Danbury ad hoc advances draft to add land and 'unemployability' to veterans tax exemption; seeks quick public hearing

Danbury's ad hoc committee on disabled‑veterans tax exemptions on Sept. 25 moved to refine and fast‑track a local ordinance implementing Connecticut Public Act 25‑168, agreeing to add up to 2 acres of land to the dwelling exemption and to recognize veterans the Department of Veterans Affairs designates as individually unemployable (TDIU).

Chair Benjamin Chinazy read into the record a letter from the city's director of veterans affairs, Danny Hayes, urging local adoption of the state law. "Danbury can start something that can spread and be very meaningful to our veterans," the letter said, also noting the state ranks poorly for veterans benefits and estimating about nine veterans in Danbury would qualify under the change.

Tax assessor Donna Murphy told the committee the current dwelling‑only exemption produced an actual tax loss of $139,103.96 on the town's '24 list; adding land up to two acres would raise the local cost by about $48,006.69. Murphy said adopting eligibility for TDIU—which pays at the 100 percent rate though the veteran may not have a 100 percent rating—would enlarge the eligible pool: "We sent out 11 letters to people who had applied without that 100% who were total and permanently disabled," she said, and records show the town's counts vary between nine and 11 qualifying veterans depending on source.

The committee spent substantial time clarifying administrative requirements. Officials said the state Office of Policy and Management (OPM) prepared an annual application that claimants must submit to local assessors; the application requires a current VA award letter (the VA posts letters to veterans' portals starting July 1) and supporting documentation. Murphy said the city will send the application and put it on the website; veterans who cannot access the VA portal can request mailed letters via a VA phone number the assessor will publicize.

Counsel and staff reviewed "look‑back" and refund language: if a veteran's VA determination has an effective date before an award letter is available, the ordinance can allow a retrospective abatement consistent with the statute (examples referenced by staff included effective dates of Oct. 1, 2024, and the local option effective Oct. 1, 2025). The committee also discussed surviving‑spouse eligibility and whether the draft should include the public act's dates verbatim or rely on statutory language; several members urged limiting or clarifying surviving‑spouse language to avoid opening eligibility to nonresidents.

Members debated but largely rejected including a median assessed‑value cap that would limit the exemption by local housing values, noting such a cap could reduce benefits for current recipients. On record retention, counsel and staff agreed to remove or reword draft language that could conflict with confidentiality rules for applicants' VA records.

Committee members instructed counsel to incorporate a defined TDIU class in the ordinance's definitions and to add clear language in subsection C (eligibility) so the exemptions and benefits remain the same while eligibility is expanded. They also asked staff to ensure OPM's application and the VA letter requirements are clearly referenced and to provide public guidance about how to retrieve portal letters.

On process, the ad hoc set an expedited schedule: members asked counsel to circulate a revised ordinance for the committee to review before the October council meeting so it can be placed on the October agenda for referral to a public hearing, with a target council vote in November (or December if scheduling requires). The chair moved to continue the ad hoc at his call to permit drafting and notice; members approved the motion and later moved to adjourn. The meeting ended at 7:24 p.m.

Next steps: corporation counsel will circulate an amended draft with (1) explicit TDIU definitions, (2) clarified application and effective‑date language consistent with OPM guidance, and (3) removal of the median‑value cap and sensitive record‑retention wording; the ad hoc will reconvene to sign off on the draft before it goes to public hearing and city council for final consideration.