Candidate Q&A: Jeff Gordon, State Senate, 35th District
- 3 hours ago
- 7 min read
Earlier this summer Stafford Free Press sent a set of questions to the four candidates who are vying for the votes of Stafford's residents. We set a deadline of July 18 to receive answers. This particular set of questions focused entirely on affordability, but we hope to hear from readers about other topics they would like to hear from the candidates on. We do not edit or alter candidate answers.
These are the answers provided by incumbent State Senator, Dr. Jeff Gordon (R).
Q: Towns are increasingly feeling the burden of funding school systems. Yet, Educational Cost Sharing (ECS) funding seems to be a problem during every session. Many call the formula outdated. What solution would you put forth to solve this problem?
A: I fought to bring more Education Cost Sharing (ECS) funding to our towns and this year, working collaboratively with others, we delivered progress. In the state’s FY27 budget adjustment, I helped secure $5.7 million in additional ECS funding for the 35th District. That includes an extra $382,000 for Stafford this current fiscal year. While it’s not as much as I believe is needed, it’s a meaningful step forward and builds on my work to stop nearly $7 million in past education cuts proposed in the Governor’s budgets for FY24 and FY25. For Stafford, that saved around $750,000 from being cut by the state. For FY26, I worked for the legislature to get rid of proposed state cuts. I was successful. I have continued my work for a stronger, more sustainable funding formula. This year, I proposed that the base ECS $11,525/pupil be increased to $16,610 just to keep up with inflation because it has not been increased since 2013. I also proposed that the ECS funding formula be reworked to be fairer to our towns, such as using a “rural modifier” in the ECS formula. I’ll keep pushing for these things to ensure consistent, adequate funding for every community. The cuts that I stopped and the increases I got in state funding help ease the burden on property taxpayers. The more that the state can do with funding, the less the pressure on property taxes. Additionally, when the state funds non-education town services, that frees up exiting town money to help fund schools without tax increases. Two big things I worked to get are increased money from the casino fund and increased Town Aid Road fund. I was successful. For Stafford, this will bring in approximately an extra $295,000. Furthermore, I am following the work of the Blue-Ribbon Commission on Education Funding.
However, we know already what needs done: the state to fully fund its public education responsibilities. The state has the money. No new taxes are needed. It is how we refocus, reprioritize, and repurpose the money it has.
Q: Housing costs are skyrocketing. The reasons for this are varied, and many are outside of the control of state governments. What can you do in your role to address this?
A: I have leadership experience on land use and housing through the 15 years I chaired Woodstock’s Planning & Zoning Commission. Many factors are outside of the state’s and our towns’ control, such as labor costs, supply costs, and lands values. However, many towns already have been doing things to help residents. I did that in Woodstock by streamlining the permitting processes, improving the permit fee costs, making it easier to build accessory dwellings, and providing incentives for building types of housing that could help increase housing stock. As a State Senator, I have proposed major reforms to the state’s affordable housing law (8-30g) because the law has failed to work over many decades. I advocated for the state to incentivize realistically many ways that towns could choose to help housing affordability. One example is to broaden the demographics of who could benefit from the 8-30g law to include not just low-income but also middle-income people and families using the United Way’s Asset Limited Income Challenged Employed (ALICE) database updated annually. I also have been advocating for the state to better fund regional infrastructure projects and public transportation options that can enable more smart housing development. Some of this is now being done through my efforts. However, I strongly believe in local decision-making. The people of Connecticut know best what is best for the towns in which they live. People in Stafford know that. Why should bureaucrats in Hartford think they know better. I have opposed state mandates that take away land use decisions from the towns. We all know that a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach does not work. As the Senate Republican Leader on the Planning & Development Committee, I have been working to get the state to be more collaborative with towns and provide more financial and staff resources. At the same time, we must recognize that housing costs are not in isolation. They are part of the overall high cost of living in Connecticut. I have been working on that, with some major successes. If people can keep upfront more of their hard-earned and saved money, then they will have more money for housing and daily needs. I am continuing my work on affordability.
Q: Unusually high gas and oil prices are impacting citizens’ wallets. What can and should the state do to help regular people cope?
A: The reality is that the state of Connecticut does not directly control the cost of oil on the commodity markets. National and international issues weigh heavily. However, Connecticut does have two taxes on every gallon of gas in addition to the federal tax. During times of high gas and diesel prices, the state can and should suspend the state taxes and stop the automatic annual rise in the diesel tax. I advocated for these things to be done. Not doing these things was a missed opportunity to help affordability. I will continue to push for these things so that the state is better responsive when gas and diesel prices rise above certain threshold levels as we have seen recently when gas went close to $5/gallon in parts of Connecticut.
Q: Many towns, including Stafford, have complained about unfunded mandates that deeply impact local budgeting and the property tax burden. How would you address this ongoing issue?
A: I share in this frustration. I believe that when the legislature creates a law imposing something on our towns, then the legislature should pay for the costs. I have been fighting to get state agencies to review each mandate, report which ones can be eliminated, and propose how to pay for the ones that remain. The staggering number of unfunded education mandates put undue financial burdens on Board of Education budgets. There has been work done toward addressing this issue, but the work has not been strong enough or complete enough. I view this issue of unfunded state mandates as one of the key issues for the legislature tackle when creating a new 2-year state budget. By getting rid of unneeded unfunded mandates and paying for the remaining mandates, this can be a big factor is lessening property taxes.
Q: Medicaid reimbursements play a significant part in towns’ revenues. From the ambulance budget to reimbursements for services provided by the schools, Medicaid matters in Stafford. What solutions do you support for shoring up Medicaid funding?
A: Last year, I worked in a bipartisan way with my legislative colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, including the Chairs of the Human Services Committee, to present a strong framework to increase funding for Medicaid reimbursement. My proposal was modeled on the good work done in Indiana. I also took into account my work with municipal and EMS leaders, including in Stafford. Connecticut ranks low in Medicaid reimbursement, which limits opportunities for Medicaid recipients to get needed care. It also hurst town funding for ambulance service. It was disappointing to see last year’s strong proposal get negotiated away by legislative leaders and the Governor, and then not be championed by them this year despite a push to get them to do so. There was a step forward to increase EMS Medicaid reimbursement. More work needs to be done because the problem is getting worse. I am preparing for next year’s legislative session and already working with people to see what can be done when the state creates a new, 2-year budget. We already have a good proposal based upon work done.
Q: During this election season, gubernatorial candidates have promised to phase out the state income tax. This is a campaign promise many have made and failed to deliver on. Is this a move you would support, and if so, how would the State prevent leaving towns already struggling with their own budgets in the lurch?
A: It sounds nice to say one could eliminate the state income tax. But the truth is, even if people do not like it, is that if the state income tax is eliminated completely, people would pay in other ways, through sales taxes, fees, etc. And the state would then end up short-changing municipal and public education, which means that property taxes would go up to cover the deficiencies. In the real world, this would not work and cannot be made to work. During my first year as State Senator, I worked to cut state income taxes, and this was done for low- and middle-income people and families. The state has been over-taxing us, and this is why the surplus funds not only are in the billions of dollars but are overflowing. We do not need people telling us that we should tax more. We need people like me who have gotten tax cuts done, expanded tax exemptions for seniors’ retirement accounts and pensions, created child tax and caregiver tax credits, and created funding for more affordable childcare opportunities. I know we can do more. There is room in the state surpluses to further address affordability by cutting further state income taxes for the middle-class and expanding child tax credit for them as well. At the same time, we can continue to pay done the huge stat debts and unfunded pension liabilities. By doing this, we free up interest payments that can be better used to fund municipal aid, public education, and public safety. At the same time, if we have more businesses in Connecticut and more people employed, then more tax revenue comes in, thereby allowing more to be done long-term to cut taxes, including the sales tax. The income tax will not go away, but the individual burden on affordability for people, families, seniors, and small businesses becomes less. That is a sustainable way to do it, which I continue to work to get done.