Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee tables Riverfront Development LLC tax dispute pending archived records and legal review
Summary
A contentious petition from Riverfront Development LLC over decades‑old taxes and accrued interest was tabled after the owner and staff described litigation history, missing archival records and disputed assessments. The committee asked the tax collector and legal counsel to provide confirmed figures and statute guidance before voting.
The New Haven Tax Payment Committee tabled a disputed tax matter involving Riverfront Development LLC after applicants and staff identified litigation, easement complications and missing archival records that prevent immediate resolution.
Owner representative Joseph Reaney described two waterfront parcels, fire damage and prolonged litigation over easements and assessments. Reaney asked the committee to accept payment of principal and to remove accumulated interest, arguing the assessor’s office had not properly adjusted parcel values after settlements. "It's going to provide 75 units of senior housing... That's all I'm asking for," Reaney said, outlining a redevelopment plan and arguing excessive interest made the debt disproportionate to principal.
Acting city assessor Alex Fuller and tax office staff told the committee that many assessment issues had been litigated previously and that portions of the account history are in archived legacy systems. "What's being brought in front of the committee today is that there are years of taxes that are owed... I really can't speak much more than that because that's all on the tax collector's side," Fuller said, noting that some records would require further retrieval and confirmation from the tax collector.
Members repeatedly asked for precise, verified dollar figures and for legal counsel to clarify a statute referenced in testimony (read as "12 1 75" at the hearing) limiting collection to 15 years in some circumstances. Because staff could not immediately provide confirmed account details or clear statutory guidance, the committee voted to table the item and directed the tax collector and legal counsel to report back with archival documentation and a plain‑language explanation of the collection limits before the next consideration.
The committee emphasized it sought a fact‑based resolution and declined to act without verified figures from the tax collector's office.
