Christine Stuart
HARTFORD, CT – Sen. Will Haskell, D-Westport, wants to hold a town hall forum to talk about transportation improvements and how the state plans to pay for them, but Jan. 7 simply didn’t work.
Haskell, a freshman senator who campaigned in favor of tolls, said Sunday he hopes to reschedule the Westport forum. He also hopes members of Gov. Ned Lamont’s administration will attend to offer information about CT2030, Lamont’s transportation proposal. A leaked email from a pro-tolls group with the subject line, “TOP SECRET & URGENT: Gov. Lamont Needs YOU in Westport, Tues. Jan. 7,” was circulated Saturday. It asked supporters of tolls to “show up in force.”
The email went onto say, “Do NOT share any of this information on social media. We have advance notice of this event, thanks to Senator Will Haskell and Gov. Lamont’s office, and we want to keep that advantage over the plan’s ‘No Tolls’ opponents as long as possible.”
Haskell said he never finalized the event and can’t speculate about why the group sent it. If he had finalized it, Haskell said he would have put it on his social media and encouraged the public to attend.
“I’m not afraid to have a contentious public forum,” Haskell said. “The entire purpose of the forum is to hear diverse opinions.”
Max Reiss, Lamont’s spokesman, said there “appears to have been a miscommunication from one of these groups as to the Governor’s commitment to this event, as it was always difficult to make the date and time of the town hall work with the Governor’s schedule.”
Those who oppose tolls, including House Republican Leader Themis Klarides, R-Derby, don’t believe there was any miscommunication.
“Governor Lamont and Legislative Democrats lost trust on this issue in 2019 and apparently have decided that rather than working to rebuild trust, prefer to stage smoke and mirror public events that only their supporters are secretly invited to,’’ Klarides said Sunday. “They tried to keep this meeting at Bedford Middle School in Westport a secret from the majority of residents who oppose tolls in order to stack the room. What a joke.”
Reiss said that’s absolutely not the case.
The event, which would have been publicized by Lamont’s office today, was “only ever in the planning stages.”
“The governor has and will continue to engage with the public on his vision to grow Connecticut’s economy, and that discussion will continue this week,” Reiss said.Patrick Sasser, founder of the group “No Tolls CT,” said this “just shows why taxpayers don’t trust state government. They are trying to suppress dissenting voices, avoid the public and create an astro-turf ‘pro-tolls’ movement.”
Reiss said they have been in contact with multiple advocacy groups in favor of transportation investment that have requested information about the trucks-only CT2030 plan over recent weeks.
Sasser has been reminding Lamont that he promised at a press conference on Nov. 12 and again on Dec. 19 on a radio show that he would hold town hall meetings to discuss his proposal.
“We encourage the governor to hold public town hall meetings, like he said he would,” Sasser said Sunday. “We also believe there should be a public hearing on the governor’s latest tolling and transportation proposal before any vote is held in the legislature.”
The Democratic lawmakers in the House and the Senate will discuss transportation improvements behind closed doors on Tuesday at the state Capitol.
Exclusive: Top Secret & Urgent. Democrats Solicit Toll Supporters for Lamont Westport Meeting
Kevin Rennie
Democratic supporters of imposing tolls on Connecticut highways sent a “TOP SECRET & URGENT” email Saturday seeking commitments to attend a January 7th meeting in Westport featuring Governor Ned Lamont. The Greenwich Democrat will explain his CT2030 plan at Bedford Middle School at 7 p.m.
Lamont will be “joined by local Democratic legislators who are putting their careers on the line with this plan.” Lamont, the email implores, “needs supporters of CT2030 to show up in force.”
The email notes there has been no public announcement of the event because Senator Will Haskell and Lamont are assisting tolls supporters in creating an advantage over tolls opponents.
The message implores recipients not to share the news on social media. So whatever you do, don’t tweet or post this ruction on Facebook—because the meeting is still a secret.
Opinion: No tolls more costly than tolls
Henry Adams
The big debate ensuing in the Connecticut state Legislature is approving or not approving state tolls to fund our transportation needs.
The question put forth for debate should not be to have tolls or not but instead, how would Connecticut taxpayers like to pay for transportation repairs and improvements? Most transportation projects are not optional: bridges and railways must be maintained, highways paved and improvements made for commerce.
As taxpayers, do we want to pay 100 percent for a given project (excluding federal funds)? This is the Republican plan and way we fund the projects currently. Or do we want to pay only 50 to 60 percent using toll-generated funds that are 40 to 50 percent paid for by out-of-state drivers?
The current method and proposed Republican plan rely on borrowing money in the form of bonds that will increase debt. This plan requires all Connecticut taxpayers to pay 100 percent of the state’s share of the transportation project including bond interest over many years, like a mortgage. Good for bond investors, not good for taxpayers or our children who inherit this debt. This is not a fiscally conservative plan.
The toll plan relies on funds generated by those who use the highways, a user fee to pay for repairs, maintenance and improvements. Most states do not consider tolls a tax. Since an estimated 40 percent of the users of our highways are out-of-state drivers, these drivers would help pay for our transportation projects.
Tolls would be a huge generator of funds for much-needed transportation projects for our state economy that constantly faces a financial crisis. Tolls would create jobs in construction, repair and highway maintenance and management of the tolls.
Connecticut is the only state in the Northeast corridor not to have tolls. For good reason, no state considers getting rid of their toll-generated bonanza. It is no coincidence that we are in such poor fiscal shape compared to states with tolls. Recently the governor of New Hampshire bragged about he could repair our state finances. Did he mention his state’s heavy reliance on tolls? If he didn’t, he should have. It has been estimated that Connecticut tolls would generate half a billion dollars per year or more that would be put into our state’s transportation projects.
Many in the anti-toll movement say they mistrust how the toll-generated money would be spent. These misinformed people did not realize that voters overwhelmingly approved creation of a “lock box” for toll-generated money that can only be used for transportation projects.
To compensate the Connecticut drivers who will also pay the tolls as they drive the highways, other taxes can and should be lowered. I support the reduction of the gas tax, a discount for E-ZPass and lower fees from Department of Motor Vehicles. Although Connecticut drivers would also pay the tolls they would pay less for gas, tolls and fees. With reduced taxes and fees the net cost to Connecticut taxpayers including tolls could be zero, yet we could reap several hundred million dollars from out-of-state drivers. A lower gas tax would encourage drivers from other states to give our gas stations more business.
Tolls could be the most important generator of revenue to get our state’s economy back on track in a fiscally responsible way and are the least expensive way to fund transportation projects and needed mandatory repairs. Let’s install tolls so that we can reduce taxes. Tolls are the fiscally smart choice and need to be approved. Will Connecticut become the “Gateway to New England” or remain an indebted state with decaying infrastructure?
State pushes back on trucking industry lawsuit against tolls
Patrick Anderson
At issue in the appeal is whether truck tolls are a user fee or a tax. The Tax Injunction Act bars federal courts from blocking state taxes.
Rhode Island is trying once again to keep a trucking industry lawsuit that could tear down the state’s truck toll system out of federal court.In early December a federal appeals court unanimously reversed a U.S. District Court ruling to dismiss the lawsuit, which argues that truck tolls are unconstitutional, and remanded it back to the lower court.
But on Thursday the state petitioned to have the appeal re-argued on the grounds that the judges did not apply “the proper test” to whether the case should be left for state courts to decide, as Rhode Island’s lawyers have argued.
At issue in the appeal is whether truck tolls are a user fee or a tax. The Tax Injunction Act bars federal courts from blocking state taxes.
U.S. District Court Judge William Smith ruled last March that the tolls are a tax, and dismissed the case, but the appeals court decided the tolls were fees and reversed the decision.
“As we state in our petition, we believe the panel’s decision in this case departed from First Circuit precedent interpreting the Tax Injunction Act,” Kristy dosReis, spokeswoman for Attorney General Peter Neronha, wrote about the state’s position. “We are asking that the entire First Circuit consider hearing the case on this issue because we felt it was important to seek clarification on the jurisdictional issue.”
The suit is being brought by the American Trucking Associations and three other plaintiffs including convenience store Cumberland Farms.
In a news release Thursday, Rhode Island Trucking Association President Chris Maxwell called the petition for the appeal to be reheard a stalling tactic.
″[The Rhode Island Department of Transportation] and the Governor are clearly running out the clock and using every conceivable delay tactic within their means to keep this case away from the federal courts,” Maxwell said. “For over four years, they have assured taxpayers and voters that their plan is rock solid and will past muster in terms of its legality and constitutionality, yet they continue to turtle when it comes to their case being heard in the federal court.”
Lawmakers authorized tolling tractor trailers on Rhode Island highways in early 2016 and, despite the lawsuit, the state has begun collecting tolls at five locations across the state. The next toll expected to launch is on Route 95 where it crosses Route 117 in Warwick. A gantry has been erected there and the DOT is testing the tolling equipment with no activation date set, according to DOT spokesman Charles St. Martin.
“We have completed foundation, electrical and other work at four other locations in the month of December in preparation for gantry erection over the winter months,” St. Martin wrote.
The state plans to put up 13 truck tolls in total and have 12 of them running by June.
The state budgeted $25 million from truck tolls in the year that ends June 30. Between July and October, the tolls have charged trucks $2.2 million. Last year Rhode Island truck tolls billed $7.3 million.
Tolls the best way to pay for transportation, DOT chief says: Getting There
James Cameron
State Department of Transportation Commissioner Joseph Giulietti is about to finish his first year on the job and his plate is more than full. It’s overflowing with controversy.
Last week, in part one of an exclusive, no-holds-barred interview, he spoke of his challenges in speeding up Metro-North, coping with the overbudget, behind-schedule Walk Bridge replacement and ordering new rail cars.
This week, in part two of our conversation, he speaks of the biggest issue of all: Getting the legislature to pass truck tolls to raise money to replenish the Special Transportation Fund, which pays for transportation in our state.
I asked the commissioner if Gov. Ned Lamont had “bungled” this initiative by his constant flip-flopping on what to toll and where.
Choosing his words very carefully, he said, “The governor has admitted that there were some things he wished had been done differently. If it was bungled, it was because he was trying to come up with bipartisan support for a solution everyone could buy into.”
Giulietti said nobody expected how pervasive and organized the opposition forces would be against tolling.As for Patrick Sasser, leader of the #NoTollsCT movement, “I’ve never met him. This is never a personal issue.”
But when the initial tolling plan was unveiled, he said the #NoTollsCT forces “ran with the paranoia.” But if not tolls, “how do you want to pay for it (transportation)? Connecticut drivers have been subsidizing out-of-state drivers for years. Tolls are the closest thing we have to a user fee.”
As for the claim that truck tolls will lead to car tolls and the money will be misspent, “The federal government determines that, and that those funds must be spent on the roads (where the tolls would be).” Trucks don’t buy gas in Connecticut, so they’re getting a free ride.
On the claim that the state DOT wastes money: “We used to have 5,000 people at the CDOT. Now we have 2,700,” Giulietti said. Even snowplowing is done with one driver, guided by a computer on where to deploy brine and how to best clear the snow. One truck can now even handle three lanes of pavement.
“We’ve always looked how we can be more efficient. That’s the type of department CDOT has become. We always want to be good stewards of the public’s money.”
“I don’t know of a better way (to pay for transportation) than tolls. The governor has always said, ‘If you have a better idea, come to me with it,’ so if we’re not going to do tolling what’s the alternative? ... Gas tax, income tax, sales tax? But there don’t seem to be any alternate ideas on how to get this thing (funding) through.”
Giulietti said he has a good working relation with Lamont. “I’m not a politician, I don’t run for office,” he said. “But I know of very honorable people who do the right thing (like voting in favor of tolls) despite the threats of being voted out of their jobs.”“I’ve worked now for six or seven governors. Lamont is one of the most honest and decent people I’ve worked with ... a genuine good guy who truly wants bipartisan support to try and get this thing through. It makes it easy (for me) to face the criticism because I know he’s trying to do the right thing.”
To which I can only add — amen!
Push for tolls picks up pace
Christopher Keating
HARTFORD — After months of debate and proposals, the General Assembly appears to be closing in on a crucial vote to add highway tolls for trucks as Democratic leaders rally support for Gov. Ned Lamont’s transportation plan .
Legislators and lawyers are still crafting the final details of the multifaceted bill in advance of key meetings this week. Both the House and Senate Democrats will hold closed-door caucuses to discuss the plan on Tuesday at the state Capitol. A Fairfield County town hall meeting scheduled for this week has been canceled, however, Lamont’s office said Sunday.
A special session to take up Lamont’s long-delayed transportation plan could come this month in advance of the regular legislative session, which begins in February.
Lamont and the top four Democratic legislative leaders have agreed on the broad outlines of a comprehensive $19.4 billion transportation plan. That includes rejecting a Republican plan to use $1.5 billion of the state’s $2.5 billion rainy day fund in order to help pay for the improvements in roads, bridges, railroads and airports. The annual bond package of construction projects, which is tied to tolls, is still being negotiated, officials said .
Since reaching the trucks-only agreement, lawmakers have been counting the votes in an attempt to ensure they have at least 76 votes in the state House of Representatives and 18 in the Senate. If the Senate reaches an 18-18 tie, Lt. Gov. Susan Bysiewicz would be expected to break the tie under the Senate rules.
Legislators said the vote count on tolls for all vehicles has always been fluid and close with numbers in the House ranging from 71 to 75 to 77, depending on the day. An additional problem, insiders said, is that some House members do not believe the Senate has the votes and vice versa — making it difficult for wavering legislators to commit on a controversial proposal that could be used against them as an election issue this fall.
Lamont has faced criticism from all sides for his various plans, which have included both cars and trucks over the past year and now includes only trucks. The opponents say the legislature should not vote until there is a public hearing on the latest proposal, which would erect electronic tolls for trucks only at 12 locations on six different highways around the state.
Lawmakers have been debating tolls for nearly a year without reaching agreement. A previous plan called for tolls on the Merritt Parkway in Norwalk and on Route 9 in Middletown, but those locations have since been dropped. Lamont’s plan, known as CT2030, calls for spending $19.4 billion over 10 years to improve the state’s aging infrastructure.
When the vote was postponed last month, House Majority Leader Matt Ritter of Hartford said January would be a better time for the debate because lawmakers would have time for a public hearing and attendance for legislators would be higher than during the week before Christmas when some lawmakers were headed out of town.
Deputy House Speaker Robert Godfrey of Danbury, a prominent Democrat, said he remains opposed to tolls.
“There’s been all this off-line chatter about a special session in January, yet it’s just chatter so far,” Godfrey said in an interview.
Godfrey predicted that a trucks-only proposal would run into legal problems in the same way that Rhode Island’s current trucks-only plan has prompted a court battle. An appeals court recently ruled that the civil lawsuit by truckers against the tolls could proceed in federal court, and the case is still pending.
“The lawyer part of me says that trucks only is a violation of the commerce clause because interstate commerce is left to the federal government,” Godfrey said. “I don’t see that as a long-term, viable option.”
Senate Republican leader Len Fasano of North Haven said the Democrats “absolutely” would have voted last year if they had enough votes to pass the measure. The constant postponements, he said, were a sign that they did not have the votes.
Fasano said that the coming weeks will be decisive because he predicted that Democrats will not call a vote on tolls during the regular session that starts in February. The reason, he said, is that the controversial debate would be too close to the 2020 elections — when all 187 seats in both chambers are up for reelection.
“If there’s no toll vote by February 1, they’ve admitted there will be no toll vote for the rest of the year,” Fasano said.
Democrats have gone as far as saying they would explore passing a constitutional amendment to prevent tolls from being charged on cars. Crafting all the precise language for the amendment and other aspects, Fasano said, is difficult and time consuming.
“It’s complicated,” Fasano said of tolls. “How it’s going to be collected, the different costs, what if you don’t have an EZ Pass, the plate readers. I’m not sure everyone agrees what truck is being tolled and what isn’t.”
Fasano cautioned that the legislature often moves slowly on complicated deals. He noted that state officials publicly announced that they had reached a deal with hospitals on a long-running lawsuit, and it took the legislature more than six months to finally vote on the agreement.
“The hospital deal was supposed to be done in August, and we finished that up right before Christmas,” he said.
House Republican leader Themis Klarides of Derby said that passing tolls in an election year would be more difficult than last year because it would be foremost in voters’ minds.
New remediation plan in the works for Groton water treatment plant project
Kimberly Drelich
Groton — Plans for remediating polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, at the water treatment plant that is undergoing renovations, are heading back to the drawing board.
The Environmental Protection Agency said the plan proposed by the utility’s construction manager to remediate PCBs in the old paint doesn't meet the EPA's standards, according to Mark Biron, Groton Utilities general manager of operations for water and electric. In addition, a pile of 3,500 cubic yards of potentially PCB-contaminated soil, which is covered and contained in back of the operations building, also will need to be addressed, he said.
Construction has been ongoing on the upgrade project to repurpose the water treatment plant, built in 1939 and expanded over the years, while building a new facility, adjacent to the old plant, to treat and process water. Groton Utilities officials said window caulking, paint in the walls and paint on some of the piping in the old water treatment plant contain PCBs. No PCBs were used in the new building.
Biron and City Mayor Keith Hedrick, the chairman of the Groton Utilities Commission, said there is no risk of exposure to PCBs, either to employees during normal operations of the plant, or to users of the water supply.
The project's construction manager is expected to develop a new remediation plan in the next couple of weeks, Biron said, so costs and the exact remediation schedule have not yet been determined.
PCBs in old paint, caulking
PCBs can be found in some paint, caulking, plastics, transformers, electrical equipment, thermal insulation, and tapes, among other items manufactured prior to 1979, when PCBs were banned, according to the EPA.
Biron said Stantec, the construction manager on the project, originally proposed a "risk-based assessment" plan to remediate the PCB-contaminated paint in the old treatment plant, but leave paint in areas above 10 feet that were out of reach of people.
Biron said that after Stantec had submitted its plan, Groton Utilities management had questions about it and contacted a third-party consultant to review the plan. Groton Utilities raised concerns with Stantec and then the utility called a meeting with the EPA. The EPA, state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and state Department of Public Health toured the facility last month and the EPA clarified that there is no regulatory process for the risk-based assessment and that all the old paint needs to be removed, he said.
Another issue is that soil on the outside of the plant was scraped up and put in a big pile, Biron said. Some of the dirt contained window caulking with PCBs in it, so the proper procedure would have been to sample individual sections of dirt for PCBs and then clean up that section of soil, if contaminated, rather than mix all the soil together in a pile, he said.
The resolution, he said, will be to submit a sampling plan to the EPA. Depending on the level of PCBs, the soil either will be sent to a hazardous waste facility, or, if the levels are below regulatory limits, potentially re-used.
"We have a way forward on that," Biron said. "It's not a threat to the public. We're not exceeding the concentrations in an industrial area."
Hedrick said the pile is covered and contained, so runoff is not an issue.
In an emailed statement, a Stantec spokesperson said: "Remediation plans for this project had been developed according to what has been reasonably expected by the EPA for conditions of this type, with the expectation of an iterative process that would require refinement following regulator review — as is typical for this type of work. In consultation with the EPA, we are proceeding along on a course to complete this work and look forward to continuing to support Groton Utilities in delivering a project that best addresses the needs of the community into the future."
R.H. White, the general contractor for the project, said requests for information should be directed to Groton Utilities.
DEEP spokesperson Kristina Rozek said the proposed plan was not consistent with other PCB cleanup plans approved by the EPA and a revised plan will need to be submitted. She said PCBs in building materials and in soils adjacent to the materials with PCBs are common in these types of municipal water and wastewater facilities, and it's also common for plans to go through a number of revisions before being approved.
EPA and DPH officials were not immediately available for comment.
Groton — Plans for remediating polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, at the water treatment plant that is undergoing renovations, are heading back to the drawing board.
The Environmental Protection Agency said the plan proposed by the utility’s construction manager to remediate PCBs in the old paint doesn't meet the EPA's standards, according to Mark Biron, Groton Utilities general manager of operations for water and electric. In addition, a pile of 3,500 cubic yards of potentially PCB-contaminated soil, which is covered and contained in back of the operations building, also will need to be addressed, he said.
Construction has been ongoing on the upgrade project to repurpose the water treatment plant, built in 1939 and expanded over the years, while building a new facility, adjacent to the old plant, to treat and process water. Groton Utilities officials said window caulking, paint in the walls and paint on some of the piping in the old water treatment plant contain PCBs. No PCBs were used in the new building.
Biron and City Mayor Keith Hedrick, the chairman of the Groton Utilities Commission, said there is no risk of exposure to PCBs, either to employees during normal operations of the plant, or to users of the water supply.
The project's construction manager is expected to develop a new remediation plan in the next couple of weeks, Biron said, so costs and the exact remediation schedule have not yet been determined.
PCBs in old paint, caulking
PCBs can be found in some paint, caulking, plastics, transformers, electrical equipment, thermal insulation, and tapes, among other items manufactured prior to 1979, when PCBs were banned, according to the EPA.
Biron said Stantec, the construction manager on the project, originally proposed a "risk-based assessment" plan to remediate the PCB-contaminated paint in the old treatment plant, but leave paint in areas above 10 feet that were out of reach of people.
Biron said that after Stantec had submitted its plan, Groton Utilities management had questions about it and contacted a third-party consultant to review the plan. Groton Utilities raised concerns with Stantec and then the utility called a meeting with the EPA. The EPA, state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and state Department of Public Health toured the facility last month and the EPA clarified that there is no regulatory process for the risk-based assessment and that all the old paint needs to be removed, he said.
Another issue is that soil on the outside of the plant was scraped up and put in a big pile, Biron said. Some of the dirt contained window caulking with PCBs in it, so the proper procedure would have been to sample individual sections of dirt for PCBs and then clean up that section of soil, if contaminated, rather than mix all the soil together in a pile, he said.
The resolution, he said, will be to submit a sampling plan to the EPA. Depending on the level of PCBs, the soil either will be sent to a hazardous waste facility, or, if the levels are below regulatory limits, potentially re-used.
"We have a way forward on that," Biron said. "It's not a threat to the public. We're not exceeding the concentrations in an industrial area."
Hedrick said the pile is covered and contained, so runoff is not an issue.
In an emailed statement, a Stantec spokesperson said: "Remediation plans for this project had been developed according to what has been reasonably expected by the EPA for conditions of this type, with the expectation of an iterative process that would require refinement following regulator review — as is typical for this type of work. In consultation with the EPA, we are proceeding along on a course to complete this work and look forward to continuing to support Groton Utilities in delivering a project that best addresses the needs of the community into the future."
R.H. White, the general contractor for the project, said requests for information should be directed to Groton Utilities.
DEEP spokesperson Kristina Rozek said the proposed plan was not consistent with other PCB cleanup plans approved by the EPA and a revised plan will need to be submitted. She said PCBs in building materials and in soils adjacent to the materials with PCBs are common in these types of municipal water and wastewater facilities, and it's also common for plans to go through a number of revisions before being approved.
EPA and DPH officials were not immediately available for comment.
Middletown’s Wesleyan University preps $75M bond offering; major campus upgrades planned
Greg Bordonaro
iddletown’s Wesleyan University is planning a $75-million bond offering that will help fund major campus upgrades to its art, social science, and science academic buildings, officials said.
The private, nonprofit college, which serves nearly 3,000 full-time undergraduate students, said the bond funding will help with renovations or upgrades to the school’s Public Affairs Center (PAC) and science and art facilities.
In December, Standard & Poor’s credit-rating agency affirmed a AA credit rating for the bond issue, while Moody’s affirmed its Aa3 rating, the school said. The plan is to close on the bond funding this month.
“This bond issue will support strategic investment in Wesleyan’s campus, the student experience, and faculty resources,” Wesleyan’s Senior Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer and Treasurer Andrew Tanaka said in a statement. “We continue our focus on fiscal prudence and responsible stewardship of the generous donations made to Wesleyan. Our strong track record in this regard has helped Wesleyan build its capacity to borrow.”
A major expansion of the Public Affairs Center, home of Wesleyan’s social sciences and located at the heart of campus. The updated building will be nearly 20 percent larger and feature a 75 percent increase in classroom space, as well as a new art gallery connecting to Olin Library. Classrooms and gathering spaces in the building will be flexible and modern, inspiring interaction among students and faculty across academic disciplines and fostering innovation. Funding from the bond issue will allow construction to begin as early as 2020.
The school plans to upgrade its science facilities, including Shanklin and Hall-Atwater, and the bond issue will accelerate the planning work. Work could include modernizing lab spaces, replacing front-facing lecture rooms with flexible spaces, including adjustable furniture and moveable equipment.
Wesleyan is also in the midst of a major expansion of its Center for Film Studies, with construction ongoing on a 16,000-square-foot addition, which will include a state-of-the-art production studio, 50-seat screening room, outdoor classroom and filming plaza, and a three-story house to be a dedicated space for on-site film shooting. Construction is expected to wrap up in mid-2020.
According to its investor’s prospectus, Wesleyan’s Middletown campus sits on 315 acres with 299 academic building totaling 2.76 million gross square feet. Its tuition is $56,704 for the 2019/2020 academic year, not including room and board, which cost an additional $15,723.
In fiscal 2019, the school recorded $231.5 million in revenues and had an operating margin of about $12 million. Its endowment is currently valued at about $1.1 billion.
Wesleyan isn’t the only area college planning a major expansion.