Fire service leaders back 5¢ phone surcharge to fund firefighter cancer relief; lawmakers debate workers' comp alternative

Local officials, the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, the Uniformed Professional Firefighters Association, the joint council of chiefs and other unions and municipal leaders testified in favor of Senate Bill 13 18, which would assess a small monthly surcharge on phone service to deposit into the firefighter cancer relief fund.

Selectman Rudy Marconi, representing the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, said the fund was established as a separate mechanism after earlier consideration of workers' compensation proved fiscally risky for municipalities. Marconi described an initial state contribution and continued municipal contributions of $10 per firefighter and said the current balance (testimony cited about $7,000,000) could be quickly exhausted by even one major claim. "We cannot allow this to happen to the fine men and women who provide this vital service to our municipalities," Marconi said.

Marconi and other municipal witnesses argued placing firefighter cancer coverage back into workers' compensation would raise municipal insurance assessments dramatically and ultimately raise local property taxes. Several municipal witnesses said their risk pools and carriers advised that treating presumption claims through workers' compensation would create long‑term liabilities and high rate increases for all municipalities.

First Selectman Carl Fortuna of Old Saybrook, Kerma and municipal officials echoed that a carve‑out fund and a nominal surcharge would provide sustainability while avoiding immediate rate shocks tied to workers' comp. Fortuna said his municipality — which relies heavily on volunteers — would be disadvantaged if costs were shifted into the workers' compensation system. "I firmly believe, respectfully, believe that it should not be in the workers' comp system," he said.

Peter Brown, president of the Uniformed Professional Firefighters Association, said occupational cancer is now the leading cause of line‑of‑duty deaths nationally and that since the benefit law took effect in October 2023 the union had seen 35 firefighters file claims but fewer than five accepted. Brown told the committee many claim denials hinge on fund solvency concerns and expressed urgency for a dedicated revenue stream. "A lot of these claims are not moving forward until we are able to determine a dedicated funding source," Brown said.

Union and municipal witnesses repeatedly proposed a 5¢ monthly surcharge on phone lines as a low‑cost funding mechanism. Witnesses gave approximate revenue estimates: testimony suggested 1¢ could generate about $600,000 annually and 5¢ about $3,000,000 (figures described as rough, off‑the‑top estimates). Committee members raised questions about administrative fees, whether carriers would retain a portion of the surcharge, and whether a phone surcharge is an appropriate revenue mechanism instead of a budget appropriation. Witnesses said the surcharge model would be small per household and could be adjusted by statute or oversight committee if claims and costs demanded it.

The joint council and the AFL‑CIO urged the committee to act, citing the moral imperative to support firefighters who routinely face hazardous exposures, including PFAS in turnout gear. The joint council recommended that any fund administration minimize local administrative burden and suggested the fund could also be used for preventative measures if surpluses develop.

Speakers did not report formal votes at the hearing. Committee members asked technical and fiscal questions and said they would continue gathering information, including about third‑party administrative costs and claims handling with municipal carriers such as Kerma, and evaluate options including statutory carve‑outs, dedicated surcharges or general fund appropriations.