Skyler Frazer
NEW BRITAIN – Though the Smalley Elementary School project broke ground more than four months ago, city officials are worried the city will be on the hook for funding not reimbursed from the state.
But, according to school district officials, everything is fine regarding the project.
“There seems to be a breakdown in communication and a misunderstanding of facts,” said Ray Moore, the chief facilities officer for the school district.
The dispute surrounding the Smalley Elementary School project can be traced back to another project in the city – the Gaffney Elementary School project from 2013-2015.
After state-funded projects are completed, officials from the state conduct an audit on the project before officially closing the books. According to the city’s Finance Director Lori Granato, that audit never happened. Granato emailed Mayor Erin Stewart last Friday after talking with someone from the Connecticut Department of Administrative Services and said that until the Gaffney project is officially closed, the city will not be reimbursed for construction costs at Gaffney, which have already reached about $4.8 million.
“The state told us they’re not paying us for anything Smalley-related until Gaffney’s closed out, now this could be up to six months until they audit and close out Gaffney,” Stewart told The Herald on Friday.
But, according to officials from the school district, the city is not at risk of losing reimbursement funding from the state. Moore said he spoke to Kosta Diamantis, Director of the School Construction Grants & Review office in the Connecticut Department of Administrative Services, on Friday and Diamantis assured him everything was according to plan.
According to Moore, the state recently adopted a new software system for filing information related to school building-related projects. The software officially switches over Oct. 1, but in the meantime, the old system can’t be used.
Moore said DeAmentis assured him that the reimbursement information for the project can be filed on Oct. 9-10 during the training session for the new software program. Both Moore and School Superintendent Nancy Sarra will be there during the training session.
“I called Kosta and he said ‘You’re going to enter your reimbursement forms that day … I’m going to approve the reimbursement and you’re going to get reimbursed,’” Moore said of his conversation with Diamantis.
THE GAFFNEY AUDIT
While the Gaffney Elementary School project was completed in September 2015, an audit was not conducted immediately. Shortly after work on the school finished, the school district went to court with a contractor on the project who was asking for more money. This process went on for almost a year, and, since it dealt with finances, the district needed to keep the Gaffney project open.
By the time the court case was settled and documents were updated, the school district had already shifted its focus to other projects like Smalley. Sarra said that the school district’s facilities department is already “bare bones” when focusing on current projects. Somewhere along the line, finalizing paperwork for Gaffney’s project fell through the cracks.
Still, according to Moore and Sarra, everything is on track. Moore said Diamantis assured him that the city’s reimbursement will be approved regardless of whether Gaffney’s audit has been completed yet. Moore will be able to file the reimbursements during the session on Oct. 9-10.
Stewart called the process frustrating. She said this is another example of why the school district and city should collaborate on services like a finance department.
“While I’m appreciative that we are getting things back in order, I feel like, once again, the city is left trying to clean up the Board of Education’s mess,” Stewart said. “There’s a good possibility that we may have to bring construction to a halt because we won’t be able to afford payments.”
Kosta Diamantis from the Connecticut Department of Administrative Services did not return a call for comment.
Focus now on closing Plainville-Southington trail gap
Devin Leith-Yessian
PLAINVILLE — With the completion of a 0.8-mile strip of the Farmington Canal Heritage Trail in Cheshire, attention has turned to the only remaining gap — a 5.3-mile section in town.
A trail route approved by the Town Council on Feb. 20 is awaiting state funding. Once funds are in place, the engineering phase will begin, including public outreach, surveys and designs.
“I’m thinking that our best estimate for the Farmington Canal Heritage Trail being completed in Connecticut is 2023,” said Bruce Donald, a coordinator with the East Coast Greenway Alliance.
People using the trail overcome the gap by following roads and sidewalks through town, which presents risks for users.
“It does take away from its glamour as a completed through trail,” Donald said.
The Department of Transportation’s project manager, Scott Bushee, said construction will likely be divided into two phases: a section from Town Line Road to Route 372, slated to start in 2022, and a section from Route 372 to Northwest Drive, expected to start after that.
The trail currently ends at Lazy Lane near the Plainville-Southington line.
Unlike most of the rest of the trail, the Plainville portion cannot use rail beds because the rail line in town is still being used.
The proposed trail route is 98 percent off road, but runs along pieces of Broad Street, Pierce Street and North Washington Street.
While public outreach could impact the final route, Bushee expects it will look similar to the one approved by the Town Council.
“I think the (route) that was developed in the planning study is generally what the trail is going to look like,” he said. “The town seems to be very supportive of the alignment.”
While the Town Council was unanimous in its approval of the route, public support was more mixed.
Many opposed the plan because it would pass close to some homes, raising concerns about noise, littering, safety and property values.
Larson must show CT the money for tunnel plan
Greg Bordonaro
In the memorable 1996 film "Jerry Maguire," a cocky Arizona Cardinals wide receiver, Rod Tidwell — played by Cuba Gooding Jr. — repeatedly echoed the phrase, "Show me the money," insisting he get a higher-paying contract.
The phrase has become part of the American lexicon — even being repeated by two former presidents — and has taken on various meanings.
It's relevant today when discussing Congressman John Larson's ambitious plan to bury I-84 and I-91 in tunnels to ease traffic congestion and open up Hartford to the Connecticut River.
Larson originally raised this idea about two years ago, describing it as a potential game-charger for the city and region, arguing it would reconnect Hartford, which has been split for decades by interstate highways, and re-open access to the Connecticut River.
Both are exciting opportunities that would likely lead to new real estate and other positive developments in a city desperate to grow its grand list. But a key question remains: How would Connecticut afford a project with a price tag that ranges anywhere from $10 billion to as high as $50 billion, according to one estimate.
This is where Larson, who insists the federal government should cover a significant portion of the costs, must show Connecticut taxpayers the money.
Larson's tunnel plan is getting new attention after the 10-term Democrat invited Seattle officials to Hartford so they can share their experiences with a recent tunnel project that will reconnect that city with the Puget Sound. However, they brought with them a stark warning: Don't rely too heavily on federal funding.
Seattle officials said their soon-to-open, $3.3 billion highway tunnel project, which will replace an aging viaduct, received federal funding that accounted for only about 25 percent of the total price tag.
If Connecticut saw similar federal support, Larson's tunnel vision would be too costly, particularly at a time when Connecticut's transportation fund is depleted.
Larson, who is on the powerful Ways and Means Committee, insists there is renewed focus on infrastructure investment at the federal level, but we've yet to see any real action.
President Donald Trump made infrastructure investment one of his top campaign pledges, but there's no clear path to actual legislation.
Some say if Democrats take control of the House and Senate this November, it could increase the odds of a major infrastructure investment bill, but even then Connecticut isn't guaranteed any funding.
We must also take into consideration future costs for tunnel maintenance. Too often, we focus on the upfront price tag of a new project, but forget about the costs to maintain it in the future. That's why Connecticut has billions of dollars in unfunded transportation projects, including critical upgrades to aging bridges and highways.
Would a new tunnel system also require highway tolling or other new revenues to help pay for it? The tunnel plan must be discussed in larger context of Connecticut's overall transportation goals and needs.
We applaud Larson for thinking big and bringing the two-tunnel idea back to the table. It's important to fully vet the plan, which could have the added benefit of repairing Harford's and East Hartford's crumbling levees.
(Seattle officials also said their tunnel project has led to $1 billion in new real estate investment as a result of investors buying and renovating properties near the city's soon-to-be defunct viaduct, which is a promising sign for the city of Hartford.)
This conversation comes at a critical juncture, when state transportation officials are moving ahead with plans to replace the aging I-84 viaduct, a project that will undoubtedly be impacted by a tunnel plan.
If Larson can get the federal government to shoulder a large portion of the construction we'd certainly want to learn more.
Until then, Larson's plan will remain a pipe dream.
“There seems to be a breakdown in communication and a misunderstanding of facts,” said Ray Moore, the chief facilities officer for the school district.
The dispute surrounding the Smalley Elementary School project can be traced back to another project in the city – the Gaffney Elementary School project from 2013-2015.
After state-funded projects are completed, officials from the state conduct an audit on the project before officially closing the books. According to the city’s Finance Director Lori Granato, that audit never happened. Granato emailed Mayor Erin Stewart last Friday after talking with someone from the Connecticut Department of Administrative Services and said that until the Gaffney project is officially closed, the city will not be reimbursed for construction costs at Gaffney, which have already reached about $4.8 million.
“The state told us they’re not paying us for anything Smalley-related until Gaffney’s closed out, now this could be up to six months until they audit and close out Gaffney,” Stewart told The Herald on Friday.
But, according to officials from the school district, the city is not at risk of losing reimbursement funding from the state. Moore said he spoke to Kosta Diamantis, Director of the School Construction Grants & Review office in the Connecticut Department of Administrative Services, on Friday and Diamantis assured him everything was according to plan.
According to Moore, the state recently adopted a new software system for filing information related to school building-related projects. The software officially switches over Oct. 1, but in the meantime, the old system can’t be used.
Moore said DeAmentis assured him that the reimbursement information for the project can be filed on Oct. 9-10 during the training session for the new software program. Both Moore and School Superintendent Nancy Sarra will be there during the training session.
“I called Kosta and he said ‘You’re going to enter your reimbursement forms that day … I’m going to approve the reimbursement and you’re going to get reimbursed,’” Moore said of his conversation with Diamantis.
THE GAFFNEY AUDIT
While the Gaffney Elementary School project was completed in September 2015, an audit was not conducted immediately. Shortly after work on the school finished, the school district went to court with a contractor on the project who was asking for more money. This process went on for almost a year, and, since it dealt with finances, the district needed to keep the Gaffney project open.
By the time the court case was settled and documents were updated, the school district had already shifted its focus to other projects like Smalley. Sarra said that the school district’s facilities department is already “bare bones” when focusing on current projects. Somewhere along the line, finalizing paperwork for Gaffney’s project fell through the cracks.
Still, according to Moore and Sarra, everything is on track. Moore said Diamantis assured him that the city’s reimbursement will be approved regardless of whether Gaffney’s audit has been completed yet. Moore will be able to file the reimbursements during the session on Oct. 9-10.
Stewart called the process frustrating. She said this is another example of why the school district and city should collaborate on services like a finance department.
“While I’m appreciative that we are getting things back in order, I feel like, once again, the city is left trying to clean up the Board of Education’s mess,” Stewart said. “There’s a good possibility that we may have to bring construction to a halt because we won’t be able to afford payments.”
Kosta Diamantis from the Connecticut Department of Administrative Services did not return a call for comment.
Focus now on closing Plainville-Southington trail gap
Devin Leith-Yessian
PLAINVILLE — With the completion of a 0.8-mile strip of the Farmington Canal Heritage Trail in Cheshire, attention has turned to the only remaining gap — a 5.3-mile section in town.
A trail route approved by the Town Council on Feb. 20 is awaiting state funding. Once funds are in place, the engineering phase will begin, including public outreach, surveys and designs.
“I’m thinking that our best estimate for the Farmington Canal Heritage Trail being completed in Connecticut is 2023,” said Bruce Donald, a coordinator with the East Coast Greenway Alliance.
People using the trail overcome the gap by following roads and sidewalks through town, which presents risks for users.
“It does take away from its glamour as a completed through trail,” Donald said.
The Department of Transportation’s project manager, Scott Bushee, said construction will likely be divided into two phases: a section from Town Line Road to Route 372, slated to start in 2022, and a section from Route 372 to Northwest Drive, expected to start after that.
The trail currently ends at Lazy Lane near the Plainville-Southington line.
Unlike most of the rest of the trail, the Plainville portion cannot use rail beds because the rail line in town is still being used.
The proposed trail route is 98 percent off road, but runs along pieces of Broad Street, Pierce Street and North Washington Street.
While public outreach could impact the final route, Bushee expects it will look similar to the one approved by the Town Council.
“I think the (route) that was developed in the planning study is generally what the trail is going to look like,” he said. “The town seems to be very supportive of the alignment.”
While the Town Council was unanimous in its approval of the route, public support was more mixed.
Many opposed the plan because it would pass close to some homes, raising concerns about noise, littering, safety and property values.
Larson must show CT the money for tunnel plan
Greg Bordonaro
In the memorable 1996 film "Jerry Maguire," a cocky Arizona Cardinals wide receiver, Rod Tidwell — played by Cuba Gooding Jr. — repeatedly echoed the phrase, "Show me the money," insisting he get a higher-paying contract.
The phrase has become part of the American lexicon — even being repeated by two former presidents — and has taken on various meanings.
It's relevant today when discussing Congressman John Larson's ambitious plan to bury I-84 and I-91 in tunnels to ease traffic congestion and open up Hartford to the Connecticut River.
Larson originally raised this idea about two years ago, describing it as a potential game-charger for the city and region, arguing it would reconnect Hartford, which has been split for decades by interstate highways, and re-open access to the Connecticut River.
Both are exciting opportunities that would likely lead to new real estate and other positive developments in a city desperate to grow its grand list. But a key question remains: How would Connecticut afford a project with a price tag that ranges anywhere from $10 billion to as high as $50 billion, according to one estimate.
This is where Larson, who insists the federal government should cover a significant portion of the costs, must show Connecticut taxpayers the money.
Larson's tunnel plan is getting new attention after the 10-term Democrat invited Seattle officials to Hartford so they can share their experiences with a recent tunnel project that will reconnect that city with the Puget Sound. However, they brought with them a stark warning: Don't rely too heavily on federal funding.
Seattle officials said their soon-to-open, $3.3 billion highway tunnel project, which will replace an aging viaduct, received federal funding that accounted for only about 25 percent of the total price tag.
If Connecticut saw similar federal support, Larson's tunnel vision would be too costly, particularly at a time when Connecticut's transportation fund is depleted.
Larson, who is on the powerful Ways and Means Committee, insists there is renewed focus on infrastructure investment at the federal level, but we've yet to see any real action.
President Donald Trump made infrastructure investment one of his top campaign pledges, but there's no clear path to actual legislation.
Some say if Democrats take control of the House and Senate this November, it could increase the odds of a major infrastructure investment bill, but even then Connecticut isn't guaranteed any funding.
We must also take into consideration future costs for tunnel maintenance. Too often, we focus on the upfront price tag of a new project, but forget about the costs to maintain it in the future. That's why Connecticut has billions of dollars in unfunded transportation projects, including critical upgrades to aging bridges and highways.
Would a new tunnel system also require highway tolling or other new revenues to help pay for it? The tunnel plan must be discussed in larger context of Connecticut's overall transportation goals and needs.
We applaud Larson for thinking big and bringing the two-tunnel idea back to the table. It's important to fully vet the plan, which could have the added benefit of repairing Harford's and East Hartford's crumbling levees.
(Seattle officials also said their tunnel project has led to $1 billion in new real estate investment as a result of investors buying and renovating properties near the city's soon-to-be defunct viaduct, which is a promising sign for the city of Hartford.)
This conversation comes at a critical juncture, when state transportation officials are moving ahead with plans to replace the aging I-84 viaduct, a project that will undoubtedly be impacted by a tunnel plan.
If Larson can get the federal government to shoulder a large portion of the construction we'd certainly want to learn more.
Until then, Larson's plan will remain a pipe dream.