CT Construction Digest Friday September 6, 2019

Kevin Rennie: Gov. Lamont needs a relaunch. Can he do it?

Labor Day provides an opportunity for leaders to relaunch their missions. Gov. Ned Lamont’s administration recognizes this, and the first autumn of a first term provides an opportunity for some renovations.

Nedstock is done and the governor’s August vacation is complete. It is time to get back to the issue that Lamont believes is essential to his success and also a source of relentless confusion.

This round could be better for Lamont and Connecticut if the governor has learned the lessons of the bitter past. The first is that there is some value in consistency. The Greenwich Democrat was telling voters a year ago that he would support tolls on trucks only because out of state tractor trailer trucks were using our roads for free and damaging them. Only weeks after taking office, Lamont announced tolls on trucks would not raise enough money — something he must have known last year — for the road improvements he wants to make. He would only be satisfied with a far-flung network of tolls on all drivers.

It was worse than an error, it was a blunder. Announcing the change on a weekend made Lamont look frightened of the public he was elected to serve and lead a few months before. The governor compounded his clumsy rollout by then appearing open to any other suggestions — and then opposed to any alternatives. His public musings suggested he’d take some toll gantries off here or there, or maybe not.

For veteran observers of and participants in Connecticut government, Lamont’s toll odyssey has been a bewildering one-act farce with everything but slamming doors and mistaken identities.

The legislature’s regular session ended in June with no action on tolls, though Lamont had by then made the unsettling declaration that he was staking his governorship on his proposal. The summer passed without that happening. The passage of time gives the impression that this may not be the emergency Lamont insists it is.

It appears that Lamont has transferred leadership on the substance of transportation planning and financing from his transportation department, where the experts work, to Ryan Drajewicz, the governor’s chief of staff. Drajewicz has discovered that the federal government has all sorts of helpful programs to assist states in improving transportation. The details of which programs are best-suited for Connecticut have not been announced.

But here’s a preview of what may be coming from Lamont in the fall: The federal government could lend the state money to plan and complete projects. The state may not have to begin repaying the low-interest loans until each project has been completed.

Using the federal program might be the way for Lamont to build a broad coalition in support of road and rail projects, although state transportation officials might not welcome the oversight that comes with the money. It will give the state a head start on raising money to repay the loans many years from now, because road and bridge projects take a long time to plan and complete.Lamont unveils his next proposal, it will have to be the last one. He will look irredeemably incompetent if he is not fluent in explaining and persuading. The governor wounded his credibility when his budget diverted $1 billion that had been headed to the state’s transportation fund from the motor vehicle sales tax. His cynical actions belied his sincere manner.

 

 

When Lamont knew when he was running for governor that the public does not support an inescapable web of tolls on the state’s highways. It’s not just the cost. Many people believe that the money raised from tolls will not be used to pay for improved roads and bridges. Weary Connecticut residents have concluded that state government is an unreliable steward of money. Once money starts flooding into the state’s coffers, its destination changes.

Connecticut has seen temporary charges become permanent. Dedicated revenue streams disappear into the general fund. The public does not forget these incidents of deception dressed up as public policy. Lamont should reveal a realistic list of priority projects that will win approval of the federal government officials and explain to the public how his plan will be financed without tolls.

He needs a relaunch — this time, with a clear trajectory.

 

Norwalk Planning Committee advances master plan
Kelly Kultys
NORWALK — The full Common Council will get their chance to review and potentially adopt the 10-year master plan for the city, after the Planning Committee advanced it on Thursday.
The goals of the Plan of Conservation and Development aim to fulfill the city’s vision for the future, which includes making it a “national example of a small city that boasts a thriving and dynamic economy.”To do that, the document breaks down overarching goals and smaller action steps into four major areas and an introduction — living and working in Norwalk, environment, sustainability and resilience, city systems and the future city.
The Planning Committee made minor adjustments to the plan, including adding language surrounding “Vision Zero,” which is a multi-national road traffic safety project that seeks to achieve a roadway system that has no more fatalities or injuries due to road traffic.

The committee held an official public hearing on the plan in August at which time multiple speakers, including mayoral candidate Lisa Brinton voiced concern over “unsustainable growth in the city.”

“Unbalanced growth and increased population density is reshaping Norwalk into an expensive and transient city and we’re gradually losing our identity,” she said.Mayor Harry Rilling also spoke at the August hearing and stated that was glad people were looking to move to Norwalk.“Norwalk is a city that’s on the rise, we’re one of the very very few cities in the state of Connecticut where people are moving to, and they’re starting to take a look at who we are and what we have to offer,” Rilling said.
On Thursday, three residents asked the committee to look at updating the city’s zoning code to allow for two-family and multifamily residences in some of the single-family zones to make the city “more inclusive.”
Resident Laure Dunne said that the recommendations in the plans that call for preserving and maintaining the traditional single family neighborhoods “maintain the status quo of Norwalk’s segregated areas.”
Resident Susan Cole asked the committee to consider raising the workforce housing requirements from 10 percent to 20 percent to increase diversity throughout the city’s neighborhoods.

“Norwalkers pride ourselves in diversity and 20 percent rather than 10 is going to do a lot more good for integrating neighborhoods,” she said.

Audrey Cozzarin, a Norwalk resident who founded the Norwalk Citizens’ Traffic Safety Group, said her main concern was traffic congestion and if the plan discussed this.
“That POCD committee finding (from April 2018) was that traffic was the main concern of neighborhoods and businesses,” she said. “I wonder if this master plan addresses traffic concerns.”
Resident Diane Lauricella called for an additional industrial zone study, which Director of Planning and Zoning Steve Kleppin was already in the budget for this upcoming year.“What we’re doing is by not developing industrial — we’re putting more of a burden on residential,” she said.
The Planning Committee voted unanimously to send it to the Common Council for its second meeting in September on Tuesday, September 24 to allow the rest of the members more time for review.

Hartford’s $23M Arch Street apt. complex completed
Joe Cooper
The fourth and final phase of Hartford’s Front Street District is now complete with the recent opening of a new $23 million apartment complex.
Residents of the 53-unit, 81 Arch St. apartments overlooking UConn’s Hartford campus began moving in Aug. 1, said Peter Christian, director of development and acquisitions for Greenwich-based HB Nitkin Group, the project’s developer.
Christian said 60 percent of the units have been leased and 40 percent are currently occupied.
The complex includes a mix of studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments, and has 11,000 square feet of street-level retail and commercial space. No retail tenants have been signed there, Christian said Thursday.

Monthly rents range from $1,225 to $1,990, plus parking, according to the quasi-public Capital Region Development Authority (CRDA), which provided $5.6 million, or $103,700 per unit, in funding for the project.

The development was also backed by a $1 million state grant for environmental cleanup and other work at the site.
The project represents HB Nitkin Group’s second major apartment development downtown. It also built the nearby Front Street Lofts, which debuted in 2015 with 121 studio, one- and two-bedroom apartment units.
The Lofts have consistently had an occupancy rate of over 90 percent, according to CRDA.
The Front Street District, which is part of the larger Adriaen’s Landing revitalization project, has been in the planning and development phases for more than two decades. After years of delays, its final completion represents a major milestone for downtown Hartford.

Front Street includes a number of restaurants and entertainment venues including Spotlight Theaters, Front Street Bistro, Bear's Smokehouse Barbecue, Ted’s Montana Grill, Capital Grill and Infinity Hall.

 

PURA OKs $1.1B CT Water acquisition

Joe Cooper

California water purveyor’s long-delayed acquisition of Connecticut Water Service Inc. was pushed forward Wednesday after state regulators blessed the $1.1 billion deal.The Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) on Wednesday approved SJW Group’s application to purchase the Clinton-based water utility after it issued a preliminary decision in Dec. 2018 to block the merger, which was first announced in March 2018. PURA at the time argued the deal would leave Connecticut Water in worse condition both “financially and managerially.”
The companies months later revised and refiled their application with PURA, guaranteeing a slew of legally binding commitments, including Connecticut Water’s promise to preserve a Connecticut headquarters, not make any layoffs for three years, and freeze base rates until Jan. 2021, among others.
Despite PURA’s approval, and the additional pledges by the companies, the agency in its decision said it remains concerned that “ratepayers will bear certain financial risks.”

PURA said its approval hinges on the companies filing a revised settlement agreement with several new conditions, one of which states that Connecticut Water supplies may not be used by the companies to serve SJW systems or customers outside of Connecticut without its approval. 

In a joint statement Wednesday afternoon, Connecticut Water and SJW Group said they are “pleased” with PURA’s decision, adding that it still needs approval from Maine regulators before it officially completes the merger. Maine’s approval is needed because Connecticut Water operates a northern subsidiary, Maine Water Co.
According to terms of the deal, Connecticut Water shareholders will receive $70 for each share of common stock. SJW will finance the acquisition through a combination of equity (49 percent) and debt (51 percent).
PURA said it received 54 letters and emails regarding the SJW-Connecticut Water tie-up, with most of the correspondence supporting the proposed acquisition.
SJW’s quest to acquire Connecticut Water took several turns since the original deal was announced more than a year ago.

The companies originally announced a $750 million merger in March 2018, but SJW raised its offer in Aug. 2018 to stave off competing bids last year from Eversource Energy and another California suitor.

Eversource opposed the SJW-Connecticut Water combination arguing the deal’s alleged benefits to customers are outweighed by the costs customers will pay in higher rates.

State spending on school construction dropped sharply over last decade
Kathleen Megan
A Washington D.C. think tank recently released figures that show Connecticut’s capital spending on school construction dropped by 45% from 2008 to 2017.
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities also said that Connecticut was one of five states that cut school capital spending “drastically” — by half or more — as a share of the state’s economy.
Michael Leachman, senior director of state fiscal research for the center, said he considers the economy measurement important because it shows that the state “has cut support for school capital spending deeply even after you account for the fact that its economy was really hurt by the last downturn.”
He said that schools need to be of “good quality and safe and well-heated or cooled or whatever. The lights need to be on. It’s pretty straightforward and if you cut the revenue you have available, you’re going to be less able to do those things.”

By the center’s figures, Connecticut’s capital spending on school construction declined from $826 million in 2008 to $452.9 million in 2017, while the percentage of the state’s gross domestic product going toward school construction dropped from .34% to .17 %.

Connecticut’s own figures on school construction expenditure differ a bit from the figures used in the Center’s report, but also reflect a major drop in outlays from the school construction grant program, falling by more than half from nearly $700 million in 2008 to $330.9 million in 2019.
But Konstantinos Diamantis, director of the school construction grants and review program in the state Department of Administrative Services, said the decline in spending signals stricter controls over the program —  not a decline in the state’s commitment to school construction.
Generally, the state provides grants to school districts on major construction projects at a rate ranging from 20% to 80%, with 10% less for new schools. A complicated formula based on a community’s wealth determines the rate of reimbursement.
“We are building as we need to build,” Diamantis said. “Every district that submits a proposal that is appropriate and justified, we’re building it.”

Diamantis said his office is tightly involved in planning, as districts determine if a project is ready to begin and has sound architectural plans.

“Do I put as many on the (priority list) as were there ten years ago? No, but the ones I put on the list are all ready to proceed.”
Projects are not placed on a priority list until they are ready to go and they must start within two years, Diamantis said, noting that every effort is made to ensure that costly change orders and other problems are avoided.
“No more laissez faire in submitting change orders and getting them approved. No more thinking that architects are going to draw schools haphazardly and think they are going to come back with change orders and the state of Connecticut is going to pay for it,” he said. “No more rushing, rushing through projects and thinking the costs are always eligible regardless of how expensive it might be.”
If school districts are suffering from the decline in capital spending, or the stricter rules, it wasn’t apparent from recent interviews with school superintendents, education advocates, and legislators.

Fran Rabinowitz, executive director of the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents, said she hadn’t  heard that spending on school construction is down — but she has heard that it is much more tightly controlled.
“I know that Kosta insists on superintendents being at all of the trainings for what needs to be done,” Rabinowitz said. “I dealt with that last year because in the past, it was OK to send your facilities director. Now they wanted to be sure the superintendent was there.”
Rabinowitz said she did hear some complaints at first from superintendents who felt they shouldn’t have to attend training, but said they later reported it was a worthwhile process. She hasn’t heard much else in the way of complaints about the program, but if there were problems, she said, “Trust me, they would be calling.”
Kate Carter, superintendent of South Windsor Public Schools where a three-phase, four-school construction plan is underway, said in an email that “The key to a successful partnership with [the Department of Administrative Services] is ensuring that there are open lines of communication very early in the process with a clear plan and rationale.  They have been responsive and supportive as we face an unexpected significant increase in our student enrollment.”
Patrice McCarthy, deputy director and general counsel for the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education, said she hasn’t heard any “real concerns raised” about school construction procedures.

“I think initially when they tightened the procedures, there were some projects that had to go through the process several times before they got on the state priority list,” McCarthy said.

The co-chairmen of the legislature’s Revenue, Finance and Bonding Committee said tighter controls on school construction costs were necessary.
Sen. John Fonfara, D-Hartford, said he saw instances over the years when a school construction job would be proposed in one way but the proponents did so “knowing they could come back and get change orders to expand. ‘Well we need this now, we need that now.’ They knew, but they didn’t put that into the original bill.”
Fonfara said school construction spending is driven by local officials.
“As school populations rise and fall, that affects school construction,” he said. “If a town is challenged fiscally, you are not going to see as many applications. The state just picks up its share. It’s not leading the charge for doing school re-construction.”

He said that efforts have also been made to ensure that districts aren’t overdoing it with costly designs. “Some schools have been Taj Mahals and do you really need that? You want quality but you don’t have to have gold-lined hallways and we were doing some of those things.”

Rep. Jason Rojas, the other co-chair of the Revenue, Finance and Bonding Committee and a Democrat from East Hartford, said he thinks that perhaps the slowdown in the construction of magnet schools has contributed to the decline in spending.
Many have also questioned the high cost of some magnet schools that include amenities such as a planetarium or a koi pond and waterfall.
“We want to build nice buildings and innovative buildings, but we also need them to be kind of functional and not have a lot of wasted space,” said Rojas. “Some of the schools have fifty foot atriums. I don’t know if people were thinking of the heating and cooling of those buildings when those projects were launched.”
Rojas said that under the tightened regulations, “I think towns probably aren’t getting what they’d like to get in every situation, but I don’t think anybody is getting kept out of the program. I think that’s something I would hear.”

Connecticut Port Authority tries to right the ship
Julia Bergman 
In response to scrutiny of questionable financial and hiring decisions, the Connecticut Port Authority is taking steps to implement an ethics policy and develop guidelines that would govern future spending at the quasi-public agency.
The port authority's board, which met Wednesday in New London, also authorized acting Chairman David Kooris to negotiate a separation agreement with Executive Director Evan Matthews, who's been on paid leave since July 12 for comments he made to the media "unbecoming of a public sector leader."
The board is requesting that Matthews resign, effective the end of September, and that he not be paid a severance, Kooris said. Matthews would have to agree to those terms.
Deputy Treasurer for the State Linda Savitsky was the only board member to vote against authorizing Kooris, who is also deputy commissioner of the state's Department of Economic and Community Development, to negotiate the separation agreement on behalf of the port authority.
"The Office of the Treasurer feels the process has gone on long enough and the Executive Director should be terminated immediately. Given the well documented challenges of the Authority, the Board's attention should be refocused on the important work at hand and restoring confidence in the Port Authority," Jackie Primeau, an Office of the Treasurer spokeswoman, said in a statement.
The board spent much of its meeting Wednesday in training led by the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission and the Office of State Ethics, and also selected an ethics compliance officer. The port authority's fiscal administrator now will serve in that role, which was previously held by the office manager, who left the agency on July 9.
State auditors found that the port authority, which receives about $400,000 annually in state appropriations, did not have basic accounting practices in place, nor did it have written procedures covering personnel practices, for example. The auditors are currently investigating a complaint received by the office in late May related to mismanagement and misuse of funds at the port authority. 
In addition to the money from the state, the port authority gets revenue from leasing State Pier, a state-owned facility that it controls, in New London.
The controversy, which prompted Gov. Ned Lamont to direct further oversight of the port authority and a broader review of all of the state's quasi-public agencies, comes as a major deal is being negotiated to turn State Pier into a staging area for the offshore wind industry.
The port authority, involved in the negotiations, will unveil details of the State Pier project to the public on Sept. 17 at the Holiday Inn in New London. An exact time is being finalized, but the event is expected to take place in the early evening.

Fast track concept from Danbury to Grand Central awarded $1 million feasibility study   
Rob Ryser
DANBURY - An idea to reopen an overgrown commuter rail line to Southeast, N.Y., and create a fast track to Manhattan for Danbury commuters has been awarded a $1 million study grant.
The grant, awarded Thursday by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, is the first step in a plan to reopen the old Maybrook rail line from Danbury to Metro-North’s Harlem Line in Southeast.
The idea to cut as much as an hour off Danburians’ commute to New York City was first floated in late April, after a meeting between Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton, Metro-North President Cathy Rinaldi and state DOT Commissioner Joe Giulietti.The money for the feasibility study comes from an $800,000 federal grant, and a $200,000 contribution from from Putnam County.