Jeff Mill
PORTLAND — State transportation officials are defending their decision to hire an engineering firm to oversee repairs to the Arrigoni Bridge.
The company, Figg Bridge Group, was involved in a pedestrian bridge project in Florida that collapsed in 2018, killing six people and injuring eight others.
In June, Tallahassee, Fla.-based Figg was chosen to oversee Phase Two of the Arrigoni Bridge repair project, according to Kevin J. Nursick, a spokesman for the state Department of Transportation.
The $40 million project involves repairing and replacing structural steel supports beneath the approaches of the 71-year-old structure which links Middletown and Portland.
Following the announcement — and a related story in the Hartford Courant — a Portland resident contacted Portland First Selectwoman Susan S. Bransfield, expressing concern about the selection of Figg.
Bransfield in turn reached out to State Sen. Norm Needleman, D-Essex, and Rep. Christie Carpino, R-Cromwell.
The two legislators drafted a letter to DOT Commissioner Joseph Giulietti questioning Figg’s “work record.”Figg attracted national attention when a pedestrian overpass it had installed on the campus of Florida International University in Miami collapsed onto a heavily traveled roadway below.
“Based on the company’s past safety record, we have some serious concerns about Figg ... performing these improvements,” Needleman and Carpino said.
Nursick Monday said the DOT is drafting a response to the two legislators. He said the company was chosen in “a merit-based competition” to provide “quality assurance.”
“They’re being hired to oversee the construction contractor,” which has not yet been chosen, he said.
“We have absolute confidence in them,” he added.
As she awaits DOT’s response, Carpino said “the safety of Connecticut residents is and will continue to be our first priority.”
“A tragedy occurred in Florida, and we want to ensure that another one doesn’t happen here,” she said Monday. “I am looking to the DOT to provide further information to confirm that this is the appropriate contractor for this project.”
Nursick said Figg has been involved in a number of high-profile projects in Connecticut, including construction of the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge Bridge in New Haven and the recent upgrade of the southbound Gold Star Memorial Bridge over the Thames River linking Groton and New London.
It relied on a process known as accelerated bridge construction, in which the bridge is assembled and then put in place as an essentially finished product rather than being built in stages over the roadway.
FIU was involved in both aspects of the project and favored the Figg design because it was out of the ordinary, according to reports.
In a detailed report in May, the Miami Herald reported that despite what it described as “severe cracking” at the northern end of the concrete pedestrian bridge, Figg officials insisted the bridge was safe.
They did so, the Herald reported, at a meeting with FIU and Florida Department of Transportation officials on March 15, 2018.
Three hours after the meeting adjourned, the bridge collapsed.
Make my day: Lamont threatens to adopt GOP transportation plan: Red Jahncke
Red Jahncke
Gov. Ned Lamont is threatening to implement Republicans’ debt-financed transportation proposal, “Prioritize Progress,” if General Assembly Democrats don’t approve his tolls-funded transportation initiative. So the team captain tells his squad that, if they don’t follow his lead, he’ll defect to the opposing team? Strange.
On June 26th, The CT Mirror online newspaper reported that Lamont is threatening to reduce non-transportation borrowing and increase transportation borrowing, if the General Assembly doesn’t approve tolls.
To all Republicans and many Democrats in the Assembly and to the legions of Connecticut residents opposed to tolls, that’s a “make-my-day” threat, as in Clint Eastwood’s famous words in the movie “Dirty Harry.”The Mirror reported that Lamont would “consider shifting more borrowing capacity away from non-transportation initiatives to support Connecticut’s highways, bridges and rails. Lamont said ‘We cannot afford to do a lot of these other items if we put all that money into transportation.’”Why are so many people opposed to tolls? Because anyone who’s followed the tolls saga and who knows anything about the state’s finances understands that toll receipts would never be used for transportation. While toll receipts themselves would be deposited in the Special Transportation Fund (per federal law), an equal amount of other funds that are supposed to go to the STF, would not be deposited.How do we know that other funds would be diverted from the STF? Because that’s exactly what Lamont is doing right now. He is diverting into the General Fund the car sales tax revenue that his Democrat predecessor, Dannel P. Malloy, dedicated to the STF. He promises not to divert these funds after the two years of the current budget — in 2022 and beyond. Yeah, sure. See “Lamont’s Roads All Lead to Tolls,” June 27, 2019, in this newspaper.Lamont seems manifestly oblivious to the contradiction between what he’s promising and what he is doing, between the transportation plan he thinks he is advocating and the plan he is accidentally endorsing.
In his apparent befuddlement, not only is Lamont endorsing the GOP’s plan for transportation, but also he is endorsing the very concept embodied in the name of the GOP plan: If we have a transportation crisis, as everyone agrees we do, then transportation should be prioritized. Borrowing for “other items” should be reduced drastically, and bonding for highways and rails should be increased dramatically.
Moreover, if we have a current transportation crisis, we should address it immediately with bonding right now, rather than waiting five years for tolls receipts to materialize (and, in the meantime, using up the state’s remaining borrowing capacity to fund spending on “other items”).
The Hartford Courant just reported that Democrat leaders in the Assembly are scheduling a legislative session on Monday, July 22nd, to approve an annual package of bonded debt to be issued to pay for municipal construction projects (aka “other items”), something the Assembly should have passed during the regular session, but didn’t.
The Courant quotes Senate President Pro Tem Martin Looney, D-New Haven, as saying that this year “money in the bond package would likely be set aside ‘in large pots’ for cities and towns in various categories ‘rather than cluttering up the bill with a lot of specific earmarks.’”
One has to wonder why the change from “specific earmarks” to “large pots.” The likely reason is to enable Lamont and Democrat leaders to “conduct business” in secret, namely to threaten to withhold approval of projects in districts of Democrats opposed to tolls, and to carry out the threat if they don’t capitulate. If projects were earmarked, and, then, it would be easy to compare a legislator’s vote on tolls to the fate of earmarked projects in his or her district, leading inevitably to pointed questioning. Obviously, Lamont, Looney, House Speaker Joseph Aresimowicz, D-Berlin, and other Democrat leaders don’t want to face such questions.
Assembly Democrats opposed to tolls should join Republicans in rejecting the “large-pots” approach in order to escape the squeeze play that Lamont, Looney and Aresimowicz are planning to corral their votes for Lamont’s ill-considered tolls plan.
The overall picture offers delicious irony. Lamont is threatening to implement GOP policy — “Prioritize Progress” — in order to force some Democrats to vote for Democrat policy. It is even more paradoxical that, in issuing the threat, Lamont is articulating the very reasons that the GOP plan is superior to his own tolls plan, namely that the GOP plan genuinely prioritizes transportation over “other items” and that it offers an immediate solution rather than one five years away.
Berlin residents fighting proposed housing project
Adam Hushin
BERLIN - The room was packed to capacity for the Planning and Zoning public hearing about proposed developments at Pistol Creek.
Rio Vista Associates LLC submitted an affordable housing application to build luxury rental apartments with 319 units off of Atkins Street on the property known as Pistol Creek before the board on Thursday.
The first comments were heard from Mayor Mark H. Kaczynski who expressed his and the Town Council’s opposition to the plan. Their reasons for opposition are the following:
1. “The proposed zoning text and map amendment authorize a development that violates the Stipulated Judgment, Settlement Agreement, and Restrictive Covenant.”
2. “Without the Town’s consent, the applicant lacks standing to apply for this application.”
3. “The public interest in upholding settlements and stipulated judgments outweighs the need for affordable housing provided by this proposal.”
4. “The factors set forth in the Town Planner and Regional Planning reports are substantial public interests that outweigh the need for affordable housing that would be provided by construction of the proposal at this location.”
Citizens from both Berlin and Middletown volunteered to speak in front of the commission. Everyone that spoke was in opposition of the proposal.
“I want to see this denied,” Phil Dutkiewicz of Berlin said, citing a need for commercial property rather than relying on more residential spaces for tax income.
Another Berlin resident, Art Powers, brought up the number of children the development would add to the public schools, creating a need for more funding.
The Berlin residents were joined by several residents of Middletown who live near the property. All of them feared the increased traffic would cause more accidents in the area. The most passionate words came from Hubbard School Principal Al Souza, who wanted to make the distinction that he was there speaking simply as another citizen of Berlin.
“This has to do with greed and nothing to do with what benefits the town,” Souza said.
Souza even turned to the developer and his team and spoke directly to them. “If this was your town, you would be back there in those seats arguing our point,” he said.
A few speakers also noted that this issue was being combated by a crowd including people from different generations and differing political parties.
“When has everyone in Berlin ever agreed on something?” Souza said.
Chairwoman Joan Veley did her best to keep the crowd quiet as the meeting proceeded. Town Planner Marek Kozikowski raised several questions based on the last public hearing that took place on June 6.
Kozikowski stated that the proposed plan falls short on providing enough parking, does not accurately estimate the amount of students the development would bring and has a significant negative effect on the habitat area.
Rio Vista Associates is a subdivision of Krame Development Company, Inc. based in New Jersey.
Founder and President of Krame Development, William Krame, attended Thursday’s meeting to appeal to the commission, and tried to clarify his position in front of the gathering of citizens.
“I’m not going to change anyone’s minds, but facts are facts,” Krame said.
Krame went on to counter some of the points made earlier, including the unwillingness to add more students to the public schools by noting that school registration in Berlin is currently down 15%
The attorney representing Rio Vista Associates, Robert Berchem, then made a case that was peppered with threats and insults.
“You will take it into consideration at your own peril,” Berchem said, having already threatened legal action twice.
At one point, Chairwoman Veley reprimanded Berchem, telling him not to continue making rude remarks.
The meeting lasted almost three hours, but was finally adjourned with the commission having 65 days to announce its decision.
Lamont would ease ‘debt diet’ in final push for highway tolls
Keith M. Phaneuf, The Connecticut Mirror
Gov. Ned Lamont is making a final push to salvage tolls this year and its success could hinge on the limit he and lawmakers set on Connecticut's credit card.
The governor is asking fellow Democrats to consider a scaled-back proposal that would place tolls only in strategic locations — such as aging bridges.
Though full details of the plan were not available late Monday, it would be part of a larger proposal that also would involve Lamont easing up on his planned "debt diet" and accepting about $300 million in additional borrowing in each of the next two fiscal years.
But some of that extra bonding, about $100 million per year, would have to be dedicated to transportation projects.
Senate Democrats have been more wary of tolls than their House counterparts.
But while Senate President Pro Tem Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven, stopped short of endorsing any new proposal, he did say these elements collectively "point us in the direction of a hybrid compromise" that is at least worthy of further discussion.
House Speaker Joe Aresimowicz, D-Berlin, who supports tolls on major highways, said the administration's willingness to compromise on tolls and borrowing is "a positive step," adding that "I would be willing to make whatever compromises necessary to come up with a long-term plan to fund our transportation needs."
Lamont urged lawmakers in February to slam the brakes on state borrowing, recommending slightly less than $1 billion in new general obligation bonding for each of the next two fiscal years.
General obligation bonds are the principal means used to finance municipal school construction, state building upgrades, and other capital projects and are repaid from the budget's general fund.
Connecticut's bonded indebtedness per capita ranks among the highest of all states. Between 2012 and 2019, it issued an average of $1.59 billion annually in general obligation bonds.
But Office of Policy and Management Secretary Melissa McCaw, Lamont's budget director, wrote to legislators last week indicating the administration would consider the $1.3 billion per year in general obligation bonding proposed by Democrats.
One condition, though, is that $100 million of this bonding would be used in each of the next two years for transportation projects.
This would be in addition to the usual $800 million in annual borrowing for transportation that is repaid from the budget's Special Transportation Fund, which is supported chiefly with fuel tax receipts.
Another condition, according to Looney, is that legislators accept a scaled-back tolling plan. Looney praised the administration's flexibility Monday on a higher bonding limit, saying "our caucus would view that as a positive move."
Colleen Flanagan Johnson, Lamont's senior policy adviser, said Monday that "the governor is encouraged that his focus on improving our state's transportation system — and economy — is one that is shared by legislative leaders as well."
Johnson added that "while there's no formal agreement in place at this time, informal discussions have been productive and continue to move in the direction of a concrete solution to our transportation woes."
Combining $800 million in traditional transportation bonding with $100 million in general obligation bonds — as well as about $700 million in annual federal grants — would provide about $1.6 billion per year to rebuild highways, bridges and rail lines.
State transportation officials have said Connecticut should be pumping more than $2 billion per year into its aging, overcrowded system.
That's why Lamont had been pushing legislators to consider tolling on four major highways: Interstates 84, 91 and 95 and the Merritt Parkway. This would raise an estimated $800 million extra per year Connecticut could use to rebuild its infrastructure.
It's unclear how much the scaled-back proposal the Lamont administration has been exploring would raise.
Republicans in the House and Senate have been unanimous in their opposition to tolls.
And Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano, R-North Haven, said Monday that any scaled-back tolls proposal still would be problematic.
Any initial plan to toll select areas could be expanded and rates could be raised, he said. "I don't think that's going to make any of my caucus members more comfortable," he said. "This is a save-face move to the long-term detriment of the state's transportation system."
The GOP alternative, called "Prioritize Progress," avoids tolls and instead redirects bonding to transportation that is currently used for school construction, capital programs at state universities and economic development.
But instead of redirecting $100 million in general obligation bonds per year into transportation, as Lamont has proposed in his latest compromise, Prioritize Progress would shift $600 million or more annually.
Fired Hartford ballpark developers push back in court against jury’s verdict that city’s termination was justified
The filings argue that even though Centerplan CEO Robert A. Landino owns all of Centerplan and some part of DoNo, that “does not provide a basis for the court to conclude as a matter of law that he had operational control of both entities.”The first comments were heard from Mayor Mark H. Kaczynski who expressed his and the Town Council’s opposition to the plan. Their reasons for opposition are the following:
1. “The proposed zoning text and map amendment authorize a development that violates the Stipulated Judgment, Settlement Agreement, and Restrictive Covenant.”
2. “Without the Town’s consent, the applicant lacks standing to apply for this application.”
3. “The public interest in upholding settlements and stipulated judgments outweighs the need for affordable housing provided by this proposal.”
4. “The factors set forth in the Town Planner and Regional Planning reports are substantial public interests that outweigh the need for affordable housing that would be provided by construction of the proposal at this location.”
Citizens from both Berlin and Middletown volunteered to speak in front of the commission. Everyone that spoke was in opposition of the proposal.
“I want to see this denied,” Phil Dutkiewicz of Berlin said, citing a need for commercial property rather than relying on more residential spaces for tax income.
Another Berlin resident, Art Powers, brought up the number of children the development would add to the public schools, creating a need for more funding.
The Berlin residents were joined by several residents of Middletown who live near the property. All of them feared the increased traffic would cause more accidents in the area. The most passionate words came from Hubbard School Principal Al Souza, who wanted to make the distinction that he was there speaking simply as another citizen of Berlin.
“This has to do with greed and nothing to do with what benefits the town,” Souza said.
Souza even turned to the developer and his team and spoke directly to them. “If this was your town, you would be back there in those seats arguing our point,” he said.
A few speakers also noted that this issue was being combated by a crowd including people from different generations and differing political parties.
“When has everyone in Berlin ever agreed on something?” Souza said.
Chairwoman Joan Veley did her best to keep the crowd quiet as the meeting proceeded. Town Planner Marek Kozikowski raised several questions based on the last public hearing that took place on June 6.
Kozikowski stated that the proposed plan falls short on providing enough parking, does not accurately estimate the amount of students the development would bring and has a significant negative effect on the habitat area.
Rio Vista Associates is a subdivision of Krame Development Company, Inc. based in New Jersey.
Founder and President of Krame Development, William Krame, attended Thursday’s meeting to appeal to the commission, and tried to clarify his position in front of the gathering of citizens.
“I’m not going to change anyone’s minds, but facts are facts,” Krame said.
Krame went on to counter some of the points made earlier, including the unwillingness to add more students to the public schools by noting that school registration in Berlin is currently down 15%
The attorney representing Rio Vista Associates, Robert Berchem, then made a case that was peppered with threats and insults.
“You will take it into consideration at your own peril,” Berchem said, having already threatened legal action twice.
At one point, Chairwoman Veley reprimanded Berchem, telling him not to continue making rude remarks.
The meeting lasted almost three hours, but was finally adjourned with the commission having 65 days to announce its decision.
Lamont would ease ‘debt diet’ in final push for highway tolls
Keith M. Phaneuf, The Connecticut Mirror
Gov. Ned Lamont is making a final push to salvage tolls this year and its success could hinge on the limit he and lawmakers set on Connecticut's credit card.
The governor is asking fellow Democrats to consider a scaled-back proposal that would place tolls only in strategic locations — such as aging bridges.
Though full details of the plan were not available late Monday, it would be part of a larger proposal that also would involve Lamont easing up on his planned "debt diet" and accepting about $300 million in additional borrowing in each of the next two fiscal years.
But some of that extra bonding, about $100 million per year, would have to be dedicated to transportation projects.
Senate Democrats have been more wary of tolls than their House counterparts.
But while Senate President Pro Tem Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven, stopped short of endorsing any new proposal, he did say these elements collectively "point us in the direction of a hybrid compromise" that is at least worthy of further discussion.
House Speaker Joe Aresimowicz, D-Berlin, who supports tolls on major highways, said the administration's willingness to compromise on tolls and borrowing is "a positive step," adding that "I would be willing to make whatever compromises necessary to come up with a long-term plan to fund our transportation needs."
Lamont urged lawmakers in February to slam the brakes on state borrowing, recommending slightly less than $1 billion in new general obligation bonding for each of the next two fiscal years.
General obligation bonds are the principal means used to finance municipal school construction, state building upgrades, and other capital projects and are repaid from the budget's general fund.
Connecticut's bonded indebtedness per capita ranks among the highest of all states. Between 2012 and 2019, it issued an average of $1.59 billion annually in general obligation bonds.
But Office of Policy and Management Secretary Melissa McCaw, Lamont's budget director, wrote to legislators last week indicating the administration would consider the $1.3 billion per year in general obligation bonding proposed by Democrats.
One condition, though, is that $100 million of this bonding would be used in each of the next two years for transportation projects.
This would be in addition to the usual $800 million in annual borrowing for transportation that is repaid from the budget's Special Transportation Fund, which is supported chiefly with fuel tax receipts.
Another condition, according to Looney, is that legislators accept a scaled-back tolling plan. Looney praised the administration's flexibility Monday on a higher bonding limit, saying "our caucus would view that as a positive move."
Colleen Flanagan Johnson, Lamont's senior policy adviser, said Monday that "the governor is encouraged that his focus on improving our state's transportation system — and economy — is one that is shared by legislative leaders as well."
Johnson added that "while there's no formal agreement in place at this time, informal discussions have been productive and continue to move in the direction of a concrete solution to our transportation woes."
Combining $800 million in traditional transportation bonding with $100 million in general obligation bonds — as well as about $700 million in annual federal grants — would provide about $1.6 billion per year to rebuild highways, bridges and rail lines.
State transportation officials have said Connecticut should be pumping more than $2 billion per year into its aging, overcrowded system.
That's why Lamont had been pushing legislators to consider tolling on four major highways: Interstates 84, 91 and 95 and the Merritt Parkway. This would raise an estimated $800 million extra per year Connecticut could use to rebuild its infrastructure.
It's unclear how much the scaled-back proposal the Lamont administration has been exploring would raise.
Republicans in the House and Senate have been unanimous in their opposition to tolls.
And Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano, R-North Haven, said Monday that any scaled-back tolls proposal still would be problematic.
Any initial plan to toll select areas could be expanded and rates could be raised, he said. "I don't think that's going to make any of my caucus members more comfortable," he said. "This is a save-face move to the long-term detriment of the state's transportation system."
The GOP alternative, called "Prioritize Progress," avoids tolls and instead redirects bonding to transportation that is currently used for school construction, capital programs at state universities and economic development.
But instead of redirecting $100 million in general obligation bonds per year into transportation, as Lamont has proposed in his latest compromise, Prioritize Progress would shift $600 million or more annually.
Fired Hartford ballpark developers push back in court against jury’s verdict that city’s termination was justified
The city’s updated development agreement in January 2016 — coming after construction ran behind schedule and was over budget — was with DoNo and not Centerplan, according to the filings.
The city had no comment Monday. An attorney for Centerplan and DoNo did not have an immediate comment on the motions or the status of the appeal.
In addition, the filings ask the court to for a “directed verdict," a ruling by a judge who finds that the evidence presented at a trial would not lead a “reasonable jury” to reach another conclusion.
This argument also leans on the contention that Centerplan and DoNo are separate; but it also notes, among other things, that “no reasonable jury could find that Hartford provided appropriate notice and the opportunity" to address problems that justified the city’s termination.
This argument also leans on the contention that Centerplan and DoNo are separate; but it also notes, among other things, that “no reasonable jury could find that Hartford provided appropriate notice and the opportunity" to address problems that justified the city’s termination.
Another motion also seeks to relieve Centerplan and DoNo of responsibility to pay the $335,000 because the city had already financially benefited from the termination of Centerplan and DoNo.
The legal maneuvering is unfolding as the city is urging the courts to return control of the land around Dunkin’ Donuts Park to Hartford so long-delayed redevelopment can get underway.
The legal maneuvering is unfolding as the city is urging the courts to return control of the land around Dunkin’ Donuts Park to Hartford so long-delayed redevelopment can get underway.
The city asked the courts — a day after the jury returned its verdict in the trial — to remove the liens placed on the parcels by Centerplan and DoNo. The city argues the verdict bolsters its contention that the city was justified in terminating the former developers.
A hearing on the city’s motion is scheduled for July 30 in Hartford.