Committee approves tax-mod deal for 125 Columbus Blvd., backing 64-unit affordable project

The Committee of Administration, Finance and Law and Public Services voted Sept. 3 to approve an amended tax modification for 125 Columbus Boulevard, a proposal known as Columbus Commons Phase 2 that developers say would create 64 one- and two-bedroom affordable apartments.

Jack Benjamin, New Britain City’s director of planning and development, told the committee the project is a partnership between Heritage Housing and RMS Companies and is proposed as a 100% affordable development with rents targeting tenants at 30%–80% of area median income (AMI). Benjamin said the city received four qualified RFP responses and selected this team based on experience, the development program and the requested tax modification.

The tax modification discussed would run 18 years and be structured as 10% of ‘‘shelter rents’’ (the project’s aggregate annual rent revenue), projected to grow over the term. Benjamin described tax modifications as a financing tool that keeps key underwriting metrics sufficiently positive so lenders will fund developments using programs such as Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), state Department of Housing funds, and DECD’s Community Investment Fund; he emphasized tax modifications are not ‘‘a get handout or a gift.’'

Developers and planning staff provided a proposed unit mix that they said matches their RFP response: 8 units at 30% AMI, 26 units at 50% AMI, 22 units at 60% AMI and 8 units at 80% AMI. ‘‘We can’t add any 30% AMI units without adding 80% units and so on,’’ David McCarthy, principal of Heritage Housing, said, explaining how LIHTC-era math typically requires lower- and higher-AMI units to balance so the project’s overall AMI average meets program thresholds.

Council members pressed the team on specifics. One alderman asked whether the 30%–80% slide on a presentation referred to rents or tenants’ income; Benjamin clarified it referred to tenant income brackets. Another asked how many of the 64 units would be at the deepest subsidy tier and whether the project would prioritize local hires or local residents; Benjamin and the development team said final floor plans and program-level tenant-selection policies were not finalized and that fair-housing rules limit residency preferences, though developers said they prioritize local hiring where feasible.

Benjamin also gave the council a purchase price for the site of $500,000 and described typical financing sources: a construction loan, Connecticut Department of Housing funds (likely through an identified flexibility program), DECD Community Investment Fund grants, and LIHTC (managed at state level by agencies such as CHFA and the state DOH).

After a short recess the committee took up a technical amendment to correct ordinance section numbering; the amendment was seconded and approved without discussion. The committee then voted on the resolution as amended. The chair called for the vote and declared, ‘‘Ayes have it.’’ The transcript does not include an itemized, roll-call tally of votes.

Earlier in the meeting the committee moved to refer the item to the full council with a favorable recommendation; the motion in the record was identified as made by Alderman William Spadera and seconded by Alderman Russell. The committee’s approval as recorded will leave the item positioned for further action by the full council per committee rules.

The meeting ended shortly after the vote; the committee adjourned at about 7:02 p.m.

Notes on figures and status: the unit mix and the 18-year/10% tax-mod structure were presented as the developers’ proposal and as projections; interviewees described some figures as estimates and several items (final floor plans, exact unit counts and tenant-selection specifics) as not finalized.