Aldermen approve 10-year phased tax assessment for Boyden Ridge development after adding marketing plan requirement
Loading...
Summary
After extended debate about rents, affordability and residency priorities, the Waterbury Board of Aldermen approved a 10-year phased-in taxable assessment for the 23-unit Boyden Ridge townhome development under Conn. Gen. Stat. §12-65b, adding an amendment that the developer provide a marketing plan; a separate effort to require 50% initial occupancy by Waterbury residents was tabled.
The Waterbury Board of Aldermen on March 23 approved a tax assessment agreement for Boyden Ridge Development LLC, a 23-unit townhome project on Boyden Street, adopting a 10-year phased-in schedule that begins at 20% taxable assessment and increases toward full taxation by year 10. The agreement was presented to the board as permissible under Connecticut General Statutes §12-65b and was approved as amended to require the developer to submit a marketing plan describing outreach and leasing strategy.
Michael LeBlanc, director of finance, told aldermen the plan estimates a conservative completed assessed value of about $3.5 million and projected eventual annual taxes at full assessment in the $150,000–$175,000 range. LeBlanc said the agreement structure has been used previously to incentivize development and that the ten-year ramp was what was presented by the developer.
Developer Yitz Rubenowitz (identified in the meeting transcript as "Yitz") described construction costs that have risen significantly, saying, "Fifteen years ago the cost of construction was about $85 a square foot. Today, it's about $175 a square foot," and argued the phased assessment was necessary to make the project financially viable and to keep rents at the market-competitive level he described.
Several aldermen questioned whether the project should include affordable units or a local-resident preference. LeBlanc and corporation counsel Angela Giuliani told the board the statute authorizing this fixed assessment does not require an affordability component and that restricting a private owner's choice about whom to rent to could present legal issues. Alderman Moseley and others proposed conditioning the tax agreement so at least 50% of initial occupants would be current Waterbury residents; corporation counsel said such a residency restriction could be legally problematic and the board moved instead to table that amendment for legal follow-up.
The board debated other details including per-unit construction cost (developer cited roughly $230,000 per unit), projected initial rents (developer cited $1,800–$1,900 per three-bedroom unit), whether vouchers would be accepted (developer said vouchers would be accepted even though the project is not being marketed as low-income), and ADA accommodations (developer said the project will meet code requirements but does not include additional designated ADA units beyond code). The board also adopted a community sewage agreement requiring the developer to construct a shared lateral and pump system to connect the three buildings to the city main line because of site topography.
Alderman Grasso moved to reduce the phased-in period to five years; that amendment failed in committee. The board ultimately voted to approve the agreement as amended (the motion to approve with the marketing-plan amendment carried on roll call). A separate motion to condition the abatement on 50% initial occupancy by current Waterbury residents was debated and tabled for legal review.
What happens next: The developer said construction was expected to start in May with the first building potentially ready by October; the marketing plan is to be provided to the board as a follow-up. The community sewage agreement obligates the developer to design and build on-site conveyance to the public main and will be inspected by Jacobs Water Pollution Control operations staff.
Speakers quoted: Michael LeBlanc, director of finance; Yitz Rubenowitz, developer; Corporation Counsel Angela Giuliani.
Ending: The board approved the amended tax assessment agreement but deferred a residency-based condition for further legal review; the developer will provide a marketing plan.
