Keith M. Phaneuf
Southbury — Gov. Ned Lamont pledged Tuesday to slam the brakes on state borrowing, proposing a “debt diet” that could drain significant resources from municipal school construction and capital projects at state universities.
It also would make it difficult in 2020 for Lamont’s fellow Democrats in the legislature to obtain borrowing for small, community-based projects — labeled “pork-barrel spending” by critics — as they run for re-election.
The new governor also warned Tuesday that his first budget proposal, due out in eight days, would not shrink spending as much as he’d hoped, conceding the state’s huge pension and other, related debt is a larger problem than he anticipated.
“It’s not going to make me Mr. Popular. I’m going to have to say no an awful lot,” Lamont told about 250 business leaders and legislators gathered at the Wyndham Southbury hotel for the Waterbury Regional Chamber’s annual legislative summit.
Between 2012 and 2019, the state issued an average of $1.59 billion annually in general obligation bonds. [G.O. bonds are the principal means used to finance capital projects and are repaid with resources from the budget’s general fund, which receives most tax and fee receipts.]
Lamont’s proposed will cap G.O. borrowing at $960 million per year. That is about 50 percent of the new $1.9 billion G.O. bonding cap that legislators from both parties approved in late 2017.
The majority of that $1.59 billion went toward education projects, either to build or renovate local schools or to construct dormitories, classrooms, research labs, and other facilities at the University of Connecticut, the state universities and the community colleges.
For more than two decades Connecticut governors and legislatures have chiefly utilized the state’s credit card to invest in this area.Lamont said this practice will not end — but things will be different.
“There will be some screaming and we don’t have a choice,” the governor said, adding he expects his “debt diet” would reduce the debt service line items in the state budget by about $50 million per year. “We cannot keep paying those accelerating fixed costs.”
Lamont said “we’re going to make sure we continue to do schools, but we’re going to be selective,” adding he expects regional school projects that serve multiple communities would receive high priority for state funding.
“We just hope that the ‘debt diet’ recognizes that municipal infrastructure projects rely heavily on state bond funding,” said Betsy Gara, executive director of the Connecticut Council of Small Towns.
Gara noted certain key grant programs for towns also have been on the decline and that if state bonding for local school construction slips as well, it would intensify pressure on local taxpayers.
The PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) grant, which reimburses communities for a portion of the local tax receipts they lose because certain state and nonprofit properties are tax-exempt, has been on the decline for nearly two decades. Lawmakers also suspended a bulk of a sales-tax-revenue-sharing program with cities and towns just a few years after its enactment.
“We’re hopeful we can work with the governor’s office,” Gara added.
The governor also pledged repeatedly on the campaign trail to help Connecticut’s college students graduate better prepared to take jobs here in the state.
The Board of Regents for Higher Education is preparing to ask Lamont and legislators later this year to launch a new capital program for state universities and community colleges that starts July 1. Lamont said Tuesday he would not abandon investing in higher education, but that tough choices must be made.“We’ve just got to prioritize,” he said. “We’ve put a lot of money into our flagship universities and that’s important. Let’s digest what we’ve done and give us a few years to stabilize our fiscal situation. … We’re not going to rubber-stamp everybody’s bonding requests. I think we’ve done that for a while and that got us in trouble.”
State finances, unless adjusted, are on pace to run $1.5 billion in deficit next fiscal year, and the potential shortfall reaches $2 billion in 2020-21. Lamont’s first budget must include plans to avert both deficits.
“We have engaged in productive conversations with Governor Lamont and his administration and appreciate his commitment to fiscal stability,” said Leigh Appleby, spokesman for the Board of Regents for Higher Education, which oversees the state university and community college systems.”We will continue to work closely to ensure the capital needs of our state colleges and universities are met.”
“UConn has been in constant discussion with the Governor’s office and OPM (Office of Policy and Management) and respects the fiscal challenges they face in creating the new budget,” University of Connecticut spokeswoman Stephanie Reitz said. “The university will work prudently with whatever amount is ultimately allocated for its capital projects.”
Lamont’s proposal does not apply the Special Tax Obligation bonds which are issued to support transportation projects. This borrowing is repaid using the resources of the budget’s Special Transportation Fund, which is supported largely with fuel tax receipts and certain sales tax revenues and specialized fees.
But it would apply to the community-based projects legislators routinely seek every two years when they run for re-election. Lamont’s fellow Democrats, who hold majorities in the House and Senate, are expected to seek considerable state bonding in 2020 to assist their districts.
Though this practice is nothing new, Republican legislators frequently charged that Lamont’s predecessor, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy was far too indulgent in this area.
State finances, unless adjusted, are on pace to run $1.5 billion in deficit next fiscal year, and the potential shortfall reaches $2 billion in 2020-21. Lamont’s first budget must include plans to avert both deficits.“We have engaged in productive conversations with Governor Lamont and his administration and appreciate his commitment to fiscal stability,” said Leigh Appleby, spokesman for the Board of Regents for Higher Education, which oversees the state university and community college systems.”We will continue to work closely to ensure the capital needs of our state colleges and universities are met.”
“UConn has been in constant discussion with the Governor’s office and OPM (Office of Policy and Management) and respects the fiscal challenges they face in creating the new budget,” University of Connecticut spokeswoman Stephanie Reitz said. “The university will work prudently with whatever amount is ultimately allocated for its capital projects.”
Lamont’s proposal does not apply the Special Tax Obligation bonds which are issued to support transportation projects. This borrowing is repaid using the resources of the budget’s Special Transportation Fund, which is supported largely with fuel tax receipts and certain sales tax revenues and specialized fees.
But it would apply to the community-based projects legislators routinely seek every two years when they run for re-election. Lamont’s fellow Democrats, who hold majorities in the House and Senate, are expected to seek considerable state bonding in 2020 to assist their districts.
Though this practice is nothing new, Republican legislators frequently charged that Lamont’s predecessor, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy was far too indulgent in this area.
“Governor Lamont’s comments calling for a ‘debt diet’ are encouraging and long overdue,” said Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano, R-North Haven. “State bonding should only be used for essential functions of government and long term investments that add value to our state. Unfortunately, under the previous administration, Connecticut drifted away from that understanding. … I look forward to continuing this important conversation about how we can invest in Connecticut’s future at the same time we work to better control borrowing and reduce debt.”Is Lamont prepared to be as stringent with borrowing in the 2020 elections as he wants to be this year?“Yes,” the governor replied.
Though Lamont never directly named Malloy in his remarks, the new governor said his review of state finances left him stunned at the recent surge in state borrowing.
“We’ve been on a bonding binge,” Lamont said, adding that “it’s absolutely unsupportable.”
Connecticut routinely ranks among the most indebted states per capita in the nation when it comes to bonded debt. It also outranks most other states in another form of debt — unfunded pension and retirement healthcare obligations.
And Lamont, who took office just one month ago, admitted he underestimated the “fixed cost” problem somewhat.
“I guess the other thing that surprised me a little bit is the scale of the fiscal crisis,” he said. “Maybe I thought that this was an iceberg that was a little over the horizon.”
In actuality, the governor continued, it’s an immediate problem “we’ve got to hit it head-on, right now.”Connecticut’s payments on bonded debt and its annual contributions to pensions and other retirement programs consumed about 10 percent of the budgets’ General Fund two decades ago. Now they eat up about 30 percent.
Lamont said that his new budget would prioritize economic development and new investments in state technology, both of which he hopes would help to stabilize state finances over the long haul.
“It’s going to be real,” he added, “but we’re not going to solve it all in year one.
Bipartisan group of Stamford reps come out against tolls
Ignacio Laguarda
STAMFORD — A contingent of Stamford representatives from across the political spectrum are voicing their displeasure with a proposal to add tolls to the state’s highways.
They introduced a resolution Monday night opposing a toll system. The resolution will be discussed Feb. 21 at the city’s transportation committee.Rep. Steven Kolenberg, a Republican, is one of the co-sponsors on the bill. He said he has joined members of the grassroots group No Tolls CT in the past to protest the idea of adding gantries to Connecticut highways to collect tolls on drivers.
The resolution was co-sponsored by Republican representatives J.R. McMullen, Dennis Mahoney and Bradley Michelson, and Democrats John Zelinsky, Jeffrey Stella, Denis Patterson and Ines Saftic.
State Sen. Alexandra Bergstein, D-36, recently submitted a bill to allow for the return of electronic tolls in the state.
Bergstein’s proposed bill would install tolls on the main highways and set per-mile fees for cars and trucks that are comparable to surrounding states. It would require that the money be deposited in the state’s Special Transportation Fund and in a proposed infrastructure bank. At a meeting in Stamford last month, Bergstein said, “(Interstate) 95 is actually our biggest asset in the state and we haven’t capitalized on it. If and when ... we install electronic tolls, we can start to bring in revenue from other sources, from out-of-state drivers, from people who are willing to pay, who actually want to pay, to get to their destinations faster.”
Her idea is to use funding from the tolls to improve train infrastructure, including a 30-30-30 plan, which seeks to decrease the travel time between Stamford and New York City to 30 minutes, while also decreasing commuter time to 30 minutes from Stamford to New Haven, and from New Haven to Hartford.
Bergstein, a Democrat and Greenwich resident, represents the 36th Senate District, which includes Greenwich and parts of Stamford and New Canaan. She has also argued that funds raised through a toll system could be used to repair crumbling infrastructure throughout the state.The end goal: faster commute times and less time stuck in traffic.
But opponents aren’t so sure tolls are the path to achieving that goal. Kolenberg, for example, isn’t confident the money accrued from the system would be spent wisely on transportation.
“This is just going to wind up hurting regular folks who are going to work,” he said.
Kolenberg added that tolls would send more drivers onto Stamford streets, having a negative impact on local travel.
Many of his concerns have been brought up by protestors in meetings recently hosted by Bergstein.The freshman senator has claimed that the protest, under the name “No Tolls CT,” is part of a Republican plot by former state Sen. Scott Frantz, whom she defeated in the November election, to target her politically.
But for Stella, a Democrat who represents Stamford’s West Side, the toll issue has little to do with party affiliation.
His district is overwhelmingly Democrat, and he said his constituents are very much opposed to tolls.“This is not a Democrat issue. This is not a Republican issue. This is a Stamford issue and a Connecticut issue,” he said. “Everyone is concerned about tolls. It puts a financial burden on people.”
He said a toll system could detract people from traveling into Stamford to go shopping or to eat at one of the city’s many restaurants.
Originally from New York, Stella remembers paying $300 in tolls every month for a mere 10-mile commute.
“When you talk about tolls, it scares me,” he said. “It could start at a small price, but where are we in 10 years?”
Consultants should calculate Walk Bridge costs to local businesses, residents
A recent article in The Norwalk Hour on the billion dollar Walk Bridge replacement aka “Boondoggle Bridge” neglected to ask why Mayor Rilling refuses to hire consultants to estimate the very substantial costs to city businesses, residents and the city itself from the years of construction required to build this bridge, including shutting down and rebuilding our Aquarium that draws half a million visitors yearly.
Why is Mayor Rilling so reluctant to provide citizens estimates of the costs of building a bridge that provides absolutely no economic benefit to Norwalk? Some cost estimates are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Is it just a matter of “taking orders from Hartford?” Or something else?
Peter I. Berman
Norwalk
Manchester seeks Parkade makeover partner
Gregory Seay
After years of contemplation and delay, the town of Manchester appears ready to finally get underway with redevelopment of 23 town-owned acres that were once a thriving commercial hub.
The Manchester Redevelopment Agency has extended a request for proposals (RFP), inviting potential private development partners to submit their vision, development credentials, and financial ability to remake the former Manchester Parkade, a 23-acre tract that co-anchors the town's Broad Street commercial corridor.
The town razed the buildings that once occupied the 23 acres to make way for redevelopment.
According to the bid specifications, the town is offering its winning co-partner, among other things, negotiated land sale prices or land lease arrangements; tax increment financing; tax assessment agreements, access to public financing through revenue bonds and/or leftover general obligation bond funds from the town's redevelopment bond issue; use of Community Development Block Grant funds; as well as assistance in applying for state or federal grants or development loans.
In addition, the town may make additional nearby land available for redevelopment. Also nearby is a Stop & Shop Supermarket and Parkade Cinemas.
In exchange, the town wants a stake in the development partnership.
The 23-acre parcel -- consisting of 296, 324, 220, 334 and 340 Broad St. -- is situated within a federally designated "opportunity zone'' (OZ), meaning it can be developed with tax-qualified funds from qualified taxpayers seeking to shield some or all of their capital gains from federal taxes. Connecticut has 72 OZs statewide.
"The town is seeking a high quality development that will bring vitality and drive new investment to the Broad Street redevelopment area,'' according to the RFP, outlining the town's goals for the redevelopment partnership. "We encourage creative proposals supported by market conditions that achieve the redevelopment plan's vision for a dense, vibrant, economically anchored vision, as outlined in the plan and this document. Alternative concepts and uses will be considered as long as they meet the general vision of the plan and generate significant economic activity."
Emailed questions about the RFP are due to Adam Tulin, Manchester's director of general services, (gensvcs@manchesterct.gov) no later than April 25. Answers will be addressed in an addendum issued on the town's website.
The RFP submission deadline is 4 p.m. on May 16.
Public input sought on Naugatuck River Greenway Trail
Ben Lambert
Harwinton, Litchfield, Thomaston and Torrington residents can review and provide feedback on prospective locations and plans for the Naugatuck River Greenway Trail during a series of upcoming public meetings.
Project partners and community leaders will be on hand for the meetings, which will be held on Feb. 28 at Thomaston Town Hall, March 6 at the Harwinton Town Hall, and March 7 at the Litchfield Community Center. All meetings will begin at 5:30 p.m., with an informal opportunity to view maps and talk to project staff. A formal presentation will begin at 6 p.m. and will be followed by a question and answer period and a review of specific comments with residents.
The public outreach follows more than one year of studying potential Naugatuck River Greenway Trail routing options between Torrington and Thomaston. The purpose of the NRG Torrington to Thomaston Comprehensive Routing Study, being conducted by BSC Group of Glastonbury, CT is to inventory potential routes and rank them with stakeholder and public input with the goal of selecting a final preferred route with broad consensus. BSC will also provide phasing recommendations and preliminary construction cost estimates of the preferred route to help municipalities plan for future construction and prepare for potential funding opportunities.
The Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments (NVCOG), in partnership with the Northwest Hills Council of Governments (NHCOG), received a Transit Oriented Development and Smart Growth grant from the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management (OPM) to conduct the study. The NVCOG and NHCOG are overseeing the project.
The project area spans approximately 11 miles of the Naugatuck Valley from Bogue Road in Torrington to a section of trail under design adjacent to the Water Pollution Control facility on Old Waterbury Road in Thomaston. During the past year, BSC and project partners inventoried all potential trail routes along with points of interest and environmental constraints along the way, and documented property ownership and stakeholder preferences and concerns. This information has been used to narrow down prospective routes to those that are most feasible. Now, public input is being solicited to help determine what route should ultimately be built when funding is secured.
Stakeholders have been involved throughout the project including chief elected officials and staff from the municipalities of Torrington, Litchfield, Harwinton and Thomaston along with representatives from the US Army Corps of Engineers, NVCOG, NHCOG, the Naugatuck River Greenway Steering Committee, The Railroad Museum of New England, and several property owners along the route.
The NRG corridor has been officially designated as a greenway by the CT Greenways Council and the CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP). The entire greenway trail is identified as a trail of statewide significance in the Connecticut Recreational Trails Plan, and was designated as one of101 America’s Great Outdoors projects in 2011 by the U. S. Department of the Interior. An Economic Impact Study conducted by NVCOG in 2017 estimated that there would be substantial economic, health and community benefits of constructing the trail.
The overall planned NRG trail route will follow the river for 44 miles, bringing it through parts of Torrington, Litchfield, Harwinton, Thomaston, Watertown, Waterbury, Naugatuck, Beacon Falls, Seymour, Ansonia and Derby. To date, trail sections have been constructed in Torrington, Watertown, Naugatuck, Beacon Falls, Seymour, Ansonia and Derby.
“We really want to hear what the public envisions for the NRG Trail,” said Bill Paille, Transportation Engineer at BSC Group. “We want to be sure that the preferred route meets each community’s long term needs and that the investments made are well-spent and provide the most benefit to residents.”