Danbury ad hoc approves language changes to elderly tax‑relief ordinance, sends amendments to public hearing

Ben Chaney, chair of the Danbury City ad hoc committee on tax relief, said the group reconvened on Dec. 9 to add substantive language to a draft ordinance and align the application form with the ordinance text. The committee voted to accept the amendment language for section 44‑71 (tax relief for elderly and totally disabled homeowners) and send it to a public hearing.

The changes include new eligibility clarifications and a numerical adjustment to the income tiers: the draft adds $20,000 to qualifying‑income tiers in the local program and specifies that the total value of an applicant’s real estate cannot exceed three times a city median value figure (using the 2022 valuation as the reference). "This change is intended to give as many seniors who live in this city of Danbury the ability to stay in their homes," said Donna Murphy of the tax assessor’s office.

Why it matters: The ad hoc adjusted how the city calculates qualifying income (counting 50% of Social Security in the city formula and adding $20,000 to tier thresholds), which generally raises city credit amounts compared with the state’s formula. In a mock application presented at the meeting, Ben Chaney illustrated that the city credit could be substantially higher than the state credit for the same household because of the $20,000 adjustment and the city’s treatment of Social Security.

Donna Murphy provided budget context: the city’s local programs cost about $1,136,593 last year and the state program (which the city does not reimburse) was about $343,000, for combined payouts of roughly $1,480,000. Murphy cautioned that staff cannot predict uptake under the new calculation method and that the exact cost impact will depend on how many more households qualify under the revised rules.

Committee members flagged wording risks in subsection k (the $20,000 adjustment), noting the draft could be misread to produce unintended minimums when tier floors are zero. Members asked counsel and staff to spell the tier language out more clearly (for example, defining each tier as "0 to X; max + 20,000" or equivalent). Joseph Morzelli, corporation counsel, and assessor staff agreed to revise the text for clarity before submission.

The committee discussed public outreach: members proposed holding a presentation or workshop just before the public hearing so residents could hear an explanation from assessor staff and then comment at the hearing. Staff said applications will be accepted through May 15 and that Murphy can include a breakdown of credit use in her June monthly report to the council so members can see program uptake and cost implications before final action.

A committee member moved to accept the stated amendment changes to section 44‑71 (tax relief for elderly and totally disabled homeowners) subject to the public hearing; the motion was seconded and passed by voice vote. The committee did not record individual roll‑call votes in the transcript; the voice vote produced a unanimous 'aye' outcome. The item will move forward to the public hearing process and then to the full council for final consideration.

Next steps: staff will reword subsection k for clarity, post the amendment for public hearing, accept applications through May 15, and provide a June report showing credit utilization under the new program calculations.