West Haven council hears public concerns over proposed Fair Rent Commission ordinance changes

The West Haven City Council heard nearly an hour of public comment on proposed amendments to Chapter 97 of the city code — the Fair Rent Commission ordinance — during a public hearing convened by the council’s legislative matters committee. Speakers urged the council to revise language they said could limit tenants’ access to hearings, improperly require supermajorities and overlook state retaliation protections.

The proposed changes to Chapter 97 were introduced by Mayor Dorinda Borer and discussed at a public hearing attended by Fair Rent Commission Chair Steven Mullins, tenant advocates and legal aid attorneys. Steven Mullins, chair of the Fair Rent Commission, told the council the commission has convened and begun hearings and that applications are available in the mayor’s, corporation counsel’s and city clerk’s offices. “We have had several cases before us over the last year,” Mullins said, adding the commission includes landlord and tenant representatives and that “that is how the commission is set up. And that is to ensure the fairness of our deliberations.”

Attorney Raphael Podolsky of Connecticut Legal Services, who said he has worked on fair-rent issues statewide and helped train new commissioners, told the council he and other tenant advocates had marked up the proposed ordinance and highlighted multiple concerns. Podolsky said the draft fails to recognize two different state retaliation provisions and risks wrongly imposing a six-month time limit where state law provides a separate, motive-based protection. “There are 2 different things. 1 is based on motive. 1 is not based on motive,” Podolsky said, warning the draft language could leave tenants without protection the statutes guarantee.

Podolsky also raised constitutional and procedural concerns about a new section (97-5.5) that would let the commission dismiss complaints without a hearing if it concluded the complaint was filed to harass a landlord. He said motive generally cannot be evaluated without a hearing and that a summary dismissal mechanism would be “counterproductive” and invite abuse. Podolsky urged the council to reject or substantially rewrite that provision.

Renter Mason Smith, who identified himself as a West Haven resident and renter, urged the council to remove a proposed supermajority requirement in section 97-3. He said the draft would effectively require a tenant to win every commissioner present if a quorum was minimal: “If only a quorum of 4 is present, the tenant would need to win all 4 votes and would essentially lose the case given a single no vote,” Smith said, calling the change contrary to how public boards usually operate.

City attorneys and Corporation Counsel told the council they had received the written comments only the same day and would review them. Corporation Counsel Paul Dorsey said the current draft was intended to align the city ordinance with the new state statute and improve clarity, but he recommended the council hold the item so counsel could consider the public input and return with a revised ordinance and, if necessary, a second public hearing.

The council did not vote on the ordinance. The legislative matters committee voted to hold the matter in committee while city lawyers review the public submissions and determine which revisions to incorporate. The office of corporation counsel said it would provide revised language and an explanation of changes before the council’s next meeting.

Why it matters: The Fair Rent Commission is the statutory remedy for many renters in Connecticut municipalities with populations over 25,000; changes to local rules affect whether and how tenants may file complaints, how hearings proceed and what protections against landlord retaliation remain available. Public commenters argued the draft could narrow tenants’ access to hearings and alter vote thresholds, while counsel said the draft must be reconciled with state law.

The legislative matters committee will consider a revised ordinance and any proposed redlines from corporation counsel and is expected to schedule a public hearing after the revisions are circulated to council members.