Opinion: Developers cry a river over having to pay CT residents fair wages
Kimberly Glassman
Boo hoo hoo. Another rich developer is screaming from
the rooftops over having to follow our state’s laws and compensate workers
appropriately if they accept a state grant. Can you imagine the hardship these
developers must be enduring? Accepting a taxpayer-funded grant from our state’s
Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) and then having to
follow the laws associated with said grant? We should all take out our violins
and play a sad tune for these multi-million-dollar companies.
The most
recent victim of having to follow our state’s laws seems to be a developer in
the Town
of Fairfield. Post Road Residential is angry that, by accepting a
brownfield remediation grant from DECD, they are required to ensure the
construction workers hired to perform work on their development project would
earn not less than our state’s prevailing wage. They’re apparently also upset
by having to ensure a certain number of housing units are set aside as
affordable. To be clear, this developer, who just a few years ago took a $33M
loan from Citizens Bank, is trying to garner sympathy for having to pay their
workers a livable wage and make sure that people can actually afford to live in
their luxury Fairfield apartments. Yeah, I’m sure it’s really tough for these
guys.
In 2017, the bipartisan budget expanded prevailing wage
protections for workers employed on projects funded with economic development
monies. It passed with strong support from both sides of the aisle in both
chambers. This was a commonsense initiative — if a private company is seeking
public assistance dollars for development, then they’re going to in turn pay
our state’s workforce a livable wage. These dollars should be recycled back
into our local economies, not used to line the pockets of elites while our
construction workers struggle to get by. But now that a few power brokers are
throwing temper tantrums, the law is being called into question.
A study published by the Illinois Economic Policy Institute
on Jan. 17, 2023 titled, “The Economic Impact of Prevailing Wage Law Repeals on
Construction Market Outcomes,” found that, “there is no evidence that any of
the six repeals of prevailing wage laws between 2015 and 2018 reduced public
construction costs or saved taxpayers any money.” The study further indicates
that, “The data are clear that prevailing wage laws attract qualified workers
through family-supporting wages, develop skilled workers through contributions
to apprenticeship programs that boost productivity, and retain experienced
workers with strong health and retirement benefits that promote long-term
economic security. Repeal has the opposite effect.”
When Fairfield developer Post Road Residential claims that
following a state law that’s been on the books since the 1930s will increase
their project costs by 30 percent, you have to ask what are they are paying
their workers? Labor rates only account for 20 percent of total project costs.
Just last month, CT Mirror published an article, “Charting
CT: One of the richest, and most unequal, states,” where they reported that,
“To get an idea, Fairfield County's personal income per capita was more than
double that of Windham County. Meanwhile, 2022 estimates from the U.S. Census
Bureau, whose methodology differs, place Connecticut at second-most unequal in
the nation, right behind New York.”
Look, we want developers to take a chance on Connecticut. We
want apartment buildings and shopping centers built, but not at the expense of
our residents’ livelihoods. As politicians love to say, we’re open for
business. But if you’re going to flout our laws and worsen wealth inequality,
then you’re simply not the company we want to do business with. Rather than
echoing this developer’s gripes, the Town of Fairfield, and frankly DECD too,
should instead stick to its principles. Fine, don’t take our money. There are
plenty of other developers who will.
Kimberly Glassman is director of the Foundation for Fair
Contracting of Connecticut.
Construction begins on controversial solar project in Torrington, Litchfield
TORRINGTON — Residents are opposing a solar project as trees
are being removed and open fields are transformed into an access road and
clearings for more than 51,000 panels.
The project, which is owned by Silicon Ranch and sits on 212
acres in Litchfield and Torrington, was approved
in September 2021 by the Connecticut
Siting Council.
But it's still drawing opposition and requests from those
nearby, including
First Selectman Denise Raap, who recently wrote to the siting council about
one of the abutting property owners who has had to hire a lawyer to
"protect not only his property rights, but also insure his home is not
damaged by the blasting."
Silicon Ranch did not return requests for comment.
"I am concerned with multiple issues related to
this project," Raap wrote, in a Jan. 30 letter to the council. "With
thousands of trees being removed and with that their stabilizing root systems
and the blasting of a bedrock, there is a concern about the amount of runoff
water anticipated to be collected and how and where it will dissipate."
In Litchfield, the site is east and west of Wilson Road off Town Farm Road. Torrington's site is a combination of four properties, located south of Highland Avenue and east and west of Rossi Road.
Ed Townsend, a Torrington resident who lives near the the
Highland Avenue property, said he was surprised when a crew arrived in January
and began clearing the land off Highland Avenue, which he described as having
"a beautiful view."
"They have huge machinery up there. There's huge
excavators with jackhammers on them," he said. "They're tearing out a
big cliff right now so, it's pretty amazing."
"I used to purposely drive on that road to get to
Litchfield, up Highland, over to Rossi Road to Litchfield, and it's a
uniquely beautiful area," he said. "It's beautiful old New England
rolling farmland."
Tree-clearing and other activities began on the site in
early November 2023, and blasting began at the end of January. Silicon Ranch
made its proposal to the town of Litchfield in 2020 to install more than
50,000 solar panels, called photovoltaic modules.
Earlier in the approval process, neighbors on nearby Wilson
Road in Litchfield were commenters, or "parties" to the project,
according to documentation from the CT Siting Council. The Litchfield Planning
and Zoning Commission, in March 2021, also submitted comments to the council
concerning land use, drainage, grading, watersheds, noise, glare, setbacks and
groundwater quality.
Raap also sent comments to the council regarding landowner
concerns, protection of watercourses, wetlands and natural habitats; and
adherence to local zoning and wetland regulations, according to the siting
council's report.
In the most recent letter, Raap said the abutting property
owner wanted a different stormwater management plan that would avoid
his property completely.
In a response, the council's executive director, Melanie
Bachman, wrote that the project was approved with conditions and the neighbor's
comments about a modified stormwater management north of his
property were taken into account.
"A preliminary project design identified the structure
as a detention basin with an outlet structure at the southeast end,"
Bachman wrote. "The project was subsequently re-designed both prior to and
during the D&M Plan process, and the structure was changed to a wet swale
that discharges at the southeast end."
The neighbor did not return calls seeking comment.
The power generated from the site will be sold to
Eversource and United Illuminating, according to documentation
from the Connecticut Siting Council, provided by the Torrington land use
office.
The siting council reviews and decides on energy
project proposals and cell towers in Connecticut. Municipal officials are
involved in the process only to comment or make suggestions. The ultimate
decision to approve or reject a project is in the hands of the siting council,
which also hears testimony from the applicants and experts from the various
parties.
"While the council is obligated to consult with and
solicit comments from state agencies by statute, the council is not required to
abide by the comments from state agencies," according to the report.
Litchfield officials were primarily involved in the
proposal, which was first made to former First Selectman Leo Paul in 2020. The
town held public meetings on the proposal, according to Siting Council
documentation. During the application and approval process, residents living
around the site raised many concerns involving wetlands, water quality,
stormwater runoff and drainage, and the impact of the plan on their quality of
life.
According to Torrington City Planner Jeremy Leifert, the
land use office chose to stay out of the process because the primary area for
the installation is in Litchfield.
"Although we did send in some comments through our
Conservation Commission when the project was being reviewed, we did not have
any regulatory review authority on it," Leifert said.
Calling proceeds from the potential sale of its water
business “cash coming in the door,” Eversource Energy’s President and CEO Joe
Nolan said during an earnings call Wednesday morning that selling Aquarion
would help cover the company’s need for $1.3 billion in equity.
Chief Financial Officer John Moreira blamed the Public
Utilities Regulatory (PURA) for the company’s cash flow issues, saying the
regulatory agency’s new methodology has prevented it from recovering $800
million related to supply costs and arrearages.
PURA no longer allows utilities to forecast costs for
supply in rate adjustments. However, Eversource expects to recover that $800
million within the next year, or longer, the company said.
In the meantime, Nolan said Eversource is working to
evaluate market interest in the sale of Aquarion. He declined to put a
valuation on the company and also declined to provide a timetable.
However, Nolan said the potential sale would move more
quickly than the company’s recent divestment from three offshore wind projects.
Aquarion, the seventh-largest water company in the country,
would be an attractive asset to many companies due to its size, he added.
“The sale would mitigate any further equity needs that we
may have,” Nolan said during the call.
Bridgeport-based Aquarion serves about 241,000 customers in
Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire — 92% of whom are based in
Connecticut
It had net income of $33 million in 2023 and book equity of
$1.3 million.
Eversource acquired Aquarion for $1.7 billion in 2017.
Eversource and PURA have been at odds since last March, when
the regulator not only rejected Aquarion's rate increase request, but decreased
its annual revenue requirement by $2 million from the current level — about a
1% reduction.
Aquarion appealed PURA’s decision in New Britain Superior
Court and the decision is currently in the hands of a judge.
Nolan said he expects a decision in the coming months.
Eversource Surges on Plans to Shed Water, Offshore-Wind Assets
Will Wade
(Bloomberg) -- Eversource Energy surged the most in almost
four years after announcing plans to exit the offshore-wind and water
businesses, moves aimed at refocusing on its core business of delivering
electricity and natural gas to customers in the US Northeast.
Eversource climbed as much as 8%, the most intraday since
April 2020, and were up 4.5% to $56.97 at 11:25 a.m. in New York.
The Springfield, Massachusetts-based company announced
Tuesday a deal to sell its 50% stakes in two US offshore-wind projects to
Global Infrastructure Partners LP. That follows a January agreement to sell its
50% stake in a third project to its joint venture partner Orsted A/S.
Eversource also said it would start the process of seeking a
buyer for its Aquarion water-distribution business.
The moves will pare operations seen as less critical to the
company’s core business, according to Chief Executive Officer Joe Nolan. It
also follows the trend among US utilities including Exelon Corp. and Dominion
Energy Inc. that are shedding assets to focus on the basic, regulated functions
of providing energy to homes and businesses.
“Moving forward, Eversource will focus on the delivery of
clean, safe and reliable energy,” Nolan said during a conference call with
analysts Wednesday.
Eversource will realize $1.1 billion in cash proceeds for
selling the stakes in the South Fork and Revolution projects to GIP, according
to a statement Tuesday. The sale is expected to close in mid-2024. That will
help offset a $1.95 billion charge the company took in 2023 as the US offshore
wind struggled to contend with rising costs that have prompted developers to
delay or cancel projects.
“Utilities really are trying to focus on their regulated
businesses only,” Nikki Hsu, an analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence, said in an
interview. “It’s less risky.”
Rooster River flood mitigation funding in limbo as Fairfield awaits Army Corps of Engineers permits
FAIRFIELD — A multimillion-dollar project to reduce flooding
along the Rooster River is in the middle of a town government tussle over how
to allocate federal COVID-19 relief funds before they expire.
Town officials said Fairfield has about four more months to
commit more than $2.8 million in American Rescue Plan Act funding for the Rooster
River flood mitigation work, but they might need to move the money
elsewhere if the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers doesn't grant the necessary
permits for the project within that time frame.
The potential removal of millions of dollars from the
project along the river, a major
source of flooding between Fairfield and Bridgeport, has raised
concerns about whether the work would receive the same financial backing in the
seven-figure capital budget that spans all publicly-funded town projects.
"I hate to direct money away from the
neighborhood," Selectwoman Brenda Kupchick said at a Board of Selectmen
meeting Jan. 31. "Those people's houses are getting destroyed every
year."
Kupchick, the former Republican first selectwoman in
Fairfield who still serves on the board, pushed back against a proposal from
Democratic First Selectman Bill Gerber, who suggested the transfer of nearly
$2.2 million of Rooster River money into paving and sidewalk repairs since
USACE permits still haven't been issued.
That motion failed. The board agreed to keep the funds in
place for another few months in expectation of timely approval from USACE,
the federal agency that hands out permits for construction across the country's
navigable waters.
"I don't think your position really makes sense,"
Gerber said in response to Kupchick's concern about the Rooster River losing
funding in the capital planning process. "For me, this is fungible, and
I'm lowering the risk that we're gong to lose it by moving it."
ARPA fund recipients are required
to allocate the money by the end of 2024 and spend them by the end of
2026, but Gerber said the town would need to go out to bid, requesting project
services, by June or July to have enough time to commit the final costs before
the deadline.
Town Engineer Bill Hurley said the USACE is late on its
target to return a decision by November, and agency officials told him weeks
ago to expect one in "a couple of months." He added that the agency
has reshuffled the Fairfield applications between a pair of USACE for a
second time — a development that was noted within the first selectman's
office.
"They've had this for 18 months," Gerber said.
USACE did not immediately return a request for comment.
Hurley said he hopes to receive a decision on the permit
applications within a month or two. Fairfield needs USACE permits to build
detention basins along the river at Tunxis Hill Park and the Fairchild
Wheeler Golf Course.
Gerber stressed his urgency to limit flooding impacts
throughout the neighborhoods that hug the Rooster River.
"We're committed to funding this," Gerber said.
"It's just which pocket it comes out of. I agree it has to get funded.
I've seen firsthand the impact of flooding along the Rooster River, and so
that's not really the question for me."
Kupchick said before she supports reallocating the ARPA
funds, she wants a commitment from the Board of Finance to fund the contested
Rooster River money. Gerber said the Board of Finance voted to move $2 million
from a surplus to debt service category at the end of last year to
"provide flexibility," which he said opened up the need for extra
financial support for the work.
Interim Department of Public Works Director
John Marsilio said he needs an additional $2 million for paving projects
and $1 million for bluestone sidewalks in Southport — costs that Gerber
suggested covering with the Rooster River ARPA funds. The Board of
Selectmen approved more than $4.8 million in additional ARPA funds,
without tapping into the Rooster River money, to finance the paving and
sidewalk work through June 30. The board reallocated ARPA funds from a variety
of other public projects, ranging from money for already-completed playground
upgrades to COVID-19 recovery assistance that's soon to close.
East Haven Files Federal Court Appeal Against Tweed Airport Expansion
Sophia Muce
EAST HAVEN — The town and the nonprofit Save the Sound have
appealed the approval of the Tweed New Haven Airport expansion in federal court
on Wednesday, maintaining that an environmental study failed to address
“crucial” looming impacts.
After reviewing an environmental assessment of the $165
million plan, which includes the extension of a runway and new terminal and
parking in East Haven, the FAA
issued a “Finding of No Significant Impact” in December, moving the
project forward to the permitting phase without additional environmental
studies.
But on Wednesday, East Haven and Save the Sound moved to
challenge the FAA, filing separate petitions to appeal the decision with the
federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The federal court can now decide to either dismiss the
petitions, affirm the FAA decision or reverse it.
According to East Haven Mayor Joseph Carfora — who
originally supported the expansion but changed his opinion after questioning
the economic benefits for the town — the approved environmental assessment
neglected to address environmental impacts on air quality, wildlife and water
quality.
In a Wednesday news release, Carfora said the town is
committed to a thorough appeals process, and outlined his concerns about the
expansion.
“The Town of East Haven is deeply concerned about the
environmental impact of the proposed Tweed Airport expansion. The project’s
scope, including the construction of a close to 200-million-dollar facility in
the middle of wetlands and approximately 6,000 parking spaces at or below sea
level, raises serious concerns,” Carfora wrote.
In Save the Sound’s petition, Senior Legal Director Roger
Reynolds similarly said the assessment fails to take the “requisite hard look”
at environmental justice impacts.
Because both East Haven and New Haven are considered
environmental justice communities based on poverty levels and racial
composition, opponents have argued that potential impacts of the expansion need
further study through an environmental
impact statement. The FAA decision, however, blocked the opportunity for
additional study under the National Environmental Policy Act review process.
In a Wednesday statement to CT Examiner, Jorge Roberts,
chief executive officer of Avports — an airport management company which signed
a 43-year lease with Tweed — stood by the original study and said the project
would be moving forward throughout the appeal process.
“We’re confident in the thorough process undertaken by the
FAA, which resulted in an official finding of no significant impact to the
environment. Legal challenges are a normal part of the process, and the FAA has
an excellent track record on appeals of this type,” Roberts said. “The project
can and will continue to advance as this legal process plays out — design is
already well underway and we will continue toward permitting.”
Matthew Hoey, chair of the Tweed Airport Authority and first
selectman of Guilford, also noted the merits of the environmental assessment,
saying that the board would continue to work on the project as obligated by its
lease.
“The airport and its authority have taken part in the
detailed, multiyear process for this project, which is overseen by federal and
state agencies. The FAA thoroughly reviewed a detailed environmental assessment
and subsequently gave their approval,” Hoey said. “While the federal legal
process plays out, we will continue to work with Avports and the state of
Connecticut to continue the design and permitting phase, as required under our
lease agreement.”
While the approved study predicted little significant
impacts on air quality, noise, traffic or wetlands, the town spent $250,000 to
conduct its
own studies exploring the expansion’s effects on traffic, stormwater
maintenance, flood mitigation and inland wetlands. Firms like VN Engineers,
Inc., Davison Engineering and Trinkaus Engineering concluded that the FAA’s
study failed to analyze peak evening hours and intersections, and that the
expansion would contribute to nearby stormwater pollution.
10,000 Hawks, a nonprofit group created by residents
opposing the expansion, also used a $10,000 grant from New Haven Green Fund to
hire a Tufts University researcher to study
air quality around the airport. Dr. Neelakshi Hudda concluded that
current residents surrounding Tweed may experience impacts from plane exhaust
both inside and outside their homes. Several residents have said air quality
will worsen if the airport’s plan is implemented.