The Connecticut Senate has advanced two housing proposals that, taken together, could work at cross purposes.
One bill is designed to make it easier for unrelated adults to live together in single-family homes. The other places new restrictions on how utility costs can be allocated among tenants — potentially making those shared arrangements more difficult to structure and, in some cases, more expensive.
The Two Bills
Senate Bill 339 — often referred to as the “Golden Girls bill” — allows homeowners to rent out up to three bedrooms in a single-family residence to unrelated individuals as of right, removing local zoning barriers that might otherwise prohibit such arrangements. The goal is to expand housing supply by making it easier to create shared living situations.
Senate Bill 335 addresses utility billing practices. It prohibits landlords from requiring tenants to pay separately for utilities unless those utilities are individually metered. In properties with a single meter, common in older homes, utility costs must instead be included in the rent.
Where the Conflict Emerges
The interaction between the two policies creates practical challenges.
Consider a homeowner who rents three rooms in an older single-family house with a single utility meter. Under SB 339, that arrangement is allowed. But under SB 335, the landlord cannot divide utility costs among tenants based on usage or occupancy, nor use common allocation methods such as ratio utility billing systems (RUBS).
Instead, the landlord must estimate total utility costs in advance and incorporate them into the rent.
This shifts both risk and pricing dynamics. If utility costs rise unexpectedly, the landlord absorbs the difference. If costs fall, tenants continue paying the fixed rate. Either way, the direct link between individual usage and payment is removed.
A Gap Between Policy Goals and Implementation
The two bills approach housing from different angles.
SB 339, the Golden Girls bill, focuses on expanding housing options by removing zoning restrictions, but does not establish detailed rules for how shared costs should be handled. It directs the Department of Housing to develop a model rental agreement addressing common issues, including utilities, but leaves those details to future guidance.
SB 335 by contrast, establishes a clear legal requirement for how utilities must be structured. During Senate debate, proponents noted that the bill reflects recent court decisions limiting the use of RUBS and similar allocation systems.
That leaves little room for flexibility in shared housing arrangements.
During debate, legislators acknowledged the tension. Sen. Rob Sampson (R-Wolcott) pointed out that SB 339 “says that the parties may enter into a written agreement concerning the payment of utilities,” then asked: “So which is it…? Because I think that these are in direct conflict.”
Sen. Martha Marx (D-New London), who supported both bills, clarified that in such arrangements “the cost of the utilities will have to be part of the rent and not separate.”
Practical Implications
The combined effect is most significant for older housing stock.
Many single-family homes suitable for shared occupancy were not built with separate utility metering. Retrofitting these properties can require substantial electrical work and may not always be feasible.
Without separate metering, landlords face a choice: either estimate utility costs conservatively (raising rent) or risk absorbing overages themselves. Tenants lose the ability to see how their usage affects their bill,utilities are simply bundled into a fixed monthly payment.
Sen.Sampson acknowledged this disadvantage, noting that embedding utility costs into rent “removes the ability to base payments on actual usage, instead requiring landlords to estimate those costs in advance.”
What Comes Next
Both bills now move to the House for consideration.
Individually, each proposal addresses a distinct policy goal, expanding housing access and regulating utility billing practices. Together, however, they create a framework that may complicate the very arrangements one of the bills is intended to encourage.
The overlap doesn’t just create confusion, it shapes how these arrangements work in practice, potentially discouraging exactly the kind of shared housing lawmakers intended to promote.
