Candidate Q&A: Vincent Tocci, State Representative, 52nd District

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 Vincent Tocci (D) who is challenging the incumbent.

---

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 Many call the formula outdated.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A: The ECS formula is outdated and no longer reflects the realities facing our communities. Throughout this campaign, I will continue to reiterate: our municipalities are struggling financially, and the state needs to play a more active role in helping them. Towns are being asked to do more with less every year. In Stafford, residents are paying more for their schools than they have in a long time. At the same time, the state continues to run budget surpluses. Families and property taxpayers need relief now. We need to modernize the ECS formula so it better reflects current student and community needs. The goal should be a fair, transparent funding system that does not leave local taxpayers carrying an ever-growing burden. Connecticut can and should do more to support our schools and our towns.

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: Housing costs are skyrocketing, and while many of the causes are outside the control of state government, there are meaningful steps we can take to make housing more affordable. First, we need to reduce  unnecessary regulations that delay projects and drive up costs. One way to do that is by streamlining environmental reviews for housing developments that incorporate renewable energy and other sustainable technologies. We should also recognize that many small towns lack the staff needed to navigate complex state and federal funding opportunities. That is why I support creating state-funded regional grant specialists who can help municipal grant writers access the resources available to them. Second, we need to make housing development financially worthwhile for municipalities while respecting local control. I am told that municipalities cringe when they see a three-bedroom house being built, but  I believe that should not be the case. When the state funds housing projects that bring new families into a community, the state should help cover a percentage of the cost of educating any new students who enter the local public school system as a result. That would ease the burden on property taxpayers and give towns a reason to welcome responsible growth. If we reduce barriers to construction and better support municipalities, we can increase housing supply, lower costs, and strengthen our communities.

Q: Unusually high gas and oil prices are impacting citizens’ wallets. What can and should the state do to help regular people cope?

A: In the short term, the state should suspend Connecticut’s gas tax, and to give residents direct relief at the pump. When families are already struggling with groceries, heating oil, and utility bills, every dollar matters. We need more active representatives who fight for relief before families reach a breaking point. In the long term, the recent fluctuations in oil prices have shown that fossil fuel costs are unpredictable and largely outside our control. That is why Connecticut must make it easier and more affordable for residents to transition to lower-cost energy sources like solar, wind, geothermal, and heat pumps. We should use Massachusetts’ model, the Mass Save program, as a guideline for how to do this effectively. Connecticut should expand no-cost home energy assessments, strengthen weatherization support, increase heat pump incentives, and zero-interest financing for families who want to make their homes more efficient. We should also provide more hands-on assistance so residents are not left to navigate complicated rebate and grant programs on their own. Short-term tax relief and long-term energy independence are both necessary to protect regular people from rising gas and oil prices.

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: The solution to unfunded mandates is simple: if the state requires municipalities to do something, the state should help pay for it. Connecticut is running budget surpluses while many towns are struggling to balance their budgets and keep property taxes under control. We should use a portion of those surpluses to fund mandates rather than shift  costs onto local taxpayers particularly in small towns who disproportionately struggle from this. Going forward, I will make it a priority to consult with our First Selectmen and local leaders on every major piece of legislation to determine whether towns can realistically afford any new requirements. We cannot repeat mistakes like the state made in the recent veterans tax exemption, where the state underestimated the number of eligible beneficiaries and the financial strain it would place on small towns like Stafford. Although I support giving veterans financial support, this should come from the state, not municipalities. Good intentions are not enough if municipalities are left holding the bill. We also need to do a better job bringing state grant dollars back to Eastern Connecticut so our communities receive the resources they deserve. As your representative, one of my top priorities will be securing every dollar possible for our district. I am willing to work with anyone, on either side of the aisle, to deliver results for our towns. The job of a State Representative is not to engage in performative politics—it is to bring resources home, reduce the burden on property taxpayers, and make our communities stronger.

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: Medicaid funding is critically important to towns like Stafford because it helps support everything from ambulance services to school-based programs. When municipalities provide services that qualify for Medicaid reimbursement, they should be reimbursed fairly and on time. Too often, local taxpayers are left covering costs that should be shared by the state and federal governments. I support protecting Medicaid reimbursements for municipal services and ensuring that towns are not forced to absorb additional costs when state budgets become tight. We should also make it easier for municipalities and school districts to access every dollar in reimbursement they are entitled to receive. That is one reason I have proposed state-funded regional grant specialists who would work directly with municipalities throughout Eastern Connecticut. In addition to helping towns secure state and federal grants, these specialists could assist local governments in navigating complex Medicaid reimbursement programs and compliance requirements. Small towns often lack the staff or expertise needed to maximize every available funding opportunity. Every Medicaid dollar or grant dollar we bring back to Stafford is a dollar that does not have to come from local property taxpayers. My goal will always be to ensure our communities receive the funding they have earned while reducing the financial burden on local residents.

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: I would support phasing out the state income tax, but only if we have a responsible plan to replace that revenue and protect our municipalities. Working families and wage earners should not be the people footing the bill every time the state needs revenue. The burden should be placed on those who can most afford it, particularly individuals making substantial profits from investments and capital gains. Connecticut has already considered legislation to impose a surcharge on high-income capital gains, and I believe that is a conversation worth having. If we are serious about reducing taxes on work, we should explore shifting more of the burden toward passive investment income at the highest levels. Any transition away from the income tax must be gradual, fiscally responsible, and designed to avoid creating new burdens on towns and cities. Municipalities cannot be left in the lurch while the state experiments with tax policy. That means maintaining and expanding municipal aid so local governments are not forced to raise property taxes to make up the difference. My priority will always be protecting working families while ensuring our towns have the resources they need to succeed. Tax reform should reward work, preserve essential services, and provide real relief without shifting costs onto local taxpayers.