City Council

~AD HOC REPORT~ CT City and Town Development Act (Meeting #1) Tuesday, September 30, 2025 Chair Holly Robinson called the meeting to order at 7:01p.m, on Tuesday, September 30, 2025. Present were Committee Members Ryan Hawley and Emile Buzaid. From the City were Tracey Norris, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Glen Santoro, Bond Counsel; Taylor O'Brien, Chief of Staff, Mayor's Office; Dan Garrick, Finance Director; Joanne Sterk, Assistant Finance Director. Ex Officio present were Peter Buzaid, Frank Salvatore, Ben Chianese, Duane Perkins, Paul Rotello, Elmer Palma, Andrea Gartner, Michael Coelho and Lou Giordano. From the public were Mike Flanagan, Tom Brown, Rob Melillo, Warren Levy, Paul McAllister, Ken Gucker, Al Robinson, and three representatives from Danbury Proton (Stephen Courtney, Joseph Piscitell and Drew Crandall). Chair Robinson clarified the purpose of the ad hoc; should the City Council enact the City and Town Development Act. Ms. O’Brien provided an overview of the Mayor’s intent for presenting this Act to the Council; she noted job growth, business development, and a way to minimize unemployment. Mr. Santoro identified eight items in the resolution, and explained that there is a need to determine if those eight items apply to the City. He noted that if the Act is approved it will allow for a bond resolution to be presented to the Council for review. He explained that the Act preempts the City Charter, allowing the city to adopt and issue bonds in excess of $3M without going to a referendum. Mr. Santoro read the eight items for the record. Chair Robinson asked for an overview of a bond issuance through the Act, using the City as a conduit; Mr. Santoro explained that if the Act is approved, the Council will receive a bond resolution, if that bond resolution is approved by the Council, the City would issue the bonds and loan the bond proceeds to the borrower; he noted that the city has no obligation or liability and the bond is repaid through revenue, security interests and mortgages granted under the project. He explained that this is not a G.O. (General Obligation) Bond and has no impact on the City’s bond rating. Member E. Buzaid asked about unemployment rate requirements; Mr. Santoro confirmed there is no rate requirement in this Act. Member E. Buzaid spoke on the term “distressed”; Ms. O’Brien noted that unemployment rates fluctuate but the goal is to have the rate at 0%. Mr. Santoro explained that Item Two is intended to address any amount of blight; Member E. Buzaid spoke on the purpose of the Act when it was adopted in the 1970’s, and expressed concerns with the removal of referendums and public hearings from the bond process. He urged that this Act be reviewed thoroughly to really understand it. He asked who would decide who could take advantage of the benefits in the Act; Mr. Santoro confirmed that the Council would need to approve all projects. Chair Robinson stated that other municipalities who have adopted this Act have specific parameters regarding who can use this Act which could include; an agreement for the conduit bonding, IRS requirements, and a review of the project’s public benefit. She discussed the process for all projects being presented to the Council; which would include an Ad Hoc and a Public Hearing before a final vote by the Council. Member Hawley noted that housing and underemployment is an issue in our community; Mr. Santoro confirmed that any number of unemployment qualifies. Member Hawley sited additional examples of the eight items that exist in the City of Danbury. Chair Robinson asked about the opportunity for establishing parameters or guidelines for projects, Ms. O’Brien stated that projects would be vetted internally before being presented to the Council. Member E. Buzaid noted that the City’s current unemployment rate is 1.7% and specified the type of blight that this Act intends to address. Member E. Buzaid asked if this would be only available to non-profits; Mr. Santoro said that this Act applies to projects by any entity. Member E. Buzaid highlighted language that allows for up to a twenty-year tax abatement/deferral; he asked for clarification on who would determine if this is a project the city should consider for this program; Mr. Santoro stated that an underwriter would evaluate the project and buyers of the bonds would decide if the project is viable. Member E. Buzaid noted his concerns with language in the Act and the impact it will have on the City’s reputation, and asked about the impact this Act has had on real estate values in the municipalities who have enacted it. Chair Robinson asked for examples of how this Act has been used in other cities. Chair Robinson suggested that this Act only be used by non-profits, and for projects that provide a public benefit, in a location that needs an additional incentive for development. Chair Robinson asked Mr. Garrick about the financial impact on the City’s finances; Mr. Garrick confirmed that this would not be a liability on the City. Chair Robinson asked about default of the loan; Mr. Santoro stated that the bond purchasers would look to revenue and assets from the project a default happens. Mr. Rotello discussed concerns with the fall-out of a defunct project, and the potential for bond holders who would now own the property/facility to do whatever they want with it. He expressed concerns with funding projects that have not be funded by other financiers. He asked if a referendum requirement can be reimplemented in the resolution so that the decisions are not being made by a council or mayor, and so that the voters can still have a say; Mr. Santoro confirmed the City can put the bond back to a referendum; and that the bond holders can foreclose on the property and sell it to another user for any purpose that are allowed by zoning regulations. Mr. Rotello is concerned that the proposed project is in an industrial zone which includes residential areas. Mr. Chianese spoke on the need to include this type of bond in the City’s financial statements; he expressed concerns with the intent of the Act, specifically language in Sec. 482, Item K in the full Act: the term “ameliorating”; he discussed the use of an outdated Act to fulfill a current need. He spoke on the City’s good standing with regards to unemployment and its strong grand list. Mr. Chianese asked for clarification on who can receive bond funding through this Act; Mr. Santoro reiterated any entity can receive the funding if approved by the Council; Mr. Chianese asked if the city itself could request funds through this Act (without a referendum); Mr. Santoro spoke on the different types of bonds that the municipality would use, and that this Act would not apply to municipalities. Mr. Chianese asked about adding specific types of projects to the language in the resolution; Mr. Santoro stated that selecting projects would be done by the Council after the Act is enacted; he spoke on the need to be cautious with adding language to the resolution which could conflict with the Act. Ms. O’Brien reiterated the intent of presenting the Act; to make the City better through innovative approaches. Mr. Coelho asked if other municipalities who enacted the Act had a bond rating as high as Danbury does; Mr. Santoro said he did not believe so. Mr. Coelho discussed his concerns with bonds not going to a referendum; Mr. Santoro confirmed a referendum is discretionary. Chair Robinson noted that the current Charter does not allow the City to act as a conduit for a project to be built in an underutilized area; Mr. Santoro confirmed, and explained that the Act would allow the municipality to do things that the City could not otherwise do, or notwithstanding the Charter. Chair Robinson asked if this would be the time to add requirements to the resolution so that parameters are already established for future projects, without contradicting the Act; Mr. Santoro explained that every project must go back to the Council, and when the project is presented to the Council parameters can be applied. Mr. Santoro confirmed that the Act can be terminated at any time before the five years indicated in the resolution. Mr. Coelho and Chair Robinson asked that the language regarding a referendum be placed in the resolution. Mr. Santoro suggested that the Act itself be sent to a referendum so that the public can decide if they want to implement the Act; if passed, each project would then not need to be presented for its own referendum. Mr. Palma urged that the Act be further evaluated; he spoke on the need to have clear answers to everyone’s questions. He expressed concerns with loaning out the City/people’s money, and with acting as a bank. He urged that the voters decide if they want to do this through a referendum. He also noted the need to evaluate unemployment in the field that any project is focused in. Ms. Gartner explained that definitions are determined by the funding source; and asked about possible concerns that could come up if this Act is adopted; Mr. Santoro spoke on the need for a project to be vetted; he reiterated that the purchasers of bonds would look into the validity of the project. Chair Robinson asked that applicants be required to pay for any costs that are inquired; Mr. Santoro confirmed that that is in the Loan Agreement. Mr. Duane Perkins asked how lending money can be done without acquiring any risk; he asked for a list of risk vs. exposure. Mr. Salvatore asked if unemployment rates used in other statutes can be used for this Act; Mr. Santoro confirmed it cannot because the City must acknowledge all eight items. Mr. Salvatore asked if a referendum for a bond is currently required due to the taxpayers’ monies that are on the line; Mr. Santoro confirmed the City’s taxpayer dollars are not in jeopardy with bonds from this Act. Chair Robinson asked for the following; how do items one through eight apply to the City, examples would be helpful; the possibility of language regarding the inclusion of a referendum requirement to adopt the Act and for each future project, or just the requirement of a referendum for each future project; a list of projects in other municipalities; and a list of any unsuccessful projects. Mr. Palma spoke on the need to be able to amend the resolution. Mr. Rotello asked for further clarification regarding what the City adds to the bond process for this type of bond. Mr. Coelho asked for a pledge of revenue. A motion was made by Member Emile Buzaid, seconded by Chair Robinson, to continue this ad hoc at the call of the Chair. Yes – 2, No – 1 (Hawley). Motion carried. Member Emile Buzaid asked about the appearance of the City’s endorsement of a project based on its agreement to be a conduit of funds for a project; he asked for examples of unintended consequences in other municipalities. Member Hawley explained that he does not support continuing the ad hoc because he feels that all the items in the resolution have been met, and that the unanswered questions are relevant to the bond resolution to be presented in phase two of the process. Chair Robinson clarified that the continuation is to allow for Corporation Counsel, Bond Counsel and the Mayor’s Office to gather additional information to provide at the next meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:46p.m. Respectfully submitted; Holly Robinson, Chair Ryan Hawley Emile Buzaid