712,"title","Appropriations panel backs state‑subsidized health coverage for state marshals; debate centers on classification and costs","audioSeconds",175,"startMs",12078000,"endMs",12253000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3086712-b7fc0b0f170cf14affd07bf4b4b5d62a&start=12078&end=12253","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3086712-b7fc0b0f170cf14affd07bf4b4b5d62a/thumbnail_12078000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6575599/Connecticut/Appropriations-panel-backs-statesubsidized-health-coverage-for-state-marshals-debate-centers-on-classification-and-costs","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6575599-6156991fa36dda645d02ca0f06bb362d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770698320&Signature=O5FDEWQ4EBGxrd-wBJoI9B9RaHjhuHs3qKqxjIcwebg1a2IfwZrCHB7D7JyQJZwXzZq5k~skXDqW32LZhA-JxeIVz8M~tBvo6QjSbPj~6~oSKCtpGCF88zyhHMyfKGR7dPpsdaF1RY-lMlPFKzgk-DSChF9q0QnKpLfjUHY~gkUorbAngVNN2eoFmeBD6F7zW-9O~02uzMDfnHRlsju5QhXdvWayceu~Dn51RukEWQ5iWbqr4JlIXfC7S8PuFNNEe4sOmY3ZMEqkpHUVsPy~y40OKVXrXlwgCajHUPzcC0B4ynXtKrRdgrVt0RluqXRmOoUEv5lTIZC7tRXTZlXWXQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Connecticut State Legislature","date","2025-04-22T23:49:04.823Z","article","The Connecticut Appropriations Committee on April 22 included funding in its proposed budget to provide state employee health‑plan cost‑sharing for state marshals, a measure that has been debated in Labor and Appropriations subcommittees this session.

Why it matters: State marshals carry out service of process and other judicial‑system tasks statewide. The added funding would subsidize health insurance premiums for marshals who qualify for the state plan, reducing their out‑of‑pocket costs. Supporters said the change addresses an equity issue and will improve recruitment and retention; critics warned about classification, fiscal impact and precedent.

What members discussed

- Scope and cost: The committee added approximately $1.7 million (committee summary discussion) to subsidize health coverage for marshals above a 20‑hour work threshold. Senator Kushner, who led floor discussion on related bills in other committees, said marshals previously had access to health coverage but paid the full cost and that this action creates a state cost‑share similar to regular state employees.

- Classification and statute: Opponents — including Representative Pavlak D'Amato in questioning — noted that state statute refers to state marshals as independent contractors and asked whether extending a state health‑plan cost share changes that legal status or exposes the state to ERISA questions. Senator Kushner and other supporters replied that marshals have in practice had access to state health coverage and that the committee’s proposal provides comparable cost‑sharing rather than full state employment benefits. The transcript records the exchange but does not show a change to statutory language; committee members said legal questions could be discussed further outside the committee.

- Rollup and implementation: Chairs said the proposal follows related legislative action in Labor and Appropriations subcommittees and is intended to be a cost‑shared benefit rather than full pension coverage or conversion to state employment. Implementation would be managed through the Office of the State Comptroller (health plan administration), subject to eligibility rules and payroll handling.

Quotes from the meeting

- “State marshals have had access to state employee health care forever. So no. It will not put us at risk,” Senator Kushner said during debate (transcript exchange noted).

- Representative Pavlak D’Amato asked whether marshals “should be going on Access Health” (the state health exchange) instead of state‑employee plans and pressed for clarity on who pays and what benefits are included.

Open questions and next steps

- Legal and classification review: Members requested clarity about whether providing a state cost share affects marshals’ statutory classification as independent contractors and whether ERISA or other liabilities could be implicated. Committee chairs indicated staff and legal counsel would follow up.

- Cost and enrollment details: The committee included an initial appropriation; exact per‑person costs, the number of marshals who will enroll and any phased implementation were to be clarified by the Office of the State Comptroller and the Office of Fiscal Analysis in follow‑up documents.

Ending: The committee’s inclusion of marshal health subsidies reflects a policy decision to reduce the financial barrier to health coverage for a group that performs statewide court functions; members signaled continuing oversight and requests for legal and cost detail before final implementation.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Susan Keane, APP's Zoom Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Appropriations Committee included funding in its budget for a state cost‑share on health insurance for state marshals, addressing a long‑running Labor Committee issue about whether and how the state should subsidize marshals’ coverage.","taxTitle","Appropriations, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Connecticut","taxId",15021,"location","Connecticut","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6575603,"Appropriations Committee advances deficiency bill and biennial budget; adds $84 million a year for special‑education excess costs",21029,305000,21334000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3086712-b7fc0b0f170cf14affd07bf4b4b5d62a&start=305&end=21334","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3086712-b7fc0b0f170cf14affd07bf4b4b5d62a/thumbnail_305000.jpg","/articles/6575603/Connecticut/Appropriations-Committee-advances-deficiency-bill-and-biennial-budget-adds-84-million-a-year-for-specialeducation-excess-costs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6575603-072c8b9737fc39e731bfec9022106991/orig.mp4?Expires=1770698320&Signature=fDUSA2ppNSmpU06Yxl93AqlRbkRlRXQyzNTT2zlpBl46V8aBGYDddBVc6eb74P3tCPU9iLnwLSoDxX-8iE6B8un-Hf7jwXRZqGDysZRqRkat0lhJ5gpZWwa347zuQwUJk2ROPEWZiv~YnsxZYQNNRK5Bv-a84boSjq8Wb9oHkjr79fwswlM3GvvMK30dDx0EQDwIu1SyFV0FqSWSPL2zefFHdxGkD~Ky-2mLgJ4whXbfew4lBj6P8E8BQxtb00cwqn6iAwX2mBF3nHcczAggtfU-dTMorSa5Nuao2dFrkpNOPugSV~cfB0aF-xHd9H8PAEdEUERrKDhxQ6vgWVh2-g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Connecticut General Assembly Appropriations Committee on April 22 voted to send the governor’s deficiency appropriations bill (House Bill 6863) and the biennial budget (House Bill 6864) to the House floor after several hours of review and debate and a separate committee vote to add $84 million in both years of the biennium for special‑education excess costs.

Representative Jason Walker, co‑chair of the Appropriations Committee, opened the meeting by thanking staff and the public process, saying, “So, good morning, everybody. Today is a day that, we have been waiting for since January,” as the panel prepared to reconvene and move the package forward.

Why it matters: The deficiency bill and the two‑year budget set the state’s spending plan and immediate fixes for fiscal 2025 and the 2026–27 biennium. Committee action advances both measures to the full House, where members will debate, amend and vote. Committee members repeatedly warned that several major costs remain uncertain — including contract negotiations and Medicaid trends — and that the package currently exceeds the state’s constitutional spending cap by committee staff estimates cited during debate.

What the committee approved

- House Bill 6863 (deficiency appropriations for fiscal year ending 06/30/2025): The committee voted to send the bill to the floor. The motion to “JF to the floor” was made by Representative Walker and seconded by Representative Nolan. Roll‑call tally: 43 in favor, 10 opposed, 0 abstentions; the motion passed.

- House Bill 6864 (state budget for the biennium ending 06/30/2027): After line‑by‑line review and multiple subcommittee reports, the committee voted to forward the budget to the floor. The committee also adopted a subsequent vote adding $84 million in both FY2026 and FY2027 to the “excess cost” special‑education grant to better align funding with projected K‑12 special‑education expenses. Final committee roll call on the budget: 40 in favor, 13 opposed, 0 abstentions; the motion passed.

Special‑education amendment: The committee considered more than one amendment on excess cost funding. An offset amendment that would have added the $84 million a year while cutting higher‑education accounts failed in a recorded vote; a separate motion to add $84 million per year for excess costs then passed on a later roll call (vote recorded in committee transcript as 45 yea, 8 nay). Committee members debated the timing and implementation of the infusion, with supporters saying it relieves local property‑tax pressure and opponents arguing the package as a whole exceeds the constitutional spending cap and lacks certain offsets.

Discussion highlights and open items

- Reserve for salary accounts (RSA) and contracts: Committee members repeatedly asked whether the budget accounts for pending collective‑bargaining agreements and the state’s multi‑year RSA. Chairs said the package includes a smaller RSA than the governor proposed and that actual contract dollars will be handled later when numbers are final.

- Medicaid and health‑care cost drivers: Members pressed staff on assumptions around Medicaid provider rates, pharmacy rebates and retiree health care. Office of Fiscal Analysis staff warned that some savings assumptions depend on upcoming procurement results and that OPEB trust balances might be a source to manage certain liabilities.

- Roll‑call transparency: Committee staff carried out multiple, sometimes lengthy, roll calls to capture member votes on the deficiency bill, the budget and the special‑education amendment. The transcript records several procedural exchanges and votes; final tallies are reported above.

What’s next: The committee chair said the Charter Oak collective bargaining agreement hearing would be held the following morning and that further votes were scheduled later in the week. Both House bills now go to the full House for debate and final passage, after which negotiations with the Senate and the governor may continue.

Ending: The committee made clear it considers this a first, significant step in the annual budget process. Members signaled additional amendments and negotiations remain possible before final budget enactment.

","The Connecticut House Appropriations Committee on April 22 voted to send a governor‑filed deficiency appropriations bill and a two‑year budget to the floor after adding a bipartisan $84 million‑per‑year increase for special‑education excess costs. Both measures passed the committee on roll calls after hours of review and line‑by‑line discussion.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Appropriations panel backs state‑subsidized health coverage for state marshals; debate centers on classification and costs

Appropriations Committee advances deficiency bill and biennial budget; adds $84 million a year for special‑education excess costs