Repairs to 84-year-old Arrigoni
Bridge soon to enter final stage
Cassandra Day MIDDLETOWN — The second phase of the state’s $46 million rehabilitation of the Arrigoni Bridge and approach spans is expected to be wrapped up by early next month, paving the way for the third stage of construction.
According to the state Department of Transportation, nearly 34,000 vehicles each day cross the 84-year-old structure, which spans the Connecticut River between Middletown and Portland. The project was initiated a year ago.
The final stage will move traffic to the north side of the structure to allow the replacement of the south side decks and sidewalk, according to the DOT. The entire project is anticipated to be done in spring 2022.
Phase 3 is on track to begin in early April, according to Plantsville-based Mohawk Northeast construction project manager Tim O’Connell.
Concrete decking has been removed from the Portland Bridge, as it’s known locally, and the installation of rebar, as well as joint repair and “floor work,” is underway, said O’Connell, speaking at the recent online Middlesex County Chamber of Commerce Central Business Bureau meeting.
“We’re below the bridge, doing steel repairs, some strengthening of the existing steel structure,” as well as paint removal, he said. “You’ll probably hear some needlegun scalers hitting the bridge. It’s all routine maintenance.”
Preparation for the pouring of new concrete will take place once the weather is more favorable, DOT Arrigoni Bridge Project Engineer Mike Bugbee said.
The work was broken down into separate projects: $3.25 million for adding four more lanes to the roadway that leads to the structure and into Portland, and $43 million worth of repairs. The state estimated the project will be complete in spring 2022.
As for work in the North Main Street and downtown areas, signals now are installed at the intersections of Washington, Grand and Main streets and Rapallo Avenue, Bugbee said.
The finishing touches are being put on road work near the Route 9 north and south exits along Hartford Avenue (Route 17), which becomes Saint John’s Square at its intersection with Main Street (Route 66). That includes downtown intersections, O’Connell said.
Masthead lights and poles already are in place, and an electrician is installing the traffic control system at the intersections. Bike ramps will be in place come spring, O’Connell said.
Next up is the patching of holes in the sidewalks where older traffic lights were removed, Bugbee said. That work is weather-dependent. “The impact should be minimal at this point,” he said of the work.
For information about the bridge project, visit arrigonibridgeproject.com.
Middletown 'whittling down' 21 proposals for 'major' riverfront revitalization
Cassandra Day MIDDLETOWN — The city is in the process of reviewing nearly two-dozen requests for qualifications from firms interested in partnering with the city on its master plan for riverfront redevelopment, the most ever submitted for a city project, according to the mayor.
These proposals detail how companies would create a planning process, including gathering input from the public and city stakeholders, on a vision for what the Connecticut River at Harbor Park could look like in the future, Middletown Economic Development Specialist Thomas Marano said Friday. The area has been deemed prime real estate by officials.
Riverfront
revitalization has been a decades-long effort.
The
topic was discussed at Thursday’s Middlesex County Chamber of Commerce Central
Business Bureau’s virtual monthly meeting.
A
small group of people, including Chamber President Larry McHugh, have been
reviewing the proposals thoroughly over the past week, Mayor Ben Florsheim said
at the meeting.
Middletown
Planning, Conservation and Development Director Joseph Samolis called these
“major planning initiatives” at the meeting. “We are whittling down the
impressive response of 21 firms that applied through the RFP, and, hopefully in
the very near future, we’ll have that list narrowed down even further to narrow
the process over the next year.”
Middletown
architect and Town Planner Catherine Johnson; James Lima, Milone &
MacBroom; WXY Architecture + Urban Design; and Yard and Co. are just some of
the entities responding to the bid request.
“I
think people are going to be really excited to see how exciting these proposals
are, and how excited others are about coming to Middletown and working on our
riverfront,” Florsheim said at the meeting.
“We’re
proud of the responses we got from firms involved. We expect some great plans
to come out of it,” Thomas Marano said Friday.
The
public can visit middletownct.gov to view all the proposals.
Affordable housing project with 130 units proposed for
Pawcatuck
Joe
Wojtas Stonington -- A developer is proposing to construct
a 130-unit housing project, that would mix affordable and market
rate units, on the vacant lawn in front of the Brookside
Village complex in Pawcatuck.
The
town's Architectural Design Review Board reviewed the
preliminary plans for the four-story Brookside Villages II
project on Monday. The owner, Brookside Association Limited Partnership and the
applicant/ developer, Gilbane Development Co. of Providence, have not yet
filed an application for zoning approval for the town.
Architectural
renderings show a mix of studio, one- and two-bedroom units in
two four-story buildings.
Gilbane built
the original Brookside Village project in 1980. It contains
160 family and elderly affordable apartments under the Section 8
Housing Assistance program. Gilbane also was the construction manager
for the Stonington High School, Deans Mill School and West Vine Street
School renovation and expansion projects.
Project
attorney Bill Sweeney could not be reached for
comment Monday.
Based
on the description of the units in documents filed with the Architectural
Design Review Board, the project with a portion of the units dedicated as
affordable would be different than first phase of Brookside Village which
have subsidized rents.
At
a recent online forum, the town explained that affordable housing is often
incorrectly confused with federally subsidized public housing.
Instead,
"affordable housing represents quality living options for residents
spanning the economic spectrum."
These
units are priced below market rate and are aimed at residents such as teachers,
firefighters, service workers and others who work in the
community but may struggle to afford high rents.
"By
offering a diverse range of housing options, a community can help attract new,
younger workers, provide an opportunity for retirees to remain in the
community, and ensure those who work in our community also have the option to
live there," the town stated about its plan to create a
Housing Affordability Plan, which officials say will guide the actions needed
to achieve affordable housing goals.
About
6% of housing here is dedicated as affordable, short of the 10% goal set by the
state. When communities have less than 10 percent affordable housing,
developers do not have to conform to zoning regulations when they submit
projects that have an affordable component
The
Brookside project would become the latest project with affordable
units in Pawcatuck, which has become a hotbed for
affordable housing over the past several years.
Currently
there are four projects recently completed, under construction
or approved in the village.
These
include a total 126 units at the Spruce Ridge, Spruce Meadow and
Birchwood Farms projects, all located a short
distance from Brookside Village. In addition, a project with 82
units, 70% of which would be affordable, has been approved for the
former Campbell Grain building site in downtown Pawcatuck.
$36M Japanese-owned R&D hub floated for Windsor’s Great Pond development
Matt Pilon One of the larger undeveloped parcels in Windsor’s Great Pond business park may soon be transformed into a major biotech research and development hub, the Hartford Business Journal has learned.
A recently-formed New Haven early-stage biology research company called New England Cell Therapeutics wants to spend about $36 million to construct and outfit a 50,000-square-foot facility at 2195 Day Hill Road, which is currently farmland bordered by Route 187 and across from property-and-casualty insurer The Hartford’s Windsor campus.
Formed
in 2019, New England Cell Therapeutics is owned by Japan-based Nipro Group,
which makes pharmaceutical packaging and other products, and counts U.S.
locations in New Jersey, Indiana and Virginia.
NECT
President David Kolstad, a medical device executive who led the $90 million
sale of Massachusetts-based LightLab Imaging in 2010, declined comment for this
story.
The
company did not yet have a website as of press time. But its development
application to Windsor’s Economic Development Commission last month sheds some
light on its real estate hunt and aspirations.
If
NECT is successful in winning a four-year tax abatement deal from the town of
Windsor, which will review the matter this month, it intends to start
construction at the site this year. Between now and 2025, NECT says it would
hire 45 full-time employees at the site, with combined payroll exceeding $5 million
by the fifth year of operations.
NECT
said it investigated 20 properties in its search for a hub location.
If
built, the new facility would be right up the road from Amazon’s massive
warehouse facility, which was constructed several years ago and is in the midst
of a recently begun expansion.
“It
does show that this area is kind of a prime spot,” said James Burke, Windsor’s
economic development director.
Burke
said that NECT officials, in discussions with the town, noted the nearby
Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks, as well as the presence of
UConn and Yale, as pluses.
NECT’s
presence would build on other nearby medical and pharmaceutical players in
town, including Scapa, SCA Pharmaceutical and Protedyne.
“It
helps us diversify from our base in financial technology, and more recently,
distribution and specialized medical manufacturing,” Burke said.
How the PRO Act would change the construction industry
Zachary Phillips n
Thursday, Democratic lawmakers reintroduced the PRO Act, the sweeping
labor rights bill that was passed by the House of Representatives last
year. Construction groups representing workers, unions and employers alike
say they are watching intently to see how the bill, or parts of it, would
affect the industry if it becomes law.
By redefining “employees” and
“employers” in revisions to the National Labor Relations Act, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act grants
benefits to workers previously classified as independent contractors.
Additionally, the way in which unions and employers collectively bargain and
agree could be altered in states where unions have little to no say in the
employee-employer relationship.
Construction’s unique employment
model, which often features numerous workers on jobsites from various
contractors and subcontractors, means that if the act passes, construction
firms may have more responsibilities to every worker on site.
While union groups have long
supported the legislation, associations that represent construction firms such
as the Associated General Contractors of America and Associated Builders and
Contractors oppose it.
“The PRO Act would radically change
the employment and contracting landscape for 7.4 million essential construction
workers trying to rebuild our economy and cost small businesses — and
ultimately taxpayers — a fortune,” said ABC CEO Michael Bellaman in a statement released Thursday.
Also Thursday, AGC CEO Stephen
Sandherr said his organization will take “every possible step” to ensure
that the act does not become law.
“We view this measure as a
significant threat to the viability of the commercial construction industry,
its long history of offering advancement and opportunity to all workers and its
ability to rebuild our economy and revive our nation,” he said in a statement.
Construction trade unions said they
view the bill as empowering the American workforce by granting benefits to
employees who have not had them in the past, while ensuring all of those
benefiting from the union are paying dues.
“It’s OK for employer organizations
to be opposed to [the PRO Act] — it is a workers bill,” said James
Williams Jr., general vice president at large for the International Union of
Painters and Allied Trades. “It’s designed to change some of the labor
laws in this country and benefit the average working person and bridge the gap.
To give the workers their voices back.”
Despite the new Democratic majority
in the Senate, the fate of the PRO Act is not guaranteed. Republicans could use
a filibuster to derail the bill, which means that at least 60 senators
— nine more than a simple majority — would be needed to move the
legislation to a vote. Under that scenario, Democrats would likely not have
enough votes required to bring the bill for a vote, which means the PRO Act
could languish in the Senate, according to Kristen Swearingen, vice
president of legislative and political affairs at ABC.
For instance, the push to increase
the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour is a huge talking point for many
Democratic elected officials. Even if the act doesn’t pass, it would not take much
for President Joe Biden to implement a $15-an-hour wage on federal projects for
federal contractors via executive action, something Jimmy Christianson, vice
president of government relations for the AGC, said he anticipates.
“We are now having to play offense
on everything because the reality is the dozens of provisions in this bill are
likely to make their way into other pieces of legislation,” Christianson told
Construction Dive before the bill’s reintroduction.
Implications
for construction
As the PRO Act returns to the
national spotlight, here is a broad look into the biggest parts of the bill and
how they will affect contractors, trades workers and construction employers if
it passes:
Redefining employees. The PRO Act would change the definition of an “employee.”
As a result, many workers who are currently labeled as “independent
contractors” would become “employees,” and therefore, qualify for union
representation, benefits and higher wages.
“This is likely the issue that will
have the biggest effect on contractors if the PRO Act is passed,” said Elliot
Haney, attorney at Cotney Construction Law.
Under the PRO Act, workers are
considered employees unless they are free from control and direction from the
employer. If a worker is on a jobsite, it's reasonable to expect employers are
responsible for them.
Although the act is designed to
change the NLRA, Haney said, legal scholars anticipate it will also apply to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, which governs federal wage and hour requirements
— meaning employees who previously didn’t qualify for those mandates may
if the PRO Act becomes law.
Joint employer definition. The definition of a “joint employer” would also
change. Currently, Haney said, contractors with multiple workers on a jobsite
from various subs need only worry about potential liability if they have
control over “the essential terms and conditions of another firm's employee.”
With the PRO Act, an employer could be deemed liable with only “indirect control
or potential control.”
“If there are multiple union
employers on a single jobsite,” Haney said, “all such employers must have the
wherewithal to navigate the NLRA, even in their interactions with another
employer or another employer’s employees.”
Christianson said the resulting
change could open company owners to liability from workers other than
employees. They could also face secondary boycotts — where union workers
don’t cross picket lines for strikes initiated by other unions on the jobsite.
With multiple subcontractors on site, the AGC official said, work could halt
over a labor dispute between just one union and its employer.
The IUPAT's Williams, however, said
the redefinition would bring benefits for many workers who he called “woefully
misidentified” as independent contractors instead of employees.
“Some of the worst actors have
adopted that model, and that is bad for workers,” he said.
Right-to-work. The PRO Act would remove the distinction of the
“right-to-work” state, a model in which union security agreements are
prohibited. There are 27 right-to-work states.
In non-right-to-work states,
employers and labor unions agree to the extent the unions can compel workers to
join via the collective bargaining agreement.
Opponents of the PRO Act say this
provision would force workers to join unions and pay dues, but Haney said
that is not necessarily the case.
“The PRO Act does not require all
employees in union industries to pay union dues. It just allows employers and
unions in all states to enforce such a provision in their collective bargaining
agreement if they so choose,” Haney said in an email to Construction Dive. “The
policy basis for this shift is often called the ‘fair share’ approach to
collective bargaining — that if a worker is going to benefit from union
representation, they should have to contribute to the cost of such
representation.”
The elimination of right-to-work
laws could mean that open-shop contractors will face a sudden shift in balance
to the unions, Christianson said.
Secret ballots. The certification of a union as a representative workers
group is usually conducted through a secret ballot, wherein workers vote if
they want to be represented by the union. Opponents of the PRO Act claim that
it would eliminate the secret ballot elections, which they see as an invasion
of privacy that allows unions to essentially strongarm their way into control.
According to Haney, that’s not true.
“Under the PRO Act, the initial vote whether to certify a union will still
occur via secret ballot,” he said. “What the PRO Act changes is the process by
which the union can appeal the result of such an election.”
If the PRO Act becomes a law, unions
that lose initial votes can petition the National Labor Relations Board
claiming employer interference or violation. If the NLRB finds probable cause
of interference, the union can overturn the failed election result by obtaining
signed authorization cards from a majority of employees in favor of certifying
the union, Haney said.
Opponents of the bill fear unions
will be able to assert undue influence on employees willing to vote against the
union when conducted by a secret ballot — as they may feel intimidated
when asked by the union to sign their name to authorization cards, Haney said.
The
future
Whether the PRO Act becomes law or
not, discussions focused on labor relations are likely to take center stage now
that Biden, who vowed to be a pro-union president, is in the White House. Union
leaders are looking forward to a continued conversation about these
issues, said Williams.
“What we’re excited about and what
we know is that at least having a public debate about reforming our labor laws
could be a healthy thing for this country,” he said. “We’re optimistic."
Nevertheless, even if the PRO Act
stalls in the Senate, elements may find their way into other pieces of
legislation or agency guidance such as the revision to “employee” definitions
or abolishing right-to-work laws in states.