New Canaan Housing Panel Reviews Survey, Funding Model

Other Committee · Meeting of July 13, 2026

New Canaan affordable housing panel finds lumber yard tops resident site survey. Chris Wilson told the Affordable Housing Committee that a townwide survey drew 452 responses, 310 usable after cleaning, with over 50 percent favoring the town-owned lumber yard lot. Wilson called the response volume "pretty darn good," while cautioning about a third of respondents dropped off before finishing.

He also unveiled a generic financial model assuming $250-per-square-foot build costs, a $150,000 capped state grant, and financing led by the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority, producing roughly 147.5 state affordable-housing points. Work with design consultant Amenta Emma remains paused pending a required master-planning process for the lumber yard site. The committee approved its June 8 minutes and adjourned with no public comment offered.

In the full story:

• Who Was There
• Organizations And Documents Referenced
• The complete report — 2,648 words

Source: the Other Committee meeting of July 13, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.

The Full Article

Roll Call and Minutes

Nine members answered roll call: Kristen Nielsen, Hillary Orand, Bill Peret, Mike Sweeney, Maria Weine Garden, Jane Williams, Jeff Williams, Chris Wilson and Bob Strong. The committee approved minutes from its June 8 meeting on a motion by Jane Williams, seconded by Jeff Williams, after a brief note that the minutes had been mislabeled a special meeting rather than a regular one. This was a purely procedural item.

Project Subcommittee: Survey Results Point to the Lumber Yard

Background and stakes: The committee has been running a townwide survey to gauge resident preference among potential affordable housing sites, a step toward a formal site recommendation to the town's elected officials.

The question before the body: Whether the survey generated a usable, statistically meaningful signal on site preference, and what the committee should report from it.

Substantive content: Chris Wilson, reporting for the project subcommittee, said the survey closed June 23 with 452 total responses. After data cleaning, 310 were deemed usable. Wilson said the subcommittee has been working since then to interpret the results and is drafting a writeup for eventual submission to the town's elected officials. The single most closely watched finding, Wilson said, was that "about 50 percent or over 50 percent" of respondents identified the lumber yard site as their preferred location for affordable housing, though he noted there were several other findings in the dataset not detailed at this meeting.

The deliberation: Kristen Nielsen asked whether the raw survey results would ever be shared with the broader community. Wilson said his expectation was that the results would appear in whatever formal report the committee gives to elected officials, and that this report would double as the public's access point, though he acknowledged the committee could consider posting a summary to a frequently-asked-questions page as well. A member asked whether the committee was satisfied with the response volume. Wilson said he felt good about it: "452 responses with 310 clean results is, I wouldn't say it's the best you can hope for, but it's pretty darn good in my opinion." He added that roughly a third of respondents who started the survey did not finish it, which he attributed to its length and the difficulty of holding residents' attention.

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote was required; this was a status report. Wilson asked subcommittee members to send him their individual section writeups so he can assemble a combined draft, ideally by the Friday before the group's next subcommittee meeting.

Implications and what is next: The project subcommittee is scheduled to meet again July 21 at Town Hall to review the assembled draft ahead of a fuller report to the full committee and, eventually, elected officials.

Master Planning for the Lumber Yard Site

Background and stakes: Committee members concluded from a recent subcommittee discussion that any development on the lumber yard lot, given its scale and mixed potential uses, would require a formal master-planning process before a specific project could be designed.

The question before the body: Who should lead or oversee a master-planning exercise, and how that process should be structured.

Substantive content: Wilson said he had so far managed to discuss the question with only one outside party, identified in the meeting as Scott Hobbes, who "strongly agreed a master plan was required" and suggested the effort likely needs to be overseen either by a special committee or through some kind of joint venture, though Hobbes offered no specific view on which entity should run it. Wilson said he still has several other conversations to have before reaching any conclusion.

The deliberation: A member noted it was reassuring that Hobbes' position was consistent with what he has said publicly, that any lumber yard project needs a fairly extensive planning process. Wilson agreed, calling it "really terrific" that Hobbes' private and public comments aligned.

Procedural steps and outcome: No decision was made; this remains an open question requiring further outreach by Wilson before any recommendation on process or governance.

Implications and what is next: Until a master-planning structure is settled, the committee is treating any lumber yard-specific design work, including its paused contract with Amenta Emma, as premature.

Status of Amenta Emma

Background and stakes: The committee previously engaged the firm heard in the transcript as Amenta Emma (also rendered "Amenma" and "Amanda Emma" at points) to help refine a preferred site alternative. That work has an unfinished scope.

The question before the body: Whether to resume, redirect or replace that consulting work given the newly identified need for master planning.

Substantive content: Wilson said the committee is "probably still on hold" with the firm for the time being. He said he wants clarity on the master-planning approach before re-engaging them, "so that their work is useful and we're not having them do work that we ultimately end up binning for a broader master planning effort." A member said an unnamed contact at the firm had followed up asking for status, and that she had not yet responded, wanting to first confirm the committee was still working through the underlying questions. Wilson offered to coordinate a response with her outside the meeting.

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote taken. The hold continues informally, with no resumption date set.

Implications and what is next: Any resumed scope of work for the firm will likely be shaped by whatever master-planning structure the committee ultimately settles on.

Finance Subcommittee: A Generic Funding Model

Background and stakes: With no formal finance subcommittee meeting held this cycle, Wilson used committee time to walk through a financial model he has been building independently to illustrate, in general terms, how affordable housing developments are typically funded in Connecticut. He stressed repeatedly that the model is not tied to any specific project or site and that several inputs remain contested among the people he has consulted.

The question before the body: Whether the modeling approach and its major cost and financing assumptions are a reasonable starting framework for evaluating a future project, including the lumber yard.

Substantive content: Wilson walked the committee through the model's structure. Unit inputs (numbers of one-, two- and three-bedroom units, and their sizes) determine building size; a newly added net-to-gross ratio assumes 75 percent of building area is apartment space and 25 percent common space, an input Wilson said he added at Scott Hobbes' suggestion. Affordability is modeled across 50, 60 and 80 percent of the state median income (Wilson corrected himself mid-presentation that the metric is SMI, not AMI). Parking is modeled at 250 spaces, a 1.25 ratio against affordable units, at $35 per space; combined with a $250-per-square-foot build cost, these produce the project's "hard costs." Wilson said the $250 figure came from David McCarthy, whom Hobbes considers a bit low. Soft costs, covering architects, engineers and other advisers, are layered on as a percentage of hard costs, a structure Wilson said also affects financing, since some financing mechanisms, including low-income housing tax credits, are calculated directly off hard costs rather than total project costs. A 5 percent contingency is built in as a minimum cushion for cost overruns.

On the financing side, the model applies low-income housing tax credits calculated against an eligible basis of hard costs, at a credit rate and price Wilson said would ultimately be bid out to buyers, typically banks seeking community reinvestment credit. Wilson said New Canaan currently qualifies for a 30 percent bonus boost to those credits under recent federal legislation, a boost he said is "quite big" in the model's outputs. Debt is sized off net operating income, with the primary lender assumed to be the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority, referred to in the meeting by its informal name, which Wilson said is effectively the default funder of Connecticut affordable housing because of its low cost of capital and legal limits on how many market-rate single-family mortgages it can originate in the state. A Department of Housing grant, capped by law at $150,000, is included but contested: Wilson said former First Selectman Kevin believes such a grant is unlikely for New Canaan, while Hobbes and McCarthy both think one is achievable. Operating assumptions include 5 percent vacancy, which Wilson said is conservative relative to the housing authority's actual performance, and $10,000 per unit in annual operating expense, a number Wilson said he revised upward at the urging of both Hobbes and McCarthy. In its current form, the model produces roughly 147.5 points toward the state's affordable-housing count; Wilson said including a 40 percent AMI band, an option a member asked about, would change that figure.

The deliberation: A member asked whether the model could be flipped so parking ratio became an input rather than an output; Wilson said a more sophisticated model could toggle that, but this version cannot. Another member asked why the model does not include a 40 percent AMI band; Wilson said there was no substantive reason for the omission and that he would add it, noting he still needs to check its effect on the state point calculation. A member who said she does not serve on the finance subcommittee "because it also hurts my brain to look at and think about" asked whether the model's intended use is to eventually show the public and elected officials what a new lumber yard project would cost and how much the town would be on the hook for; Wilson said yes, that is the intent as the project scope firms up, though inputs like parking construction costs will need refinement from reliable sources, including Amenta Emma and other town experts, once a specific design exists.

Wilson also flagged financing options the model does not yet capture, including tax-increment financing on a commercial component adjacent to any affordable housing, potentially combined with ground-rent revenue rather than a sale, as a way the town could offset its net contribution. He said the model currently "lumps" that possibility rather than modeling it explicitly.

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote was required. Wilson said he would recirculate a corrected version of the spreadsheet, including a fix relabeling "net operating income" to "gross operating income" in one calculation step, and would continue to update it as inputs are refined.

Implications and what is next: The model is explicitly a placeholder framework rather than a lumber yard-specific analysis; Wilson said the lumber yard would require substantially more development given its added complications, including a stream running beneath the site that would require a new culvert, and the potential for splitting commercial and residential development to avoid prevailing-wage cost increases on the commercial portion.

Riverwood Conversion as an Alternative Path

Background and stakes: Separately from new construction, the committee has been considering converting existing units at the town's Riverwood property to deeper affordability levels as an alternative, or complement, to a lumber yard project.

The question before the body: How that conversion path compares in cost to new construction, and how many units could realistically be converted.

Substantive content: Wilson said Scott Hobbes has not produced a precise calculation but estimated, on a back-of-envelope basis, that conversion would cost roughly $450,000 per unit, substantially more than new construction because converted units cannot receive retroactive low-income housing tax credits. A member and Wilson discussed whether that estimate applies only to units beyond the 20 already converted to 80 percent AMI, or whether some of those 20 could be converted further, to 40, 60 or 80 percent state median income, to qualify for additional state points. The member said her prior understanding was that those 20 units, already tied to financing conditions related to the town's 2028 moratorium point requirements, might not count separately toward new points; Wilson said that may be correct and was not how he had been modeling it. Both agreed the potential for a small remaining tail of market-rate units to underperform original underwriting, requiring additional funds to keep project debt serviceable, is a live concern Hobbes has also raised.

The deliberation: The member argued a side-by-side model of both paths, new construction versus Riverwood conversion, would help the committee and elected officials weigh tradeoffs concretely for the 2028 horizon. Wilson agreed a model should exist but said producing one requires a level of detailed information-sharing from Hobbes that has not yet happened, since Hobbes tends to respond in isolated figures rather than data he can build a model from. Wilson said he would press for more detail.

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote taken; this remains exploratory. Wilson committed to pursuing more detailed inputs from Hobbes.

Implications and what is next: A comparative model, if built, would give the committee and the Board of Selectmen a clearer basis for choosing between, or combining, new construction and Riverwood conversion ahead of the 2028 point deadline referenced during discussion.

Workforce Housing Points

Background and stakes: A resident, described as a nurse living in town, emailed the committee asking whether workforce housing points had been considered for any project under discussion.

The question before the body: Whether pursuing a workforce-housing designation is worth the committee's time given the points available and the tradeoffs involved.

Substantive content: Wilson said he has not yet determined the exact criteria that define workforce housing under the relevant program, but understands the payoff is small, "half a hue point potentially." A member noted this framework originated in state legislation passed a few years ago and that it typically requires towns to give up local zoning discretion in exchange for relatively few points, which she said made many towns reluctant to pursue it when it first passed.

The deliberation: Wilson said that because a resident had raised it, the committee should at least be well versed on the option, even while agreeing it "sounds like a complicated route to points."

Procedural steps and outcome: No decision made. Wilson said he would report back with more detail at a future meeting.

Implications and what is next: The item remains open and undecided pending further research by Wilson.

Public Comment

Two members of the public were present on the videoconference. The chair invited comment and received none after two calls.

Adjournment

The committee adjourned on a motion by Jeff Williams, seconded by Jane Williams.

Kristen Nielsen — Member, present Hillary Orand — Member, present Bill Peret — Member, present (attendance confirmed informally, not by direct roll response) Mike Sweeney — Member, present Maria Weine Garden — Member, present (name as heard on the recording; spelling uncertain) Jane Williams — Member, present Jeff Williams — Member, present Chris Wilson — Member, present; presented both the project subcommittee and finance subcommittee reports Bob Strong — Member, present Two unidentified members of the public attended via Zoom; neither spoke during public comment

Amenta Emma (name heard variously as "Amenma," "Amanda Emma" and "Amenta Emma") — outside design/planning consultant whose contract work on refining a preferred site alternative is currently paused pending a master-planning decision Connecticut Housing Finance Authority (referred to informally in the meeting) — described as the de facto primary lender for Connecticut affordable housing developments in the financial model presented Connecticut Department of Housing — source of a state grant program capped by law at $150,000 per development, discussed as a contested input in the financial model Low-income housing tax credit program, including a 30 percent bonus boost tied to recent federal legislation — central financing mechanism in the model Wilson presented Townwide affordable-housing site survey (452 total responses, 310 usable after cleaning) — cited by Chris Wilson as the basis for the finding that over 50 percent of respondents preferred the lumber yard site State workforce-housing points program, tied to state legislation described as originating from "the governor's bill" — raised via resident email and discussed as a potential, low-value points source