At a time when Connecticut residents consistently cite affordability as their number one concern, it is deeply troubling that the Connecticut General Assembly is poised to impose yet another costly mandate on our towns and cities: one that will inevitably drive property taxes even higher.
By slipping pension offset language into SB 298 – a sweeping emergency certification bill – legislative leaders are advancing a proposal that has failed to gain approval for nearly a decade, and for good reason. Municipal officials from every corner of the state have repeatedly raised serious concerns about the fiscal impact, the precedent it sets, and the unintended consequences for local budgets and taxpayers. Those concerns have yet to be resolved.
Embedding this policy in a sprawling 121-page emergency bill – in the wake of a major blizzard and outside the normal public hearing process – bypasses meaningful public comment, circumvents collective bargaining, and clearly disregards years of bipartisan municipal opposition. This is not transparent policymaking. It is not deliberative. And it is not responsive to the real and urgent concerns of Connecticut families.
Towns and cities do not have the luxury of deficit spending. Unlike the state, towns and cities must balance their budgets each year. When new mandates are imposed, local leaders have only one primary revenue tool to respond: the property tax. The result is predictable…higher tax bills for homeowners, renters, and small businesses.
At a moment when residents are struggling with the rising costs of housing, utilities, food, and healthcare, advancing a costly pension offset mandate that benefits a narrow interest at the direct expense of property taxpayers sends entirely the wrong message.
Connecticut’s affordability crisis demands thoughtful, transparent debate and full public vetting, not procedural shortcuts that shift additional financial burdens onto towns and cities. The legislature should remove this provision from the emergency bill and allow for an open, honest discussion about its true cost and impact before asking taxpayers to shoulder yet another mandate.
Connecticut Conference of Municipalities
