Danbury ad hoc panel recommends ordinance to expand disabled‑veterans property tax exemption

An ad hoc Danbury committee voted to recommend that the City Council adopt a local ordinance implementing the state law that expands a property‑tax exemption for disabled veterans, adding veterans rated under service‑connected individual unemployability (TDIU) and clarifying the ordinance’s treatment of land ownership.

The committee’s corporation counsel presented tracked changes to the draft ordinance and said the definition of service‑connected total disability based on individual unemployability was taken from the Code of Federal Regulations. Counsel told members the draft also requires use of the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) application and an attestation that an applicant is not receiving the same exemption from another municipality.

The committee discussed three substantive issues: (1) whether TDIU recipients should be explicitly included (counsel said the draft does include TDIU); (2) how the ordinance should treat veterans who own a dwelling but not the land where it sits (for example, manufactured/mobile homes on leased land); and (3) the statutory 2‑acre cap on land eligible for exemption. Tax assessor Donna Murphy cautioned the group that the ordinance’s dwelling definition requires ownership of the dwelling itself and that the exemption is not intended to apply to ordinary rental properties. Murphy described local verification practices—checking Connecticut driver’s licenses, voter registration and vehicle registration—to reduce the risk of applicants claiming residency or exemptions in multiple towns.

Several members and staff flagged a potential ambiguity in a paragraph that read, in effect, that an individual who received a dwelling exemption "shall also receive a property tax exemption on not more than 2 acres of the land on which the dwelling is located." Committee members worried the wording could be read to grant the 2‑acre land exemption even when the veteran did not own the land. After discussion the ad hoc agreed to amend that sentence so the ordinance would refer to "not more than 2 acres of owned land upon which the dwelling is located," making clear the 2‑acre benefit applies only to land the veteran owns.

Counsel also explained the draft references other statutes (Conn. Gen. Stat. §§12‑93 and 12‑95) that contain filing deadlines; members debated whether to reinsert an explicit "on or before September 30" filing date or incorporate the public act by reference. Counsel noted the public act mandates the use of the OPM form and a municipal‑only attestation so Danbury could not add extra fields to the state form.

On record retention, counsel said the draft removes any express requirement to retain exemption records for a specified number of years; assessor Murphy said local records would generally follow the Secretary of State’s retention schedule even if the ordinance does not impose a separate retention term.

After the discussion the chair moved that the ad hoc recommend adding section 44‑72 to the city code (tax exemption for disabled veterans) as amended by corporation counsel, "subject to amendment by corporation counsel." Councilman Irving Fox seconded the motion. The committee approved the recommendation on a voice vote; the transcript records an "Aye" and "Motion carries." The meeting adjourned at about 7:00 p.m.

What happens next: the committee’s recommendation will be forwarded to the full City Council for consideration; the council must vote to adopt the ordinance for the local changes to take effect. The ordinance as discussed would take effect for assessments commencing on or after Oct. 1, 2025, to the extent that language in the public act governs effective dates.