General Law Committee advances bills to limit fees, raise relocation payments for manufactured-home park residents

The General Law Committee moved forward two bills intended to extend consumer protections to residents of manufactured-home parks who own their homes but rent the land beneath them.

Lawmakers said residents face unique vulnerabilities because manufactured homes are costly to move and many municipalities no longer allow new parks, which concentrates power in park owners. Representatives said the bills aim to require clearer disclosures of extra fees, limit fee increases and raise relocation payments where a park changes use.

Representative Jason Lamar, co-chair, summarized one bill’s provisions, saying it "defines ancillary fees, requires park owners to prepare and publish a comprehensive itemized list of those fees that are payable by residents, requires that information concerning those fees be included in a disclosure statement, require that DCP establish a resident complaint process ... and requires park owners to provide at least 90 days advance notice of proposed rent increases." He described manufactured homes as "manufactured housing" that is "brought to a park on a flatbed truck ... placed on the foundation, and there they stay, anchored to the ground." Lamar said, "it is really expensive to move these mobile homes."

Representative Jessica Martinez, who said she learned of the issue while serving as a visiting nurse, told the committee residents had reported rapid rent increases, ancillary charges for items such as washers or pets, and problems getting timely responses to maintenance or safety complaints. Martinez said the bill would cap rent increases at 1 percent over the consumer price index (CPI), limit ancillary fees, extend Freedom of Information Act access to complaint records, raise relocation fees to better match current costs and require park owners to report water-pressure testing to the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP).

Supporters pointed to testimony from residents and experts, and to the practical barriers residents face: relocating a manufactured home can cost thousands and, in many Connecticut towns, mobile-home parks cannot be newly built, which leaves residents with limited options.

Opponents — including some lawmakers and representatives of small park owners — cautioned that elements such as rent caps tied to CPI could be overly restrictive during exceptional repair or infrastructure costs, and warned about unintended effects on smaller park operators. Senator Kissel said he was “concerned” that stringent rules could deter investment and make Connecticut less hospitable to innovators or capital.

Senator Ciccarella and others noted the need to balance protections for residents with the financial realities of park owners, suggesting more work remains on exceptions for major, unexpected capital needs.

Procedure and votes

- HB 5111 (manufactured/mobile home protections): Committee moved the bill to the consent calendar for further consideration; the item was later included on the committee’s consent calendar.

- HB 5428 (an act concerning mobile manufactured home parks): The committee voted to send the bill to the floor (JF to the floor) after debate. During the roll call several members voted yes and several members voted no. The committee recorded named votes during the roll-call (see Actions below). The bill was approved by the committee for referral to the floor.

Why it matters

Manufactured-home park residents commonly own the dwelling but lease the land, a setup that committee members said leaves owners of the pad in a position to raise fees or rents in ways that can materially threaten long-term resident stability. Committee members described the bills as an effort to close disclosure gaps and provide mechanisms for residents to register complaints and seek relief.

What comes next

Both items will remain subject to further amendment as they move to the floor. Lawmakers on both sides said they expect additional negotiation on specific caps and exemptions — particularly for smaller park owners or for unusual capital needs such as emergency water-main replacement — before final passage.

Votes at a glance (in committee)

- HB 5111: Moved to consent calendar (no separate roll-call vote recorded during initial consideration). - HB 5428: Motion to JF to the floor approved by roll call; named yes and no votes were recorded during committee roll call.

Ending

Committee members said they will continue negotiations on exemptions and implementation details in coming days to try to reconcile resident protections with operational realities for park owners.