SEE US ON FACEBOOK

Our Facebook Group Page join and follow us!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/connecticutcouncilofcarclubs/

Welcome to new members!!!

New member of the 4c's has a youtube channel about traveling around the country to some of the older salvage yards. He meets the people and gets the story of how they run them. Its worth checking out. https://www.youtube.com/c/dennysalvage

Titles for Collector Cars

So Where Are We on ObtainingTitles For Collector Cars??

The Department of Motor Vehicles has a regulationfor issuing titles for our collector cars. That regulation has not been updated to reflect the change made to the State Statutes via Public Act 14-130 which changed the requirement that model year 1981 and older vehicles don’t need titles to vehicles 20years old and older don’t need titles. The current DMV regulation has a couple of provisions in it that make it prohibitive to obtain a title for our collector cars. We believe these provisions are unnecessary and will be looking to work with DMV to change their regulation. The two main problems we see with the current DMV regulation is that if we don’t have a valid out-of-state title for our collectorcar we will need to post a surety bond for our cars inaccordance with Section 14-176 of the state statutes.The process to post a surety bond is cumbersome, cost-prohibitive, and discourages us from obtaining titles for our vehicles. We feel that this provision should not be necessary if our collector vehicle has been registered in the State of Connecticut for a reasonable period of time (say 3 to 5 years). We would like the need to post a bond to be waived if that is the case. The second provision we have difficulty with is the requirement to submit a sworn statement that the vehicle has been maintained or restored to a condition that substantially conforms with the original manufacturer’s specification. We believe we should be able to obtain a title for our motor vehicles,regardless of whether they have modifications. I am drafting a letter to the DMV to request them to revise their regulation to make it easier for auto hobbyists to obtain titles for their motor vehicles, and offer to discuss the issue with them. While our past efforts have not been successful, it is worthy of further pursuit. 

Connecticut Created Cars

Avon Resident Writes Book about Connecticut's Automobile History

Paul Pellerin, an Avon resident of 30 years and lifelong Connecticut resident,has written his first book about Connecticut's car history, in recognition of the 25th Silver Anniversary of the Connecticut Council of Car Clubs and New England Air Museum.

By Colleen Finnegan | Email the author |Patch.com February 26, 2011

Paul Pellerin's book, Connecticut Created Cars Credit Paul Pellerin  

To order this book contact Paul at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

It took Avon resident Paul Pellerin about three years to complete his first book, and now Connecticut Created Cars is published and available to the public.

He spent the first two years doing research, ultimately discovering 184 different automobiles manufactured throughout the state.

"Most people are amazed when you tell them how many cars were built in Connecticut," Pellerin said. "There’s maybe 41 built in Hartford and 21 in Bridgeport."

Pellerin, an Avon resident of 30 years and lifelong Connecticut resident, wrote Connecticut Created Cars, in recognition of the 25th Silver Anniversary of the Connecticut Council of Car Clubs, or 4Cs, and New England Air Museum Car Show & Aircraft Exhibit, which will be held on the first Sunday in June.

Pellerin's book provides a brief history of the 4Cs, a detailed list of automobiles created in Connecticut, sorted by city with over 90 accompanying illustrations, and information on major car shows and cruise nights throughout the state.

Daniel Nichols, a Connecticut Automobile Artist, provided the illustrations.

Read more: Connecticut Created Cars

Legislative Report

May 2021 Legislative Report

     The 2021 Legislative Session began on January 6th and will run through June 9th. The Legislative Office
Building remains closed to the public. Public hearings are being held virtually via Zoom. As we have done in previous sessions, we have retained the services of Hughes and Cronin Public Affairs Strategies to monitor legislation related to the antique auto hobby. In this monitoring capacity, Hughes and Cronin informs us of the pending legislation. We report to you on any legislation potentially impacting the hobby and ask you to
contact your legislators and help get favorable legislation passed, and unfavorable legislation defeated (i.e., a "grass roots" approach).

    At the present time, we are not aware of any legislation introduced in the 2021 Legislative Session that will adversely impact the antique auto hobby. The table included in this newsletter summarizes the current status of bills related to the hobby and other transportation related matters of interest that have been introduced in the legislative session to date (April 25, 2021).

    Two new bills of note are included in this table.
Senate Bill 1105:
 “An Act Eliminating the PropertyTax on Certain Motor Vehicles and Adjusting the Uniform Property Assessment Rate” was introduced by the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee on April 14th. A Public Hearing on the Bill was held on April 20th. The bill proposes to eliminate the property tax on motor vehicles with the exception of rental vehicles. The bill allows municipalities to increase the maximum assessed value on real property from 70% of fair market value to a value not to exceed 100% of the fair market value.
Eliminating the property tax on motor vehicles will result in a town increasing the tax on business and real
property to collect adequate money to fund the town’s budget. It will shift the tax burden from motor vehicle
owners to home and business owners. (Albeit, motor vehicle owners and home owners are one and the
same in most cases. Individuals who rent property would see increase in their rent to offset the increase
in taxes the landlord pays.) Increasing the maximum assessed value of the property will reduce or eliminate
an increase in the town’s mill rate. That said, with a higher assessed value of real property, the tax on our
individual homes will increase even though the town’s mill rate may remain the same.
    I analyzed some data regarding the relative contribution of the residential, commercial, industrial, public utility, vacant land, personal property and motor vehicles to the grand list on a town by town basis that was available on the state website for 2018. Statewide, motor vehicles account for 6.66% of the sum total grand lists for all 169 towns in Connecticut. The highest percentage of the grand list of any town attributed to motor vehicles is Windsor Locks at 17.74%. (Surprising at first, but this is due to the many rental vehicles in Windsor Locks serving Bradley International Airport.) The next highest percentages of the grand list attributed to motor vehicles is approximately 12% for Sprague, Plymouth, and Bozrah. The lowest percentage is Greenwich at 2.46%. In the big cities, Hartford is at 8.6%, New Haven is at 6.1% and Bridgeport is at 8.0%.

    The big benefit touted for eliminating the property tax is two-fold. Because of the large differences in mill
rates from town to town, the same vehicle will pay more property tax if garaged in one town versus another. Even with the current state wide maximum cap on the motor vehicle mill rate of 45, the same car garaged in a city like Hartford or New Britain will be about four times that of the same car in Greenwich with a mill rate of 11.59. The second is the problem with vehicles that are actually garaged in a Connecticut town and either registered out of state or in another Connecticut town with a lower mill rate. That is tax avoidance that is difficult for towns to address. The percentage of time town officials spend collecting taxes on motor vehicles is larger than the percentage of revenue they collect. Eliminating the motor vehicle property tax would resolve these issues and shift the tax burden on business and real property.
    I discussed this bill with the 4C’s Board of Directors and we decided not to submit public hearing testimony on this bill as the impact on the hobby is relatively minimal compared to our modern motor vehicles that are our daily drivers. Depending on the circumstances of each individual, there will be those that will pay more and those that will pay less tax to their towns if the bill is enacted.
    I did listen to the April 20 Public Hearing and looked over the written testimony submitted on Senate Bill
1105, including those from the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities and the Connecticut Council of Small Towns. The testimony was universally against the elimination of the motor vehicle tax. Subsequently, the bill was not reported out of the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee. So, unless the bill concept is brought up as an amendment to another bill being debated on the Senate or House floor, the concept is dead for this session.

Senate Bill 1103:
Senate Bill 1103 is the second bill of note added to the table in this newsletter. This bill was introduced by
the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee on April 14. The bill is not adverse to the antique auto hobby. The bill proposes to remove the current emissions inspection exemption for motorcycles, and to establish decibel level testing for motorcycles and motor vehicles when said vehicle is tested for emissions. The bill also proposed to establish a higher rate of sales and use taxes for motorcycles and aftermarket motorcycle mufflers that exceed a maximum allowable decibel level. In addition, the bill proposes to limit the Passport to the Parks fee to one vehicle per owner.
    Connecticut Council of Car Clubs May 3 2021 Regarding emissions testing and decibel level testing
DMV submitted written testimony in opposition to Senate Bill 1103. They also were opposed to the reduction in the Passport to the Parks fee Much written testimony in opposition to Senate Bill 1103 was submitted. DEEP testified at the April 20th Public Hearing that limiting the fee will potentially result in State Park closures and/or reductions in services. A substitute bill approved by the Finance Revenue and Bonding Committee and was filed with the Legislative Commissioners Office on April 22nd.
The text of that substitute bill is not available to me at the time of my writing this newsletter (April 25th).
Senate Bill 159:

    Regarding the other bills in the table included in this newsletter, one bill that pertains to the hobby. Senate
Bill 159 “AN ACT REDEFINING "ANTIQUE, RARE OR SPECIAL INTEREST MOTOR VEHICLE" TO  INCLUDE A REPLICA VEHICLE”
Proposes to promote the interests of automobile collectors and enthusiasts. Specifically, Senate Bill 159 proposes: “That subdivision (3) of section 14-1 of the general statutes be amended to redefine "antique, rare or special interest motor vehicle" to include a replica vehicle, as defined in the Low Volume Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Act of 2015, P. L. 114-94. As noted in my previous newsletter, Senate Bill 159 was referred to the Transportation Committee on January 15th. There was no Public Hearing and we expect no further  action on this bill in the 2021 Legislative Session.

Classic Vehicle Plates on Composite Vehicles
    My current thinking is that it may be difficult to get the Legislature and DMV to extend the issuance of
Classic Vehicle plates to Composite Motor Vehicles. There are some challenges/concerns that likely would
have to be addressed to make this happen.

• Property taxes on motor vehicles is not revenue to the State, it is revenue to the local cities and towns. The State has had issues with funding municipalities and imposing restrictions on sources of revenue for those towns. The legislature may be reluctant to further limit the sources of revenue for municipalities. If we can
understand from DMV how many Composite Vehicles are registered in Connecticut, that may support an argument this is not a significant loss of revenue to the municipalities.
• Would we allow Composite vehicles manufactured less than 20 years ago to get Classic Vehicle plates? Current Statutes indicate composite motor vehicles will be registered as the model year the vehicle most closely resembles. I don’t know if DMV actually registers a composite motor vehicle as the year it most closely resembles and also tracks the date of manufacture of that vehicle. Is it appropriate for a Composite vehicle manufactured in 2021 to have the maximum $500 assessment applied to it? To be successful, it may be appropriate to request a meeting with DMV leadership to understand how many composite vehicles are registered in the state and understand any concerns DMV’s may have regarding issuing classic motor  vehicle plates to composite vehicles. It may make sense to include this as an agenda item on the meeting along with the issuance of titles for antique motor vehicles that we have been putting off due to the on-going pandemic.
    Perhaps requesting a meeting this summer after the conclusion of the 2021 Legislative Session would be
appropriate. If you have any feedback you would like to share on the potential for extension of the maximum $500  assessment to composite motor vehicles, feel free to email me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Motor Vehicle Titles:
Regarding titles for our antique motor vehicles, we have suspended any contact with DMV until after the
pandemic passes. As noted above, I am thinking it will be appropriate to reach out to DMV leadership
after the 2021 Legislative Session ends.

   As always, we will remain vigilant, and do our best to immediately report to you on any legislation
impacting the antique auto hobby. Stay safe in these unprecedented times.