Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Privatization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Union and local leaders back bill to let residents force referenda on municipal sales and privatization
Summary
Lawmakers heard testimony supporting HB 7 208, which would let residents trigger a referendum when a municipality proposes selling an authority, privatizing a department or selling property (non-open-space) if petitioned by a threshold share of electors. Supporters cited Ansonia and Stratford as examples; opponents urged local charter remedies.
Multiple union leaders, municipal residents and lawmakers urged the Government Administration and Elections Committee to advance HB 7 2 0 8, a bill that would create a petition-and-referendum mechanism for municipalities that propose selling authorities, privatizing departments or disposing of certain property.
Andrew Rhodes of AFSCME and other union witnesses said privatization can harm service quality and workers’ jobs. Rhodes testified, “I strongly urge the committee to support bill 7,208 for the benefit of our wonderful communities and dedication to our union employees.” Teamsters Local 443 and other local organizers argued the measure would restore community accountability when elected officials seek one-time revenue by selling public assets.
Several witnesses described the 2015 Stratford case, where residents gathered signatures, forced a referendum and defeated a proposed sale. They contrasted Stratford with Ansonia (referred to in testimony as “Antonia”), where residents objected to the sale of the Water Pollution Control Authority and said they lacked a charter mechanism to force a vote; speakers said that sale led to increases in sewer rates and that some residents saw rates jump sharply after privatization.
Representative Kara Rochelle, who sponsored testimony describing a local sale that doubled certain sewer charges in multifamily homes, asked the committee to consider thresholds and windows for petition drives; she suggested 10% of electors in 30 days is a high bar and encouraged revision (for example, 5% or a longer signature-collection window). Several speakers said the bill is not partisan and that preventing unilateral sales protects low-income residents and municipal service quality.
Opponents and some legislators argued the better route is local charter revision and warned the state should be cautious about imposing a one-size remedy on towns that already have municipal controls. The transcript records testimony and questions but no committee vote or formal referral on HB 7 2 0 8.
