The Economic Benefits Of

Age-Restricted Housing

To the Editor:

Without providing a line-by-line critique of your previous editorial and article comments, I am willing to provide a little feedback on the facts related to the economic benefits provided by our active adult, age-restricted housing presently in Newtown. We have several complexes. Most are assisted living, and include a health assistance component. These are being excluded from this review. The two remaining active adult complexes are Liberty and Walnut Tree. Obviously, the town boards are considering a third next to the high school, which are active adult, not health assisted.

In a review of the taxes collected on real estate and automobiles, the two complexes, Liberty and Walnut Tree together pay 2.72 percent of the combined municipal and Board of Education budgets. (Analysis provided to Bee via Excel.) Neither of these complexes cost the Board of Education one penny. If we compared the revenues gained by these complexes, and compared it to the municipal budget only, they contribute 6.93 percent. In comparing the housing unit counts to all town housing, (285/9,000) is 3.17 percent. Other facts, there are no roads or plowing expenses, these are covered by association fees. These complexes paid approximately $2.6 million in sewer benefit assessment fees, upon completion of build. This money, in our town reserve account, aids Newtown in differing bonding costs, improves our ability to cover the notes with the added quarterly revenues, and improves our bond rating by showing our ability to cover bond costs.

Concerns related to Newtowners selling their houses to move to the EH-10 active adult communities are unfounded. Liberty reports two of their 96 units are occupied by Newtowners who sold their home to move in. The rest are out-of-towners that bought here. The Walnut Tree complex is about 70 percent in this category. This means that the EH-10 folks did not leave an existing home in Newtown, to be filled with additional Board of Education expenses to cover. The EH-10 active adult complexes have added significantly to our tax revenues, without costing our town budgets anything, with the exceptions of road degradation, fire, police, and EMS.

If we were to compare our 2003 tax revenues and budget, and remove the contribution that Walnut Tree and Liberty make, we would all be paying an additional 0.67 mills of taxes, or 2.7 percent more in our tax bill. If we compare this same contribution to that of our top single real-estate tax payers, Walnut and Liberty would equal the contributions from (2001 data) of Connecticut Light and Power, Sand Hill Plaza, Homesteads, Kendro/Sorval (reorganized) all combined. This is only two complexes, and Newtown has several.

In my opinion, economic development does not mean more smoke stacks or more office space every time; it means improving the economics of our taxpaying families in town. Of course, Newtown should, and is, pursuing the factories and offices that fit our plans. Historically, and anecdotally, our town is known as one to avoid if you are a corporate developer. We are on the “blacklist” of easy towns to deal with. If taxpayers in town want to see these incredible increases in spending off-set in our tax bill, then major changes in our town’s reputation in the office space and developer markets will need to happen. In the mean time, the-more EH-10 housing, the more hired contractors of garbage, painting, florists, carpentry, and the more activity in our merchants and restaurants, the better.

Kevin J. O’Neill

Member of the Economic Development Committee

28 Washbrook Road, Newtown                                October 24, 2004