February 5, 2018

CT Construction Digest Monday February 5, 2018

Ken Dixon: Welcome to the Nutmeg State. Kah-ching!

So, I’m driving down Interstate-91 in Massachusetts with a big bag of pungent, legal weed. I push through the Connecticut border, where the toll gantries start profiling my journey home It’s like driving through giant, monetized picture frames. I can almost hear the windshield transponder chime “kah-ching.” Shouldn’t there be an app for that? Ah, the siren call of a possible career opportunity.
After a couple of them, quietly ringing up the charges on my personalized tolling device, I decide to pull off in East Windsor. Might as well test some actual luck at the tribal casino. Let’s hit the $5 blackjack table and claw back some of that mileage tax. Yep, the eventuality of paying more to drive your chariot; coughing up sales taxes for something that could grow in your backyard; then sauntering up to the green felt tables of sin, feels liberating. Ain’t freedom great? The hefty retail price of marijuana, the “electronic” tolling, and the wages of casino “gaming” are not taxes. Those codified income vacuums are entirely discretionary. I don’t have to drive out-of-state to score an ounce of pot I don’t have to stop at the casino. I don’t even have to drive. And with all this vegetable matter stinking like a skunk in the glove compartment, or pulsating around my pleasure centers with its tried-and-true psychoactive properties, I shouldn’t be I could stay home and — say — cuddle up with some prescription opioids, lean back in that easy chair and watch the living room ceiling, the saliva from my dripping open jaw blotting in the fur of the feline snoozing on my lap.
Yeah, we’re just a few votes and a couple years, at most, from this scenario. But relax: those overhead toll gantries aren’t actually charging you. “We’re not talking about toll booths,” Gov. Dan Malloy hilariously told reporters last week. “We’re talking about the collection of data. The scene was one of those ornate meeting rooms dating from 1878 in the historic State Capitol; the kind of stage that can legitimize anything. It was the same room, back in 1998, where the pre-indicted John G. Rowland shook hands with football’s Machiavelli, Bob Kraft, over the promised move of the New England Patriots from a dead-end road in Foxborough to a problematic, shoehorn site in Hartford along the Connecticut River. Happy freakin’ Pats-iversary.
“The American Society of Civil Engineers’ annual report card notes that 57 percent of Connecticut roads are in poor condition, costing the average motorist $864 per year,” Malloy was saying, backed up by about 150 construction industry types, lobbyists and others who stand to gain. “At the same time, the states with whom we compete the most, and I would note New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey have spent hundreds of billions of dollars modernizing their infrastructure while, quite frankly, we have fallen further behind.”
Malloy kept talking about “livable, walkable communities where people want to be and businesses want to grow.” At that point, I began wondering why the need for more highway infrastructure, if everyone is going to be walking to work in the rosy Connecticut future.
“Let me go back to Fairfield County,” Malloy said. “That road system does not work. It doesn’t work for the state of Connecticut. We are not getting our fair share of job growth that comes from New York City. We once led that competition. Now we’re behind that competition. People do not believe that Connecticut will grapple with its transportation issues.”
Aside from the logical challenge here, as a tax-everyone progressive, I appreciate the idea of motorists on I-84, I-95, the parkways, basting in their own juices as they sit in the morning rush, virtually parked for minutes at a time under one of the toll gantries. In fact, I love the word gantry. It makes me think of our late, lamented lunar landing program and the rockets to the moon clearing the gantry on takeoff Malloy is holding hostage about $4.3 billion in planned projects because a former pot of money called the state’s Special Transportation Fund, has been raided over the years to the point where now, with higher-mileage cars and the growth of taxpayer supported electric plug-ins, it is close to insolvency. CLICK TITLE TO CONTINUE

Building for the future of America

The White House has been talking for months about pumping money into the country’s roads and rails, using this alluring pitch: The federal government could use hundreds of billions in tax dollars to leverage $1 trillion or more in total new infrastructure spending. In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Donald Trump called on Congress “to produce a bill that generates at least $1.5 trillion for the new infrastructure investment that our country so desperately needs.”
You would not be alone in viewing skeptically a plan that seems to conjure up free money. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., argued in a Post op-ed Monday for a “major, direct federal investment,” rather than relying on the expectation of cash flowing in from state treasuries and private sources. Even Trump has reportedly expressed skepticism about the plans his staff has been working on.
In fact, not all the skepticism is warranted.
So-called public-private partnerships have a mixed history, and they would not work for every needed infrastructure project. But there are notable public-private successes here and around the world. It would be foolish for the federal government to ignore the idea.
State governments facing constraints on how much they can spend have used public-private arrangements for years, often agreeing to allow private companies to collect tolls or other fees in return for their help building and operating infrastructure. In traffic-choked northern Virginia, the experience has been largely positive, pulling private money and expertise into building, maintaining and renovating critical arteries - upgrades that likely would not have happened, or happened as quickly, without private participation.
If deals are well-structured, private companies have incentives to lower building costs, minimize operating expenses and maximize the user experience. Public-private arrangements can bring unique private-sector expertise - for example, in traffic-control technology and new building materials.
These alliances are not a panacea, however. Investing in a new road through a poor area may be in society’s interest but not a particularly attractive market opportunity for private builders.
Settling on contract terms and overseeing private companies also brings the constant threat of cronyism, incompetence and waste, with taxpayers or users potentially left on the hook for unexpectedly high long-term costs. Meanwhile, public opposition can make some tolling projects nonviable.
It is also far from clear that the federal government could expect a rush of private money into infrastructure, even with hundreds of billions of dollars on the table. In fact, under the White House plan, state governments may be expected to pony up much of the nonfederal cash.
As Congress attempts to assemble an infrastructure bill, lawmakers should leave the door open for public-private partnerships, but they should not count on mountains of money materializing to solve the nation’s chronic underinvestment. Rather, they should prepare to make a large and sure federal investment. If they need to find money to finance national rebuilding, there is an obvious source that they have left untapped: A moderate carbon tax could raise large sums for infrastructure construction, discourage overuse of the roads and cut energy waste, all at the same time.

Brainerd Place development on old Elmcrest land wins approval in Portland

PORTLAND — Ten years after the process began, the Planning and Zoning Commission has approved the Brainerd Place site plan, clearing the way for the construction of a mixed-use development on the Elmcrest property.
The process had dragged on for years, and at times seemed destined not to succeed. But in just under half an hour Thursday night, the commission reviewed aspects of the proposal and voted 5-0 to approve the project.
The actual vote took four minutes On other nights when the commission had discussed the project, the Mary Flood Room at the Portland Public Library was often filled with dozens of residents who sometimes expressed heightened emotion Thursday, just 11 people were present. They included developer Daniel Bertram, property owner Fred Hassan, First Selectwoman Susan S. Bransfield and selectmen James Tripp and Ralph Zampano.
When the commission members cast their votes, there was applause from supporters of the project. While Bertram said, “Thank you,” one resident said, “Wow.”
But generally, there was a low-key reaction largely due to relief that the extended process had ended with what supporters said will be a definite plus for the town.
Mary D. Dickerson, the town’s economic development coordinator, stepped forward to shake Bertram’s hand, telling him, “Congratulations. It’s been a long haul.”
“The work is just beginning,” Hassan said, adding, “I hope it doesn’t take 10 years to build it. It took 10 years to approve it. Let’s keep it going.”
As he spoke, Dickerson told Hassan, “Thank you, because you stuck with this for so many years.” Bransfield, an early advocate for the proposal, said, “This will be a wonderful addition to our town — a wonderful signature project.”
She said the project, which Bransfield and Dickerson said will be worth $40 million, will mean “more money for our town, more jobs, more shops and obviously more places for people in our town to live. “I’ve always said Elmcrest is a big part of this community, and I look forward to seeing the new Elmcrest.”
Bertram was relaxed and decidedly low key in his comments. “I’m happy to get started,” he said, adding, “Thank you to the community for permission to do this project.” He wasn’t ready to offer a definite timeline for action on the project, noting, “We still have the hurdle of the traffic authority review.” The Office of State Traffic Administration must approve the property’s entrance and exit on Route 66/Marlborough Street. CLICK TITLE TO CONTINUE

Construction expected soon on Amazon warehouse in North Haven

NORTH HAVEN — Amazon is moving forward with its original plan to build a 855,000-square-foot warehouse on the former Pratt & Whitney site.
The online retailer had considered scaling back to 655,000 square feet, but opted against it because of potential construction delays, according to a  town official.
Rabina Properties bought the 168-acre site from Pratt & Whitney in 2001 and signed a lease with Amazon last year.
”They are staying with the original design,” said First Selectman Michael Freda, who is in talks with Amazon’s developer, Hillwood Investment Properties. “There is heavy excavation equipment out there and construction is starting any day.”
The $250 million warehouse will feature robots working alongside employees to pick, pack and ship goods throughout the region. Some of the other equipment includes conveyer belts, forklifts, other vehicles, and refrigeration units to service Whole Foods locations.
NORTH HAVEN — Amazon is moving forward with its original plan to build a 855,000-square-foot warehouse on the former Pratt & Whitney site.
The online retailer had considered scaling back to 655,000 square feet, but opted against it because of potential construction delays, according to a  town official.
Rabina Properties bought the 168-acre site from Pratt & Whitney in 2001 and signed a lease with Amazon last year.
”They are staying with the original design,” said First Selectman Michael Freda, who is in talks with Amazon’s developer, Hillwood Investment Properties. “There is heavy excavation equipment out there and construction is starting any day.”
The $250 million warehouse will feature robots working alongside employees to pick, pack and ship goods throughout the region. Some of the other equipment includes conveyer belts, forklifts, other vehicles, and refrigeration units to service Whole Foods locations.

North Stonington unable to secure extensions for school project contracts

North Stonington — With the fate of the controversial school building project in doubt until Thursday’s referendum, the town's financial exposure has increased as it was unable to secure a second extension needed to delay awarding contracts for the  project.
On Friday, the day after a town meeting on the project, the construction manager for the town awarded all the contracts involved with project, which is expected to break ground later this month. The nearly 30 contracts are valued at $33.8 million, which was the guaranteed maximum price approved by the Board of Selectman in mid-January. With state reimbursement, the town will be responsible for paying about $21 million.
The contracts were awarded because town officials, and the construction manager, are still responsible for acting in accordance with the previous referendum which approved the project. Although the construction manager was able to secure extensions on all but one contract at the previous deadline in January, it was unable to the second time around, and not awarding the bids could have endangered the project, said First Selectman Mike Urgo.
With the awarding of the contracts, the financial ramifications of voters electing to stop the project have only increased. The town has already spent at least $1.6 million on the project prior to even breaking ground, and now likely possesses some kind of financial liability for the remaining part of the $33.8 million it has committed to in contracts.
Urgo said if voters decide to stop the project, the town would start negotiating to get out of those contracts. However, it is unlikely North Stonington would escape without a financial penalty.
“There is going to be some level of responsibility for the cost of those,” Urgo said, referencing the contracts.
This latest decision only further highlights the tricky position the town finds itself in as it works on a project that may very well be halted with a vote later this week, a vote that could carry consequences well beyond finances. CLICK TITLE TO CONTINUE

Hearing Monday On Plainville Trail Gap Closure

A proposed bike and walking trail that would close the largest gap in Connecticut’s 84-mile greenway from New Haven to Northampton, Mass., will be the subject for a hearing on Monday.
The so-called 3.5-mile Plainville gap has been the most challenging segment in the state because active freight train lines preclude use of the tracks, the go-to route for trails in most communities.
Monday’s hearing is scheduled for 6 p.m. at the middle school. Speakers’ comments will be limited to three minutes to ensure sufficient time for all attendees who wish to talk, Town Manager Robert Lee said.
Much of the path already built or in the works follows the route of the former Farmington-Northampton Canal, built in the 1820s and replaced in the 1850s by railroads. That history gives the path its name — the Farmington Canal Heritage Trail. An estimated 200,000 riders, joggers and walkers are expected to use the trail yearly once it is completed. Segments already built get heavy use now. The two-state path has been in the works since the late 1990s. In Connecticut, all other segments have been built, are in design or are being constructed. Plainville is the final Connecticut piece without an approved plan.
Farmington is completing its last extension to the Plainville border to the north. Southington has designed its last section to link with Plainville in the south.
The proposed 5.3-mile Plainville route “is not a straight line,” according to Tim Malone, principal planner with the Capitol Region Council of Governments, which is a key planning partner.
The proposed route runs from Northwest Drive at the Farmington line to Townline Road at the Southington line, with 98 percent of the proposed path off-road, some of it through Norton Park and some on dedicated paths along town roads.
At recent town council meetings, some residents have opposed running the path on Pierce Street. The plan also would span the Pequabuck River with a bike/pedestrian bridge and build a 190-foot box culvert under Route 72 to provide safe passage under that busy road,
The exact proposal is online at GapClosureStudy.com and include maps, a history of the project, information on the planning process and how people can submit comments through Feb. 12.
“We’ll accept, review and consider all written comments,” Malone said.
After the hearing, all suggestions will be considered as a final plan is made. The town council approval is needed before any final proposal can be sent to the state for its review and eventual design and construction. A section on the online study notes that the design process might take several years and construction more than five years.
A federal and state planning grant awarded in 2016 sparked the current work to find a route through Plainville. The proposed route is the result of months of work, study and review of public comments by the Capitol Region Council of Governments, the state Department of Transportation , the towns of Plainville and Southington , the city of New Britain and the Plainville Greenway Alliance. CLICK TITLE TO CONTINUE

Canal Dock Boathouse at New Haven's Long Wharf close to completion

NEW HAVEN — For the first time in decades, the city again feels connected to its harbor as a place for recreational boating and more as the Boathouse at Canal Dock heads into the final stages of construction.“We are really excited that we are on the last leg of this journey to get this facility built,” Donna Hall, senior project manager at City Plan, said as she greeted city, state and federal officials, as well as the architects, planners and coordinators, some of whom have stuck with it for almost two decades.
The two-story building has a lower floor that will be used for boating activities and storage, while the upper floor has several meeting areas, including a 3,600-square-foot function room with a view of the harbor that Hall and others expect will host conventions and weddings as a destination venue.
The dock itself off the first floor will have a power connection so Arts & Ideas and other cultural groups can stage concerts and events. “It’s a space where recreation, culture, history, art and education all come together at this amazing location with its great views,” Hall told the crowd.
The project is mitigation for the loss of Yale University’s George Adee Memorial Boathouse, which was razed in 2007 to open a space for one of the new piers needed for construction of the Interstate 95 Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge. The large contingent of guests invited to a recent “progress walk,” all wearing hard hats at what is still a construction site, saw the original pieces salvaged from Adee incorporated into the new structure.
There are multiple rust-colored, terra cotta bulldog heads, symbols of the Yale mascot, greeting them on the walls. Finials and obelisks have been repurposed, while one of the rooms also features the fireplace mantel from the clubhouse at Adee, all part of the history of Yale’s rowing program.
Mayor Toni Harp and U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3, as they took the tour, mugged it up with a pose by a bulldog.
Hall said the fireplace restoration is just one example of the quality work by “amazing craftspeople.”
“ ... as I talk to the people who are really getting this done, so many of them are New Haven workers, New Haven residents. It just goes to show what New Haven can create,” Hall said.
She said that clubhouse recreation in particular gives a feeling for what the original Adee was like.
“Do you think they had women in these rooms?” the congresswoman asked. “We didn’t see any in the pictures,” Hall answered.
 The National Historic Preservation Act requires federal projects, such as the Pearl Harbor Bridge, to “mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties,” which is the basis for the U.S. investment in the new boathouse. “It is one of the most significant efforts anywhere associated with a highway project. It will pay incredible dividends years forward for residents of the community,” Deputy Economic Development Administrator Michael Piscitelli said. He said he has been told it is a model of building appropriately within an historic context. CLICK TITLE TO CONTINUE



.