Democrats push highway tolls over first hurdle
Ken Dixon
HARTFORD — In a stark contrast between the two political parties, majority Democrats on a key committee Wednesday hammered through three toll-related bills.
The trio of party-line votes of the Transportation Committee started at about 4:45 and finished by 5:15, after about three hours of partisan debate. The related bills will give legislative leaders and Gov. Ned Lamont a variety of tolling options for final talks heading toward the early June adjournment date.
“These are ideas and thoughts we want to put on the table,” said Rep. Roland Lemar, D-New Haven, co-chairman of the committee, stressing the need for a steady funding source for infrastructure improvements. “Wherever you are in the state of Connecticut you’re likely to go over a bridge that’s rated below-average.”
“This is only the starting point of budget negotiations,” said Sen. Carlo Leone, D-Stamford, the other co-chairman of the committee, stressing that exact details of the tolling plan, which likely could not go into effect until around 2022, might not be finalized until federal officials review an overall plan.After the vote, Lamont said that tolls are better for the state’s fiscal health.
“Borrowing billions of dollars while saddling our kids and grandkids with decades of debt isn’t a path forward,” Lamont said in a statement. “A reliable, sustainable revenue source — 40 percent of which will be paid for by people who don’t even live here — is necessary to make the infrastructure investment we need to get our state growing again.”
The general plan is to install electronic equipment along Interstates-91,95 and 84, as well as the Merritt and Wilbur Cross parkways, at a cost to drivers of up to 6 cents per mile, to generate up to $1 billion annually. “I believe the entire Legislature should weigh in on this,” Leone said, stressing his interest in getting all bills out of the committee.
The sometimes contentious, afternoon-long meeting included surprise visits from the two top GOP leaders, who argued with the two Democratic co-chairmen over the kind of options that Republicans have offered on infrastructure investments.
“There’s not enough revenue for us to pay for all the transportation projects,” said Leone, who riled up Republicans when he complained that the GOP hadn’t offered alternative ways to fund the state’s transportation needs.
That prompted both House Minority Leader Themis Klarides, R-Derby, and Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano, R-North Haven to walk into the first-floor meeting room in the Legislative Office Building and request rare opportunities to address the panel.“The reality is the Democrats are in the majority in this building,” Klarides said. “I understand this is an issue that people feel strongly about in both directions. And I know we have gotten heated and will continue to get heated in regards to what we think is right for this state.”
Both lawmakers pointed out the Republicans’ alternative proposals that include $2 billion in transit investments, and pointed out that their proposals date back to 2017, when a Republican budget that won enough Democratic votes for passage, was successfully vetoed by then-Gov. Dannel P. Malloy.Even some Democrats on the committee were not pleased with the form of the bills, which do not include language supported by Lamont that would give breaks to low-income residents and commuters. Democrats criticized a section that would take final action out of the hands of the General Assembly.
Sen. Derek Slap, D-West Hartford, said that lawmakers owe it to state residents to vote on the final form the toll system might take.
“It’s a real concern to the people of the state of Connecticut,” said Rep. Laura Devlin, R-Fairfield, ranking member of the committee, citing a petition with 86,000 signatures of people opposed to the re-institution of highway tolls 33 years after the state’s last toll plaza was taken down.
But Democrats, with a hefty 23-13 majority, easily flexed their muscle.“This is an economic imperative for the state of Connecticut,” said Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-Westport. “We’re putting the entire state’s economy at risk.”
“State government in my opinion has played a shell game with the tax money of hard-working citizens,” countered Rep. Brenda Kupchick, R-Fairfield.
The Transportation Committee acted the day after a federal judge in Rhode Island ordered an appeal of that state’s trucks-only highway toll program to start at a lower court.
While lawmakers on the 36-member committee were engaged in their respective closed-door caucuses, Lamont earlier Wednesday told the annual statewide gather of hundreds of members of the Connecticut Business and Industry Association that he’s nearly forced to push for electronic tolls.
He asked for the help from the business community to push legislation through the General Assembly.
“I’ve got to have an honest conversation with people,” Lamont said during a half-hour appearance in the Legislative Office Building. “I can’t find a credible alternative to make the investments we need going forward. I need the business community to step up.”
Lamont said during recent discussions with Standard & Poor’s, which led to the upgrade this week in the state’s bond rating, the issue of paying for infrastructure improvements was paramount. “We need a new independent source of revenue that’s reliable and predictable that goes to transportation,” Lamont said.
Borrowing further for infrastructure projects, he said, would be “disastrous” financially.
During the closed door caucuses, four anti-toll activists stood in front of the first-floor meeting room where Democrats were reviewing legislation. Hilary Gunn, of Greenwich, clad in a knit “No Tolls” hat, said that her third journey to the State Capitol this year would be worth it, if the legislation were turned down by lawmakers “I strongly believe we’re already paying for our roads,” Gunn said in an interview, who believes the state’s revenue stream has enough to pay for road, highway and trail improvements.
While during last fall’s election campaign Lamont said he would propose trucks-only tolls to bring in an estimated $200 million a year in new revenue, upon taking office he expanded the proposal to include all vehicles, stressing that with 40 percent of the state’s highway traffic coming from out-of-state.
Bridgeport to rebid sidewalk contract over FBI probe
Brian Lockhart
BRIDGEPORT — The city has halted a two-year-old sidewalk repair program to review and rebid the contract awarded to a company recently named in a federal subpoena.
“It was a good decision,” said City Council President Aidee Nieves.
As of last week, Council members were preparing to authorize G. Pic and Sons Construction to perform another round of sidewalk work, even though G. Pic in February was named in a federal subpoena of municipal documents.The city recently halted upgrades to Fairfield Avenue in Black Rock because Vaz Quality Works, which won that bid, was also named in the subpoena.
Nieves had previously said that G. Pic would be allowed to complete a pending list of 38 repairs because the city could be legally liable should a pedestrian trip and injure themselves at those locations. The council’s Public Safety Committee on March 5 approved that work, totaling $182,586.
But when the pending project list came before the full council Monday for a vote, members sent it back to committee for further discussion.
Councilwoman Michelle Lyons, who co-chairs Public Safety, cited “the controversy with the subpoenas” as one reason more discussion was needed.
The FBI over the winter launched an ongoing criminal probe into anonymous allegations of illicit scrap metal sales and potential contract-steering by Department of Public Facilities employees. Neither G. Pic nor Vaz have been accused of wrongdoing, but the FBI subpoenaed four year’s worth of documents and communications from the city involving those companies plus Seaview Equipment, started by the Vaz family, as part of the investigation.
Lyons added that questions have also been raised over the costs of the sidewalk work, which, since 2017 have been split with residents as part of a 50/50 cost-sharing initiative under Mayor Joe Ganim to overhaul hazardous walkways.
The majority of the properties on the current list of 38 repairs would be charged in the $1,500 to $3,500 range. A few are closer to $6,000 and $9,000, with Success Village Apartments responsible for $75,627 worth of sidewalk upgrades.
Councilwoman Eneida Martinez, a Public Safety Committee member, said the sidewalk program “was to benefit homeowners in a hardship who cannot afford a sidewalk.” She also said she believes the estimates her constituents in the lower income East End have received from the city and G. Pic are too expensive.
“We’re looking to remove G. Pic as the contractor and put this back out to bid,” Martinez said.“I think the correct and right thing to do (is) look at the contract and rebid it,” Lyons said.
No end date
The city set aside $3 million dollars for the experimental 50/50 sidewalk repair program, which was being overseen by former Public Facilities Director Jose Tiago. Ganim recently fired Tiago for unspecified wrong-doing following an internal review of the scrap metal scandal.
Tiago’s union is fighting the termination and Tiago has also hired a criminal defense attorney.
According to municipal documents obtained by Hearst Connecticut Media, G. Pic, Vaz and Anthony Julian Railroad Construction Company bid on the sidewalk contract in late 2016. Vaz was rejected for failing to submit all of the necessary paperwork.
In an Oct. 20, 2016, memorandum, Public Facilities Director John Ricci wrote that G. Pic and Anthony Julian were the two “lowest, responsive, responsible bidders” and would receive a two-year contract, with the possibility of a one-year extension.
Anthony Julian, however, never participated.
“They went out of business,” Ricci said Wednesday. “G. Pic emerged as the only qualified bidder.”
But contrary to Ricci’s 2016 memorandum, the sidewalk contract awarded G. Pic makes no mention of expiring after two years. Instead the document remains in effect “until the services are completed .. or until the earlier termination of this agreement.”
Ricci said Wednesday there was “no end date in the contract.” He said he did not know why the wording was different from his recommendation, but that the contract would have been drafted by the city’s Legal and Purchasing departments.
With more than $2.45 million of the $3 million budgeted for the sidewalks remaining, G. Pic could, conceivably, keep working until that amount was spent down.
Council members are citing another section of the sidewalk contract which specifies the city “may terminate for convenience.”“The city can end it at any time,” Martinez said.Although the Public Safety Committee has not reconvened on the sidewalks, Ricci said he is already working with the Purchasing Department on a rebid. He said he hoped to attract three qualified contractors who could divvy up the future work.
And, Ricci added, there is nothing preventing G. Pic from submitting a new bid.
Martinez said she would also like residents to have the option of finding their own contractor, then splitting the costs with the city.
Ricci said the council would need to amend the rules of the 50/50 program to allow it.
“We have people saying, ‘Geez, I could get my own (contractor) and get a better price,” Ricci said. “Perhaps it’s more fair to let them.”
DOT pushes Wallingford bridge completion date to 2022
Lauren Takores
WALLINGFORD — State officials have pushed the expected completion date of the Center Street Bridge replacement to 2022.
That inspired Vinny Ianuzzi, owner of Vinny's Deli, to run a free sandwich promotion for customers who allow employees to film them singing "Bridge Over Troubled Water."
Ianuzzi, whose business is located next to the bridge at 576 Center St. (Route 150), said he plans to post the videos online, part of a campaign to grab the attention of legislators.
The promotion underscores how long it’s taking to finish the project. Construction began in 2016.
“It’s ridiculous,” Ianuzzi said. “The Q Bridge was done in nine years, and this is going to take seven years?”
Construction is expected to resume by May 1 after the annual “winter shutdown” ends, said Kevin Nursick, state Department of Transportation spokesman.
Before that, however, work had been stopped for more than a year as DOT engineers assessed the stability of the bridge and modified the existing plan.
“I’m a guy who doesn’t like money being wasted,” Ianuzzi said, “and that’s what’s being done out here.”
The DOT, which is responsible for maintenance because Route 150 is a state road, previously rated the century-old bridge over Wharton Brook structurally deficient and recommended replacement.
“Bridges generally have a life expectancy,” Nursick said, and “will naturally deteriorate over time… Clearly this was not going to be a bridge suitable for rehabilitation.”
The project calls for a concrete deck over a steel girder superstructure supported by concrete abutments resting on bedrock. The new bridge will be about 13 feet longer and 1 foot wider than the old bridge, with sidewalks.
The bridge replacement is being done in two phases to maintain traffic flow. Cars were pushed to the south side, and the north side of the bridge was demolished.
Construction delays began when the contractor, New Haven-based C.J. Fucci, raised concerns that demolition work on the abutments could destabilize the support structure.
“The abutments could be unstable with heavy construction activity in direct proximity,” Nursick said. “Pounding, digging and smashing potentially could upset the ground and existing bridge abutments, or the foundations, that traffic is using right now.”
DOT found the bridge was stable but the plan needed to be redesigned. Adjustments include installing bracing on the bridge as well as micro-piles, which are “reinforcements installed into the ground,” he said.
Nursick said the changes will add about $2 million over the original cost estimate of $3.9 million.
Ianuzzi said he thinks the DOT is “crying ‘safety.’”
“If you were so concerned about safety, wouldn’t you want to finish this thing quick?” he said.
Nursick said DOT has taken “somewhat extreme measures.”
“Folks that see it every day are saying, ‘what is going on here,’ and I can certainly understand that,” Nursick said, “but we’re doing our best to shepherd the project and do our best to get it squared away.”
Bill allows EW casino
Eric Bedner
The Tribal Winds Casino in East Windsor and a proposed gambling facility in Bridgeport got the backing of a legislative committee Tuesday, but the measures are far from done with debate.
Members of the Public Safety and Security Committee passed the proposals on to the General Assembly, along with two others that would permit sports betting and allow the purchase of lottery tickets online.
The Tribal Winds bill eliminates the requirement for approval by the U.S. Department of the Interior, which would enable the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan tribes to begin construction in East Windsor.
While the General Assembly approved the Tribal Winds Casino last year, approval has stalled in Washington, D.C., preventing the tribes from constructing the satellite facility.
"I think legislators on the committee were persuaded that the federal review process of the East Windsor application was at the very least unfair, and perhaps even criminal, considering that the Justice Department is now reportedly investigating Ryan Zinke, the former Interior Department secretary who was in charge of reviewing the application," said Sen. Catherine A. Osten, D-Sprague,. "It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that something was terribly amiss with that process."
Osten, who introduced the bill, believes the Justice Department's investigation breathed life into her proposal in Connecticut.
"Now it's up to the full General Assembly to push it over the finish line so we can get to work on a new building and more jobs," she said.
Rep. Kurt Vail, R-Stafford, initially had reservations about allowing the tribes to build on private property, but he noted that the legislature approved it and the tribes have spent millions of dollars to prepare for construction, and he said the state should honor its commitment.
Under the casino open-bid bill, which was raised with the hope that MGM Resorts International would build a gambling facility in Bridgeport, the Department of Consumer Protection would develop and issue a request for proposals to qualify an entity to build a resort casino facility in the state. Tribal officials have said the bill's approval in the full legislature would immediately result in the state losing hundreds of millions of dollars in annual shared revenue.
The tribes have an exclusivity agreement with the state covering Connecticut's only casinos, Foxwoods Resort Casino and the Mohegan Sun.
If an RFP for a new casino were approved, the winning bidder would be required to contribute $8 million each year to the chosen municipality, along with additional revenue to surrounding towns.
Also Tuesday, committee members approved various bills that would allow sports gambling, online sports betting, and other forms of internet gambling, including purchasing lottery draw game tickets.
In its current form, the sports betting proposals would prohibit gambling on in-state collegiate events.
Rep. Craig Fishbein, R-Wallingford, objected to sports betting, with his primary concern being the potential for the integrity of sporting events to be compromised. He added that he believes the legislature would not consider the issue if it weren't for revenue.
"It seems to me this is all about money," he said. "I don't see this being of benefit to our state other than monetarily, and I think that's wrong."
Sen. Stephen T. Cassano, D-Manchester, who has been a proponent of allowing sports betting since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that states could legalize the industry, said people will gamble regardless of whether it's legal.
"We want a piece of the action," he said.
Sen. Daniel A. Champagne, R-Vernon, opposed several gambling bills due to concerns about the ability to make bets or purchase lottery tickets with credit or debit cards.
"My fear is that we're going to see quite a bit of that," he said. "I think it can get out of control. … Buying lottery tickets on credit shouldn't happen.
Committee members also voted to establish a Commission on Gaming and transfer oversight of gambling in the state from the Department of Consumer Protection to the new commission.
The expectation is that there would be 35 people moved from the consumer agency to manage the three-member commission, without any added cost to the state.
Critics argue that three people shouldn't be given the power to determine the future of gambling in the state.
Rep. Patrick S. Boyd, D-Pomfret, said he would prefer that Gov. Ned Lamont develop a comprehensive gambling plan that would have to be approved by the legislature.
Boyd said his concern is that the governor is having private discussions with the tribes to work out what can move forward without violating the state's exclusivity agreements, while lawmakers are taking action on bills that could jeopardize revenue from the existing casinos.
In addition to the multiple proposals to expand gambling, committee members also voted to fund programs to combat compulsive gambling and to study the effects of legalized gambling.