Danbury ad hoc committee continues review of tax deferral for proposed 79‑unit senior housing project

Joe Britton, chairman of the ad hoc committee, presided over a Nov. 19 meeting that examined a request from the Connecticut Institute for Communities (Civic) for a tax deferral tied to a proposed 79‑unit senior housing project in downtown Danbury.

Petitioner Jim Maloney, president emeritus of the Connecticut Institute for Communities, said the development is intended as low‑income housing for residents age 55 and older and that the project’s most recent site plan designates 79 total units. "The total number of units is, 79," Maloney said, and he added: "Our intention is that all of them will be, affordable." He explained that the design changed from a 5‑story U‑shaped apartment building to a 3‑story residential block sitting above a two‑story garage to reduce costs by about $1 million.

Tom Detrick, counsel for the petitioners, described the tax‑deferral request as an integral component of the project’s financing. He detailed valuation assumptions used to estimate deferred taxes — noting a difference between the assessor’s 5% cap rate and the petitioners’ 6% cap rate — and said his written figures revised prior estimates downward to avoid understating the deferral. Detrick said the site’s mill rate is about 24.44 and that state financing sources (including the 4% low‑income housing tax credit program) are part of the capital plan.

Council members and city staff focused much of the discussion on two areas: fiscal effects and valuation methodology, and on programmatic commitments. Corporation Counsel Les Pinter reviewed the committee’s May 2023 recommendation and reminded the group that the city’s code of ordinances (section 44‑63) makes tax deferrals a discretionary tool. Planning staff had recommended the application with conditions in 2023, including a planning commission approval that set a minimum of 24 units designated as affordable under Connecticut General Statutes section 8‑30g; petitioners said their goal is to make all 79 units affordable but that the 24‑unit figure remains the minimum condition from planning.

Some councilors pressed whether the project truly requires a city subsidy. Councilman Ben Shanice questioned a petitioner remark that the development would not proceed without the deferral, saying the project had long standing approvals and that the city previously approved the underlying sale. "I take it back that you said that this wouldn't go forward unless you have this credit," Shanice said; Maloney and Detrick responded that financing environments have changed since the original approvals and that without the deferral the project would likely be built at market rate rather than as 100% low‑income senior housing.

Petitioners provided a financing sketch the committee asked to see in more detail: they named roughly $10.5 million in low‑income housing tax credit proceeds, an $8.2 million CHFA first mortgage, about $9.4 million in Department of Housing funds, and estimated total project costs around $30 million plus a roughly $3.5 million garage element. Maloney also said petitioners have informal commitments from CHAPA and the state housing department contingent on the local tax deferral being in place.

Committee members asked several technical questions that staff said should be clarified before a council recommendation: the tax assessor’s opinion on how to value the new construction for deferral purposes (income‑based valuation versus market methods), whether land held for development is currently taxed, and whether an agreement returned to council should codify specific affordability guarantees beyond planning’s minimum. Petitioners committed to provide "sources and uses" detail and other documentation to the city and the state as part of the financing package.

On operational details, petitioners said Civic would manage the property, that there would be full‑time on‑site management and a staffed front desk/security, and that the approved site plan provides about 103 parking spaces (55 on the second garage level, 48 on the ground level plus a few surface spaces) with a commitment to provide one space per unit for residents who want one.

After discussion, Councilor (Billy) moved to continue the ad hoc committee subject to the call of the chair; Britton seconded and the motion carried. No final council action on the tax deferral was taken. The committee asked staff to refresh planning and assessor memos, provide a final sources‑and‑uses statement, and return the matter to the committee (and then the full council) once the updated materials are available.

Next steps: staff — including the assessor and planning department — will prepare the updated valuation and any recommended contract language so the full council receives a consolidated record when the ad hoc committee forwards its recommendation.