BROOKFIELD, Conn.—Democrat Aaron Zimmer, 48, has tackled a big job as he attempts to unseat incumbent Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding, also of Brookfield, in District 30.
Zimmer, a relative newcomer to politics, has lived in Brookfield about five years, having moved there during the Covid 19 crisis. Almost upon arriving, he joined the Democratic Town Committee and within a year was chairman and oversaw securing a permanent headquarters and winning all local boards in the 2023 municipal elections.
Zimmer, who is a Progressive, is making his second attempt to secure public office this year, having run unsuccessfully for the House of Representatives in District 107 in 2024. Professionally, he operates a vinyl-based music business from his home.
Zimmer wants to stop President Donald Trump’s political agenda and the effect it is having on the state. “[Trump’s] policies have raised costs for Connecticut families through tariffs, threatened healthcare coverage for more than 100,000 residents, cut food and safety net programs, weakened environmental protections and blocked clean energy jobs that would power hundreds of thousands of homes,” Zimmer says in his platform statement.
As he canvasses door-to-door, he has taken away an awareness of voter concern about affordability and the chaos created by the Trump Administration. “Those are the things people are talking about,” he said.
Zimmer said he would promote economic fairness by taxing the ultrarich and implementing lower costs for families by reducing local property taxes. This, he said, would strengthen public education and ensure that state government serves all families.
“Obviously, this entire election is about affordability,” he said. “My first priority would be to lower property taxes by moving a larger share of education and special education costs from local property taxes to the state. We would pay for that by asking people who are doing really well to take on a bigger share.
“Right now, in Connecticut, the richest pay as little as 7 percent of their income in taxes, while the rest of us pay over 20 percent, he continued. “That doesn’t make any sense. Connecticut is one of the richest states in America, yet working families are struggling more than ever to afford housing, healthcare, childcare and energy bills.”
A second priority is health care. “I am encouraged by seeing what Governor Lamont is doing,” he said.
Parts of Lamont’s health care proposal have already passed into law while others remain debated. Following the expiration of federal healthcare tax credits, the General Assembly authorized $115 million in state emergency funds to protect low- and middle-income residents from massive premium increases. The 2027 state budget adjustment, passed with bipartisan support, directs the state to secure an extension of the Affordable Care Act state subsidies.
In addition, Lamont rolled out a new state tax credit that allows small businesses to fund flexible Individual Coverage Health Reimbursement Arrangements (ICHRAs) through Access Health CT. Zimmer believes these benefits should be extended to private individuals as well.
Lamont’s plan sought to penalize drug manufacturers if they raised annual prescription drug prices past the rate of inflation plus 2 percent. This provision was later modified to prohibit generic and off-patent drug price increases from exceeding the annual inflation rate and authorized the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection to establish a mean of safely importing lower-cost, non-controlled prescription drugs from Canada, where costs are dramatically lower.
“Drug costs are a uniquely American issue,” observed Zimmer. “No doubt, federal action is essential, but there are a few things we can do at the state level. We’ve already passed some reforms—lower cost cash purchases and price caps on certain drugs, for instance. So, I’d want to focus on enforcing those protections and expand them where we can—to make sure they actually work and strengthen accountability where they don’t.”
Utilities also draw his attention. “Eversource—this is one where Steve and I agree we are over a barrel, although we disagree about how to make it better,” Zimmer said.
Harding wants to eliminate the Public Benefits Charge from consumer electric bills and to move the funding into the state budget to allow legislative scrutiny. Zimmer also believes the public benefits charge has no place on rate payers’ bills, but says, “Steve’s plan isn’t a solution until he says what he wants to do with those costs.”
The Public Benefits Charge is a mandatory line item on all Eversource and United Illuminating electric bills that funds state and federal policy mandates such as energy efficiency programs, low-income assistance, renewable energy initiatives, and nuclear power contracts. It has cost ratepayers more than $1 billion.
Zimmer says. “The biggest part of the Public Benefits Charge was to pay for the Millstone nuclear plant bailout. Now Millstone is paying a rebate. I agree with [removing] that portion that goes to help struggling families keep their lights on—we shouldn’t be asking struggling families to help other struggling families. That should be in the state budget—but for me, it is about Eversource having a monopoly and giving PURA (Public Utilities Regulatory Authority) more power.”
He and Harding both agree that the deal that allowed Eversource to sell Aquarion Water Company to a nonprofit model linked with the Regional Water Authority is a bad deal because it threatens to spike household water bills by up to 65 percent, strips away regulation by PURA, saddles ratepayers with massive debt to finance the $2.4 billion acquisition and $2 billion-plus in required infrastructure upgrades.
By converting Aquarion into a quasi-public/nonprofit entity, rate changes will be decided internally by the RWA’s board, which has a history of approving rate requests without line-item adjustments.
When he turns his attention to the nagging question of providing more affordable housing in Connecticut, Zimmer agrees it is a problem that is “hard to navigate.”
Last spring, the legislature passed legislation that reduced local controls over the density of population in towns. Now, all 169 Connecticut municipalities must coordinate with regional Councils of Government (COGs) to identify specific parcels and areas suitable for housing development, with the first plans due by June 1, 2028. Effective last July, towns are required to allow two-to nine-unit middle housing developments via summary review in commercial zones and are banned from establishing minimum parking requirements for developments with 16 or few units.
“There is no doubt we need more housing,” Zimmer said, “but it has to be a partnership—the state comes up with guidelines and goals and helps towns to meet them.”
That issue plays into conservation of open space as balanced against the need for homes. “How do we build more without destroying all our green spaces?” he asked. “We have to be very careful in our decision-making and find places to build that do the least damage.”
The question of conservation also affects Connecticut’s dairying industry, which is stressed by federal caps on the amount it can charge for milk and the difficulty of securing land on which to farm. Connecticut dairy farmers generally cannot make a consistent profit on milk and most smaller farms have operated at a financial loss for the past two decades.
“What I see happening is dairy farmers say, ‘We need help,’ and Hartford comes in with bail-out money,” said Zimmer. “What I would do as a legislator, rather than wait for a crisis, is to say let’s meet with dairy farmers and talk about solutions. We can come up with a plan if there are constructive think tank discussions between government and the people doing the work.”
In response to the outcry last year when revaluations pushed taxes on properties that receive reduced assessments through Public Act 490, Zimmer said, “Of course I support the goal of keeping working farms from being pushed into development by property-tax increases. But the 2025 reassessment problems showed that the state needs reliable data and a transparent process—that and more safeguards and input from farmers themselves. A working group submitted recommendations to the legislature last month. I’d want to see that—and importantly—review them with local farmers in the Northwest Corner before taking a position on them.”
