You asked for the legislative history of CGS § 8-64a, on the disposal of housing projects by housing authorities that have received state financing.

SUMMARY

The law was initially enacted in 1988 to prohibit housing authorities that received state-financing from conveying or destroying housing projects for one year, if doing so would remove the project from the low- or moderate-income rental market. We were unable to find the impetus for the act in public hearing and session transcripts beyond its plain language meaning. The law has been amended three times since then - in 1989, 1996, and in 1997.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF CGS § 8-64A

PA 88-267

In 1988, the legislature enacted PA 88-267 (sHB 6045, favorably reported by the Housing and Planning and Development committees), which prohibited state-financed housing authorities from conveying or destroying a housing project for one year if the action would remove the project from the low- and moderate-income rental market, among other things. (We found no discussion of this or similar provisions in committee public hearing transcripts. ) At the time, the act allowed the Department of Housing commissioner to authorize the sale, lease, transfer, or destruction of a housing project during that year only if he found that doing so was in the best interest of the state and the municipality where the project is located. The bill was amended on the floor of the Senate to exempt two federally funded projects and passed on consent on April 27, 1988. It passed the House unanimously on April 30, 1988. There was no substantive debate in either chamber.

PA 89-113

A year later, PA 89-113 (sSB 421, favorably reported by the Planning and Development Committee) removed the one-year limitation and added the requirement that Housing Department hold a public hearing and notify occupants of the hearing before approving the sale, lease, transfer or destruction of a housing project. It also required that the Housing commissioner find the following conditions before allowing such an approval:

1. there will be one-for-one replacement of all affordable units sold, leased, transferred, or destroyed with newly constructed affordable units or existing units that were not previously affordable;

2. there is an adequate supply of low- or moderate-income rental housing in the municipality where the project is located; and

3. anyone who is displaced due to the sale, lease, transfer, or destruction will be relocated to a comparable dwelling unit in the same municipality and will receive relocation assistance.

We did not find committee public hearing testimony on these provisions. The Senate, after some debate on the floor about tenant management of public housing developments, passed the bill 35 to 1 on April 19, 1989. The House passed the bill 144 to 1 on April 26, 1989 with no debate.

PA 96-195

In 1996, PA 96-195 (HB 5239, favorably reported by the Housing and Planning and Development committees) deleted the provision requiring one-for-one replacement of housing units when an action was taken that eliminated affordable units under PA 89-113.

At a February 20, 1996, Housing Committee public hearing on HB 5239, proponents of the elimination of one-for-one replacement argued that eliminating the requirement would give the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) and housing authorities more flexibility to improve affordable units and projects (e. g. , to modernize small, existing units that did not have kitchen cabinets by combining one and half existing units to form new, bigger units, resulting in a net loss of units). Housing advocates agreed the flexibility was necessary, but argued that any loss of affordable units would be detrimental to the state's low-income families and thus advocated for options to cover lost units (e. g. , rental vouchers, such as Section 8 vouchers, that would be valid for at least 15 years). (PA 95-250 established DECD by combining the departments of Housing and Economic Development. )

On the House floor on April 25, 1996, Representative Gelsi (58^th district) brought out the bill. Representative Newton (124^th district) rose to note his concerns with the bill's elimination of the one-for-one replacement requirement, saying that the elimination would have a negative effect on the number of affordable units available in the state. Representative Lockton (58^th district) rose in support of the bill. The House passed the bill 120 to 26. The Senate passed the bill unanimously, without debate, on May 8, 1996.

PA 97-299

The following year, PA 97-299 (HB 6369, favorably reported by the Housing, Planning and Development, Human Services, and Commerce committees) required the DECD commissioner to find that the housing authority had consulted project residents and municipal representatives before approving an action eliminating affordable units. Specifically, the act required that the commissioner find that a housing authority (1) developed a plan for removing the units in consultation with the development's residents and municipal representatives and (2) made provisions for residents' participation before giving approval to the authority to remove units from availability for low- or moderate-income rental housing.

The act also required the commissioner to consider the extent to which the affordable housing units that would be lost would be replaced. The act additionally modified the finding the commissioner had to make concerning tenant displacement, adding a “tenant based subsidy” option in addition to equivalent housing option, and specifying that the equivalent housing be “public or subsidized housing. ”

On June 4, 1997, Representative Flaherty, Housing Committee chair at the time brought out the bill and an amendment to it, stating, “last year this legislature passed legislation to remove the, what was known as the one for one requirement…. This year the Housing Committee had extensive hearings on this issue and decided that perhaps some protection was needed for tenants who might be displaced if such a demolition were to occur, and are offering this solution here. ”

Representatives Scalzo (111^th district), Gonzalez (3^rd district), Kirkley-Bey (5^th district), and Green (1^st district) rose in support of the compromise amendment to provide additional protection for tenants while leaving DECD some flexibility. The amendment passed on a voice vote.

The House passed the bill 144 to 1 June 4, 1997, and the Senate passed it unanimously without debate the same day.

Exemptions

Since its passage in 1988, the law has exempted the sale, lease, transfer or destruction of (1) a housing development with contract terms entered into before June 3, 1988, (2) phase I of Father Panik Village in Bridgeport, and (3) Elm Haven in New Haven. Additionally, the law does not apply to (1) Pequonock Gardens Project in Bridgeport (PA 01-194) or (2) Evergreen Apartments in Bridgeport, Quinnipiac Terrace/Riverview in New Haven, Dutch Point in Hartford, Southfield Village in Stamford and, Fairfield Court in Stamford (given that certain conditions were met) (PA 04-2, May Special Session).

Attached is a copy of the statute for your reference, or click here.

JH: ts