New Canaan committee hears update on HB 5002, weighs local purchase option and middle-housing needs

Tom O'Day, appearing as a guest speaker to update the New Canaan Affordable Housing Committee on state housing proposals, told the committee there is a “high level of confidence that 05/00/2002 is not gonna be jammed through” at an imminent special session, though he added that the issue is likely to return in the next legislative cycle. O'Day described a local alternative he is proposing (bill 64‑92) that would give a town a right to buy a proposed 8‑30g development at a 5% premium and require the town to build roughly 75% of the proposed affordable units within eight years or face specified penalties.

The proposal and the committee discussion focused on three immediate points: maintaining local control, the practical costs of producing deeply affordable housing, and the limits of the state's incentives. O'Day summarized his purchase idea this way: “if an 8 30 g is proposed ... the town could buy that at a 5% premium. And then within 8 years, the town would have to build 75% of what was proposed affordable.” He said the bill would include penalties intended as incentives: one 5% payment to the original seller, one 5% to local affordable-housing programs and one 5% to a state program.

Scott Hobbs, introduced to the committee as a local housing practitioner with experience operating projects, described day-to-day market realities that complicate meeting deep-affordability targets. Hobbs said lower rents increase demand but that 60% of area median income (AMI) rents can still be unaffordable in New Canaan. He noted Riverwood's experience setting rent targets and described unit‑mix challenges: “multiple, multiple bedroom units definitely rent much better than single bedroom,” and under 8‑30g “you only get credit for the unit. Doesn't matter how many bedrooms.”

Both speakers emphasized financing constraints. Hobbs and O'Day discussed tax-credit and borrowing dynamics: O'Day told the committee that 4% tax credits “cover roughly 30% of hard cost” and that land and remaining hard costs can leave a per-unit funding gap. Using the speakers' figures, construction and land can push per-unit costs into the hundreds of thousands; O'Day cautioned that his illustrative numbers might be imprecise but used a $400,000–$600,000 per‑unit range to explain the financing shortfall. He said such gaps generally require vouchers, deep subsidies or municipal balance-sheet support.

Committee members raised the bill's fairness and feasibility. O'Day relayed concerns about “fair share” allocations in the 05/00/2002 proposal, saying a fair-share study had assigned New Canaan a large number of units and that “84% of those units have to be for people who make 0 to 30% of AMI,” a level that speakers said is effectively impossible to build without substantial ongoing subsidies. He also described outreach to the governor's office and rank-and-file legislators and said the governor had told him he was working toward a compromise, though O'Day characterized the immediate odds conservatively.

On middle housing and moratorium timing, O'Day said he was proposing to reward towns that secure moratoriums with progressively longer moratorium periods to give municipalities time to assemble financing and projects. Committee members sought clarifications about how his purchase-right bill would set purchase price; O'Day said the concept contemplates the builder's purchase price as the baseline but acknowledged potential for predatory overpaying and suggested the town could decline to purchase in such cases.

Discussion touched on regional examples. Speakers referenced recent development patterns in Darien and downtown projects located at train stations, noting infrastructure strain when large amounts of new housing cluster without matching public services. Committee members also asked how to attract Section 8 voucher holders; speakers explained that project-based vouchers (which “stay with the project, not with the tenant”) are valuable to project economics but that obtaining vouchers requires an accredited housing authority and staff.

No formal committee action was taken on state legislation; the committee discussed next steps including wider dissemination of the group's August letter to Hartford leadership and continued local planning. Committee members asked that legislators and the governor hear the local constraints and that the town pursue middle‑housing credits for senior and multi‑bedroom units.

The committee had earlier adopted its August online meeting minutes by voice vote at the start of the session; no vote on state legislation occurred at this meeting.