Danbury council sends proposed conduit-bond resolution for proton therapy center to ad hoc after mixed public comment

The Danbury City Council on Sept. 15 voted to send for further review a proposed resolution that would authorize the city to act as a conduit issuer of bonds on behalf of the nonprofit Danbury Proton Therapy Center.

The action — a referral to an ad hoc committee rather than an authorization to issue debt — followed roughly 30 minutes of public comment. Supporters said the center would bring regional access to proton therapy and local economic benefits; opponents said the measure grants sweeping powers, risks taxpayer exposure and was rushed onto a special-meeting agenda.

Warren Levy, a Danbury resident who opened public comment, said the city does not fit the bill of a ‘‘blighted’’ community and warned that the resolution would give officials ‘‘sweeping powers’’ with insufficient oversight. ‘‘I don't think Danbury fits into that narrative at all,’’ Levy said, adding that the measure could ‘‘funnel public support into private ventures…without full transparency or accountability.’’

A letter read into the record on behalf of the Greater Danbury Chamber of Commerce said Danbury Proton’s proposed $96,000,000 advanced treatment center would create more than 100 construction jobs and employ over 30 high-skilled professionals once operational. The letter, attributed to Maura Ruby, president and CEO of the Greater Danbury Chamber of Commerce, described the project as ‘‘transformative’’ and urged the city to consider bond support as an essential tool to make the project a reality.

Ken Gucker, who said he has worked with Danbury Proton since 2019, and Michael Flanagan, a cancer survivor, urged the council to open a discussion and not make the item a political issue. ‘‘This is cancer treatment, folks,’’ Flanagan said, describing the project as personally important and urging colleagues to avoid turning the vote into politics.

Others voiced caution about potential taxpayer liability. Albert Russo said he supported a conversation but asked whether the city should be ‘‘writing bonds for this that we could be liable for’’ if something went wrong.

Councilman Salvatore moved to receive the communication and send it to an ad hoc committee composed to include the finance department, corporation counsel and the mayor’s office ‘‘and any other entities necessary to fully understand the resolution to make an informed decision,’’ according to the motion on the record. The council ordered the referral, named ad hoc membership as stated by the chair, and passed the motion by voice vote. The referral does not itself authorize bonding or commit the city to repayment; the resolution text read at the meeting stated the city ‘‘would not be subject to repayment or liability on the bonds.’’

The council’s next steps, as stated at the meeting, include hearings by the ad hoc with bond counsel and subject-matter experts to address questions about oversight, liability, transparency and the project’s details.

The meeting adjourned after the motion carried by voice vote.