A bill that would fine-tune 2014 legislation creating the Connecticut Port Authority will likely be taken up by the special session of the General Assembly later this month, but representatives from the state's small to mid-sized harbors worry that they will be forgotten under the new quasi-public entity.

Still being discussed by administration officials and lawmakers are the assignment of powers and responsibilities to the board of directors and the executive director of the port authority.

Legislation establishing the Port Authority, which primarily will be responsible for marketing the state's three deepwater ports — New London, Bridgeport and New Haven — was signed by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy in June 2014. The bill introduced during the 2015 session was intended to build upon the original legislation.

Garrett Eucalitto, undersecretary for transportation policy and planning at the state Office of Policy and Management, said the 2015 impetus was to make the port authority "an effective organization" by shifting certain powers like the maritime functions of the state Department of Transportation to the new entity, which is expected to come into effect on Oct. 1. Certain drafts of the 2015 legislation have proposed moving the date up to July 1.

Discussions continue between the Malloy administration and members of the Connecticut General Assembly to include the bill during the special session, which must be convened before July 1, the start of the state's new fiscal year.

The administration is also working with lawmakers to make specific technical changes to the language in this year's legislation, Eucalitto said, to ensure that the board of directors and executive director, who will be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the board, exercise powers that are legally allowed by state statute.

The language associated with this year's bill has changed several times over the course of the session, at times becoming more or less inclusive of the smaller harbors, and the bill that appears on the General Assembly's website is not the most recent version.

Sen. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague, said that language pertaining to the port authority is expected to be included in an implementer bill that comes up at the end of each session and puts into effect the provisions of the state budget.

The new two-year, $40 billion budget, includes $119,506 for the port authority in 2016, and $239,011 in 2017.

The 2014 port authority legislation established a port authority working group to make recommendations that DECD could then put into a report for the governor and the General Assembly.

The working group held meetings over the course of a year and a half to solicit recommendations for the report, including from representatives of the small to mid-size harbors who expressed their concerns at being left out.

The Connecticut Harbor Management Association, made up of local harbor management commissions including those in Norwich and Old Lyme, is still concerned that its needs won't be addressed under the new authority.

Specifically, the association worries that the dissolution of DOT's maritime functions and the transferring of the grants-in-aid program administered by the department to the port authority will not guarantee the smaller harbors get the funding they've received in the past. 

"If the Port Authority takes over the funding program and focuses primarily or only on the three ports, and the Port Authority and its executive director are making decisions concerning which projects to fund, then it's reasonable to assume that the small harbors will lose out," said Geoff Steadman, a coastal area planning consultant who is on the board of the CHMA.

Towns across the state have benefitted from the DOT grants-in-aid program for dredging and other infrastructure projects to improve their ports and marinas. Since 2012, through the state's capital budget, more than $60 million has gone to the grants-in-aid program, of which some $38 million has been bonded or is about to be bonded for upcoming projects.

The importance of the state funds is that the small harbors, although served by federal navigation projects, Steadman said, can no longer compete for federal funds through the Army Corps of Engineers' normal budget process.

Ed O'Donnell, chief of navigation in the Army Corps of Engineers New England District, said that the corps' budget has shrunk over the past several years. This has resulted in priority going to dredging projects involving the greatest tonnage of cargo passing through.

O'Donnell said, "in the last few years we haven't been getting funds to dredge the smaller projects in Connecticut."

Connecticut has been the most active in New England in providing funding for these smaller projects, according to O'Donnell, who noted that Massachusetts has cut back significantly on dredging small harbors.

"The other states are in the same boat as Connecticut," he said.

Osten said by phone Tuesday that her understanding is "the small ports would be having representation" on the board of directors, and that "they would not be left out of funding." She added that she is not the only senator concerned about the fate of the smaller harbors.

On Feb. 23, the transportation committee held a public hearing to solicit comment on the legislation but only one person, Tim Sullivan, of the Department for Economic and Community Development, gave comments.

Sullivan's remarks said, in part, that "DECD believes that our ports and harbors of all sizes are a critical but underutilized part of our economy. We believe that the establishment of the new Port Authority will help focus attention on bringing more jobs and new business activity to the state."

Steadman said that he and other members of the association were not aware of the public hearing.

The special session does not include any opportunity for public comment, but Osten said that she would be "continuing to push for small ports to be part of the implementer language in both the boards and the method for funding capital projects."

j.bergman@theday.com

Twitter: @JuliaSBergman