The Connecticut Legislative branch has entered the phase of its session when committee hearings stretch long into the day and the nuts and bolts shaping of legislation occurs. Before bills reach the House or Senate floor, they are supposed to be tested in public (although this does not always happen)—through hours of testimony from agency heads, advocates, municipal officials and citizens. Written submissions become part of the permanent legislative record. Amendments are negotiated. Some proposals advance. Others expire.
For Fred Camillo, Greenwich’s First Selectman and a former state legislator, this process is not ceremonial. It is routine. Over the years he has testified on dozens—by some counts hundreds—of bills affecting municipalities. He treats the act of testifying as part of the job description. State statutes alter local budgets, police powers, housing rules and utility costs. If a proposal touches Greenwich, he believes Greenwich should be heard.
Just within the past week, Camillo has submitted testimony on four measures spanning landlord-tenant law, homelessness policy and water regulation. The bills differ in subject matter but converge on a common theme: how the state calibrates authority—between landlord and tenant, town and state, regulator and ratepayer.
The Sanctity of Contract: SB 257
SB 257, An Act Concerning Evictions for Cause, would require landlords to demonstrate specific grounds before removing a tenant after lease expiration. Supporters argue the measure strengthens housing stability. Camillo urges lawmakers to consider the contractual implications.
Allowing a tenant “who has violated terms of a lease and or stopped paying rent to stay in the house or apartment after the expiration of the lease amounts to blatant discrimination against the property owner and protections of those who ignore written contracts that they reviewed, agreed to, and signed,” he writes.
He adds that “CT is not considered a rental property owner friendly state to begin with,” warning that further restrictions would “exacerbate the exodus from Connecticut that we have been experiencing, only this time from the mom and pop owners of rental property.”
His argument is anchored in predictability. When expectations embedded in leases are altered by statute, behavior changes—sometimes in ways that affect housing supply itself.
Risk and Reciprocity: HB 5257
HB 5257 would prohibit landlords from requiring a security deposit greater than one month’s rent. Advocates see relief for tenants facing steep upfront costs. Camillo sees a shift in exposure.
“A security deposit is there to protect a landlord from destruction to his or her property caused by a tenant, and in many cases, this rental property may represent the majority, or all, of the property owner’s income,” he writes. He continues: “I have personally witnessed several cases of property damage caused by a tenant that far exceeded the two month’s security deposit that most landlords require.”
The legislature must decide whether lowering the cap reduces barriers without increasing downstream costs. Camillo’s testimony suggests that for small-scale landlords, margin matters.
Compassion and Civic Order: HB 5260
HB 5260 would prohibit municipalities from imposing penalties on homeless persons for performing “life-sustaining activities of daily activity.” The bill attempts to codify humane treatment. Camillo’s testimony emphasizes equilibrium.
“While we can all agree that compassion and offering help and guidance to a homeless person needs to be the first endeavors of all of us, not just public officials. That said, there always needs to be a balance between the welfare of a homeless person, and the rights and public safety of the general population,” he writes.
He argues the proposal would “handcuff a municipality from fulfilling its obligation to its residents and at the same time, would do nothing to assist the homeless individual, who would basically be the recipient of a policy of enablement.” In Greenwich, he notes, local officials dispatch social services and police so that “services are offered, and behavior is monitored, for the protection of both the homeless individual and the public.”
The question is institutional competence. Who is best positioned to maintain public space while extending assistance—the state through blanket prohibition, or municipalities through calibrated discretion?
Guardrails for Ratepayers: HB 5249
HB 5249 amends the charter of the South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority in connection with the potential acquisition of Aquarion. On this measure, Camillo supports legislative clarification.
He calls the bill “a technical fix that makes clear that PURA retains its full statutory authority to make sure it has the right to review the proposed Aquarion deal and ensure that it is a deal that is in the public’s interest.”
The proposed purchase, he writes, “is debt financed and the cost of that financing would be pushed onto ratepayers in their water bills and potentially onto municipalities – which also impacts local property taxes.” The bill ensures that “any buyout of our water is subject to appropriate scrutiny and that they will keep our water clean and affordable.”
Here the logic shifts. Strong state oversight, in this instance, is viewed as a necessary counterweight to financial complexity that could burden residents.
The Habit of Engagement
Camillo’s repeated appearances in the legislative record reflect more than policy preference. They reflect a habit formed during his time in Hartford. Laws that appear abstract in committee rooms arrive in town halls as line items, enforcement decisions and rate increases. A municipal executive who has once been a legislator understands that early testimony often shapes final language.
Connecticut Legislative branch will decide the fate of these measures in the weeks ahead. But at this stage—when bills are still pliable—the testimony of local officials helps frame the consequences in practical terms. For Camillo, speaking into that process is structural. It is how a town asserts its presence in a state system where the distance between statute and sidewalk is shorter than it appears.
By Elizabeth Barhydt
