Michael P. Mayko
SHELTON — Manuel “Manny” Moutinho, a Stratford multimillionaire whose business deals sometimes result in controversy, is hoping to build a shopping center on Todd Road.
Paperwork filed by Joseph Pereira Engineering on behalf of Moutinho seeks to construct a single-story building encompassing 10,170 square feet for four to six commercial tenants.
But before he can start building, Moutinho needs approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission to change the zone from its current office park designation to a planned development district.
His application is expected to be accepted by the Planning and Zoning commission during their next meeting. Once accepted, the commission will schedule a public hearing on the proposal.
The now vacant 6 Todd Road site is about 1.22 acres. The surrounding area consists mostly of offices, restaurants and commercial businesses. City officials said it was once part of a car dealership and later a fitness gym, which was demolished following a fire.
Moutinho purchased the property in 1991 for $849,000, according to records in the assessor’s office. It is valued at $176,900 and assessed at $123,830.
In the application, Moutinho and Pereira proposed to remove all the existing concrete and pavement.
Neither Pereira or Moutinho immediately returned calls for comment. Over the years Moutinho and his various businesses including Mark IV Construction have been embroiled in numerous state court disputes. His low bid on a sewer project, which later saw increases, irked then Trumbull First Selectman Timothy Herbst. That led to both sides suing each other and then settling out of court.
More recently was the dispute over a $400,000 gravel road leading to Mountiho’s waterfront mansion on Stratford’s Seaview Avenue. Residents voiced concern that Bridgeport, under the administration of former Mayor Bill Finch, paid for the driveway as part of the Sikorsky Memorial Airport improvement project. And in 2013 a Connecticut Post profile of Moutinho disclosed some two dozen real estate transactions with Gus Curcio and another 31 lawsuits pitting Moutinho against Curcio and the latter’s associates.
Curcio has been identified as an associate of the Genovese crime family by the FBI and federal prosecutors.
Judge OKs mortgage foreclosure on Norwich portion of former hospital property
Norwich — A judge has approved the mortgage foreclosure filed last fall by the financial backer of Thames River Landing LLC, which had purchased the 49.65-acre Norwich portion of the former Norwich Hospital property from the state in 2015 for $300,000 but failed to submit cleanup or development plans for it.
New London Superior Court Judge Emmet L. Cosgrove on Monday approved the motion for strict foreclosure filed by Castanho Development LLC, which provided the original $450,000 mortgage in October 2015 to Thames River Landing LLC. The debt owed to Castanho now totals $628,970 on the property, according to foreclosure documents, plus another $18,769 in attorney fees and court costs. Court records also list another $14,194 in “other encumbrances on the property.”
The debts listed do not include the delinquent property taxes owed to the city of Norwich, which totaled $115,320.76 as of Monday, according to Norwich Tax Collector Karlene Deal. The city has not filed a tax foreclosure lawsuit, but has been tracking the mortgage foreclosure case, city Corporation Counsel Michael Driscoll said Monday.
The judge set the final date of June 19 for Thames River Landing to pay off the debt to Castanho. If payment is not made, Castanho Development would take ownership on June 20.
Reached on Tuesday, Carl Castanho of East Hartford, head of Castanho Development, declined to comment on the foreclosure action until the property transaction takes place June 20.
Mark Fields, managing member of Thames River Landing, did not return phone calls seeking comment on the foreclosure action Tuesday.
Two minority members of Thames River Landing LLC supported Castanho’s foreclosure action, expressing frustration in interviews in November that Fields had failed to secure development proposals for the property despite interest expressed by potential developers. Brendan Kennedy and Anna Valente said they looked forward to Castanho taking over the property and the search for a developer.
Kennedy repeated those comments Tuesday, and said Fields also failed to inform the minority partners of the mortgage foreclosure proceedings. It’s been a long, drawn-out process,” Kennedy said Tuesday. “We were all part of Thames River Landing, and we’ve had no communication. I haven’t spoken with (Fields). Even though we’re not majority owners, we should have been kept informed. There’s been no communication. I think the city and everyone else would like to see something there, and the Mohegans as well.”
The property abuts the 393-acre former Norwich Hospital property in Preston. In 2017, Preston town leaders reached a purchase and sale agreement with Mohegan Gaming & Entertainment for the entire Preston portion, now called Preston Riverwalk, for a planned $200 million to $600 million commercial, recreational, sports, retail and residential complex. The transfer is pending the town’s final environmental cleanup of the property.
A detailed appraisal of the 49.65-acre Norwich property, done by Valbridge Property Advisors of Hartford for the foreclosure, calculated the fair market value of the property at $620,000. The appraisal divided the property into two major portions on the east and west sides of Route 12 at the Preston border. City tax records list it as three parcels: 626 Laurel Hill Road, 705 Laurel Hill Road and land without a numerical address. CLICK TITLE TO CONTINUE
Hearing on Casino 'Open Competition' Bill Gets Underway Thursday
Kenneth R. Gosselin
A public hearing on bill that would scrap the license for a casino in East Windsor and open up competitive bidding for the state’s first casino off tribal lands will get underway Thursday at the Legislative Office Building.
The legislature’s public safety and security committee will convene the hearing at 10 a.m. in Room 2B.
State lawmakers last year backed giving the tribal operators of Foxwoods Resort Casino and Mohegan Sun the go-ahead to jointly establish the first commercial casino in East Windsor. MGM Resorts International subsequently proposed a casino in Bridgeport.
The bill calls for a two-step process, first seeking bids and then making a selection. A push for open competition in the legislature failed to gain traction last year.
Debate over expansion heated up after MGM secured approval and began construction of a $960 million casino and entertainment complex in Springfield. The prospect of the venue stoked worries that gamblers in Connecticut would be drawn out of the state, costing the state not only revenue but jobs tied to the gaming industry.
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has staunchly supported the state’s long-standing ties with the tribes and their effort to expand to East Windsor as a competitive response to MGM Springfield.
State law requires the legislature to approve any expansion of casino gambling.
After MGM proposed its plan for Bridgeport, the Mashantucket Pequots and Mohegans also expressed interest in the Park City, but said it was a separate issue from East Windsor, where the tribes insisted they are still moving ahead.
A week ago, the tribes began demolition of an old movie theater in East Windsor in preparation for construction of a $300 million casino. But tribal leaders say no building will start until a dispute with federal regulators over the expansion is resolved. They said that is expected in late spring or early summer.The bill, which is drawing support from Bridgeport and New Haven delegations, calls for:
a minimum of 2,000 people to be directly employed at the venue.
at least $500 million in investment.
a $50 million nonrefundable licensing fee.
25 percent of annual gross gaming revenues going to the state on both slots and table games.
another 10 percent of annual gross gaming revenue from video slot machines to be set aside to fund educational cost-sharing grants for towns and cities.
If the bill becomes law, bids would be due to the state Department of Consumer Protection by Jan. 1. MGM said it stands ready to make its case for Bridgeport.
Supporters And Opponents Clash Over Adding Tolls To Connecticut Highways
Christopher Keating
In an often-passionate debate, advocates squared off Wednesday for more than five hours in the long-running battle for electronic highway tolls that has split the legislature.
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, House Speaker Joe Aresimowicz and others are strongly for tolls, saying it makes no sense for out-of-state drivers to have free rides as they drive quickly Connecticut on the way to Boston, New York, Newport, R.I., and Burlington, Vt.
But the state’s trucking association is strongly against tolls, and opponents say Connecticut has a uniquely complicated highway system with 49 exits from Greenwich to New Haven that would make it very easy to jump off the highway and avoid the tolls.
Overhead electronic tolls would cost $200 million to $300 million to install, and could generate an estimated $600 million to $800 million per year, officials said. Saying the state needs billions of dollars for repairs and improvements, Malloy is pushing for tolls and increasing the state’s gasoline tax by seven cents per gallon over four years.
“Nobody is for tolls,’’ Malloy told Capitol reporters Wednesday. “Nobody is for a gas tax. Nobody is for a fee on tires. On the other hand, they’re for roads and bridges that are safe and buses and trains that run on time and an airport that can be sustained. They’re for all those things, but, as Americans, we’re not for paying for any of those things, and that’s what’s largely driven Connecticut’s policy — that you can actually get something for nothing and that you can sustain that on a multigenerational basis. We now have proof that you can’t.’’
One of the major issues has been skepticism that the toll money would be diverted for other purposes. But state transportation commissioner James Redeker said the federal government must authorize the tolls, and the money cannot be legally diverted or “swept’’ to other uses in the state’s general fund.
“No, it has to be spent on transportation,’’ Redeker testified Wednesday. “It’s a dedicated revenue stream that must be spent on transportation only.’’
Republicans, however, said that gasoline taxes and other fees could be siphoned off for other purposes, even if the toll money could not.
Redeker said tolls cannot be placed only on the borders exclusively in towns such as Enfield, Greenwich, Danbury, Union and Stonington. Instead, they must be spread throughout the state, as well as at the borders.The state has dropped Malloy’s announced plans for a 30-year, $100 billion transportation program. Instead, the plan is now $10 billion over five years, Redeker said.
“We need solutions short-term, mid-term, and long-term,’’ Redeker told the committee. “At this moment, I’m not authorized to do anything. … We can’t implement tolls unless it’s authorized in this state and approved by the federal government.’’
Numerous key questions remain, including which highways will have tolls, the locations, the price at each tolling location, the potential discounts for Connecticut drivers, and how much the fares would be reduced during off-peak hours.
No votes were taken Wednesday, and the committee is facing of deadline of March 23 to act on tolls.
Opponents submitted written testimony that questioned Malloy’s overall plan of installing tolls and increasing the state’s gasoline tax by 7 cents per gallon over four years.
Joseph R. Sculley, president of the state trucking association, said that the two-tier gasoline tax, including a gross receipts tax on petroleum, pushed the overall tax on gasoline in January to 39 cents per gallon. He added that Connecticut is different from other states.
Redeker said the tolls cannot be placed only on the borders exclusively in towns such as Enfield, Greenwich, Danbury, Union, and Stonington.“The fact is there is no comparison between the Mass Pike, for example, and interstate highways in Connecticut,’’ Sculley said. “The Mass. Pike was built with tolls. The tolls were not installed on the highway decades after the fact. All that the Mass. Pike did was simply swap toll booths for electronic tolls.’’Republicans are also concerned about the potential creation of a transportation authority, which are covered in raised bills 389 and 5393. But Redeker said that the concept is still evolving, saying the bill contains “general language without specifics on how things would happen.’’The quasi-public authority would have the ability to borrow money, but the precise parameters of its powers would need to be determined by the legislature in the final bill.
Sen. Toni Boucher, a Wilton Republican, cautioned that the tolls would not be arriving quickly due to public bidding and construction of the stanchions over the highways.
“I”m not against tolls,’’ Boucher said. “We’re talking at least four years before this could happen.’’
Sen. Steve Cassano, a Manchester Democrat, said that the state needs billions of dollars to run the transportation, and he questioned how the state will be able to pay for it.
The so-called Q bridge and everything connected with it along Interstate 95 in the New Haven area cost $2 billion, and the Waterbury interchange could cost $12 billion, Redeker said. The subsidy on the Shoreline East line in southeastern Connecticut is “$40 per passenger per trip,’’ he said.
“We’ve got to face reality here. We’re not doing a good job facing reality,’’ Cassano said. “It’s not free to run this department. It costs money to do these things. What’s the alternative?’’
The state transportation department once had more than 5,000 employees and now has about 2,500, Redeker said.
One proposal calls for cutting the gasoline tax if the tolls are implemented. But the exact timing is unknown because it would depend on the amount of money available in the state’s Special Transportation Fund.
Push for tolls moving full throttle
HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH)–A key legislative committee is expected to vote on advancing proposals for electronic tolls within the next nine days and advocates say they believe they have the votes this year in both the House and Senate.
Everyone agrees that state’s transportation infrastructure is falling apart, and those that have been pushing this feel this will be the year tolls get the green light.
The D.O.T. said today that imposing tolls at Connecticut border points would violate federal law and the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause, but that multiple electronic tolling gantries throughout Connecticut,
like the ones in our surrounding states, would not jeopardize any future transportation funding.
Related: Transportation Committee to review highway tolls proposals
The D.O.T. also says their research indicates the state would capture nearly as much money from out of state drivers as from Connecticut residents.
D.O.T. Commissioner James Redeker telling lawmakers on the Transportation Committee, “If Connecticut implemented tolls on our limited access highways, out of state motorists could pay over 40% of the total toll revenues generated.” That’s because the state can legally charge out of state drivers more if they don’t have a Connecticut approved transponder on their vehicle.
Republicans say the number is inflated, that their research shows out of state drivers paying just 25%. Transportation Committee vice-chair Sen.Len Suzio (R-Meriden) telling News 8, “Most of the tax burden of tolls will be born by Connecticut taxpayers and that’s the only reason why some people support it. They think that there’s going to be a big windfall from out of staters. It isn’t going to happen.”
Committee co-chair Sen. Toni Boucher (R-Wilton) adding, “There would be over seventy of them throughout the State of Connecticut, not on the borders but everywhere and it would impact those people unfairly at the lowest
end of the economics.”
Related: Committee recommends tax changes, tolls for Connecticut
The D.O.T. Commissioner told this same committee a year ago that the state’s ‘Special Transportation Fund’ will be in the red by next year and that a hike in the ‘Gas Tax’ alone will not generate enough
cash to sustain and rebuild the state’s transportation infrastructure.
Committee co-chair Rep. Tony Guererra (D-Rocky Hill), a longtime advocate of the tolls saying, “We need some type of sustainable revenue to come into the S.T.F. and tolls isn’t the cure for everything but it’s a sustainable revenue.”
Republicans insist that revenue is not needed; that road and bridge improvements can be made (at a much slower pace) under the existing bonding and tax structure.