CT Construction Digest Tuesday March 3, 2026

Larson, Blumenthal, Murphy Announce Landmark Project Labor Agreement Requirement, Securing Union Jobs for $345 Million Hartford Courthouse Construction

Hartford, CT – Today, Rep. John B. Larson (CT-01) and Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy announced a new federal determination they negotiated with the General Services Administration (GSA) to require a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) for the upcoming $345 million courthouse construction project in Hartford. This new determination will secure hundreds of good-paying, union construction jobs for the new U.S. District Courthouse on Allyn Street. 

“Our delegation has worked together for many years to secure the funding needed to build a new courthouse in Hartford and press the GSA to oversee a bidding process that does right by our workers,” said Larson. “We brought together a broad coalition to secure this determination, including the Building Trades and local leaders like Mayor Arunan Arulampalam, who understand the importance of good-paying union jobs in our community. As Big Business and their allies continue to try to cut labor out of the process, we will keep fighting to make sure no one can deny Connecticut workers the pay and benefits they deserve. I will always stand with our hard-working men and women in construction, and will continue to work with our federal, state, and local partners to see this project through.” 

“This agreement will ensure high quality craftsmanship and good wages for skilled workers as they build Hartford’s much needed new courthouse,” said Blumenthal. “Project Labor Agreements are a win-win, ensuring that workers are fairly compensated, and projects are cost effective and completed on time. Our delegation strongly encouraged this agreement and advocated for the project’s funding, and I am thrilled it is moving forward.” 

“Building a new courthouse is a massive project that will create hundreds of jobs in Hartford. This decision is a huge win for workers and I’m grateful to my colleagues for their partnership in making sure these workers are paid livable wages and working on sites that are safe,” said Murphy. 

Today’s announcement came after Larson, Blumenthal, and Murphy secured $345 million in federal funding to support the new courthouse’s construction. Following the lawmakers’ recent letter urging the requirement of a PLA for the project, GSA officials issued a determination that a PLA would be in the public’s interest, citing Larson, Blumenthal, and Murphy’s advocacy as a key reason for the new policy.   

“Project Labor Agreements not only mean better-paying jobs for our members here in Hartford, but also a safer worksite, better building materials, and in this case, a more modern and reliable courthouse for our community. They are an essential part of any significant construction project,” said Hartford Building Trades President Mike Grabowski. “The hard-working men and women of the Building Trades are grateful to Congressman Larson and Senators Blumenthal and Murphy, who worked tirelessly across multiple administrations to bring this $345 million project to Hartford and secure this landmark determination from the federal government for the workers we represent.” 

View Larson, Blumenthal, and Murphy’s full letter to GSA HERE. 

Read the full determination from GSA requiring PLAs to be part of the bidding process for the courthouse project HERE. 

$7.3M solar farm plan for CT forest land denied. Environmental impact cited in ruling.

Sean Krofssik

The Connecticut Siting Council has rejected a Lodestar Energy application that would have brought a solar farm to Torrington.

The application was for the construction, maintenance, and operation of a 3.0-megawatt-AC solar photovoltaic electric generating facility and associated equipment on 13 parcels located south of West Hill Road in Torrington.

The Connecticut Siting Council found that the effects associated with the construction of the 3.0-megawatt-AC solar photovoltaic electric generating facility were a reason for the proposal’s denial.

The council cited effects on “the natural environment, ecological balance, public health and safety, scenic, historic, and recreational values, agriculture, forests and parks, air and water purity, fish, aquaculture and wildlife are disproportionate either alone or cumulatively with other effects compared to need, are in conflict with the policies of the State concerning such effects, and are sufficient reason to deny the application,” the decision says.

West Hartford-based Lodestar Energy, also known as LSE Serpens LLC, formally applied for this solar farm, with the goal of generating renewable electrical energy from solar power, generating renewable electrical energy from solar power on March 13, 2025.

Prior to that, Lodestar began consulting with officials of the city of Torrington and the town of New Hartford in Oct. 2024. In Nov. 2024, Lodestar met with the mayor, city planner and deputy public works director/city engineer, records show. New Hartford is located within 2,500 feet of the proposed facility site.

During a June 2025 evidentiary hearing, the city of Torrington submitted an objection to the application as defective for lack of notice, records show. The city claimed “Lodestar’s failure to comply with new requirements that became effective on October 1, 2024, for an applicant to make “good faith efforts to meet with the… legislative body of the municipality and each member of the legislature in whose assembly or senate district the facility… is to be located… and shall provide.. any technical reports concerning the public need, the site selection process and the environmental effects of the proposed facility,” according to a Connecticut Siting Council report from last month.

On July 25, 2025, the Connecticut Siting Council denied Torrington’s objection in part. However, the council voted to keep Lodestar’s application open and gave the company until Sept. 22, 2025 to submit “additional municipal and legislative consultation materials.” Lodestar submitted a certified letter to municipal and state legislative officials on Aug. 5.

The Connecticut Siting Council under the Public Utility Environmental Standards Act balances “the need for adequate and reliable public utility services at the lowest reasonable cost to consumers with the need to protect the environment and ecology of the state and to minimize damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values,” according to the council.

The proposed facility was to “contribute to the state’s efforts to promote the deployment of clean renewable energy sources,” according to records.

Under the proposal, Lodestar affiliate Colony Honey, LLC was to purchase the property and lease the site to Lodestar.

The estimated construction cost of the facility was approximately $7,294,000, records show.

The proposed solar facility was targeted for “an approximate 19.2-acre site located on host property comprised of 13 contiguous parcels totaling approximately 41 acres located south of West Hill Road, Torrington. The host parcels, owned by James Bobinski and Maura Steele, are zoned Residential Water Shed Protection Zone,” according to a Connecticut Siting Council report.

The host property was to be south of West Hill Road and had 116 feet of frontage along West Hill Road with the majority of the property being undeveloped forest with the exception of the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. and that “an approximate 2.37-acre forested wetland occupies the southwestern portion of the host parcel.”

In July, Connecticut Siting Council extended its final decision to March 8, 2026, and submitted it about a month before that deadline.

Then Torrington Mayor Elinor Carbone and then City Councilwoman Molly Spino (now mayor) submitted letters dated Sept. 30, 2025, that both “expressed opposition to the proposed facility due to concerns about traffic safety; proximity of 352 and 340 West Hill Road properties to the proposed access drive; and potential loss of tax revenue.”

Lodestar responded that the proposed facility would have provided “direct tax benefits associated with the payment of real and personal property taxes,” according to the Connecticut Siting Council report.

There were also neighborhood concerns during a public comment session of a Connecticut Siting Council meeting, records show. Six members of the public spoke and 12 written statements from the public as well.

Some of the concerns raised by the public included visibility, noise, water quality, air quality, forest, electric and magnetic fields (EMF), agricultural activities, cultural resources, wildlife, and public safety, according to a Connecticut Siting Council report.

Following the raised neighborhood concerns, Lodestar said it would “utilize landscape plantings near the proposed northern portions of the array area and utility poles as well as fence screening material.”

Among the benefits Lodestar cited in the Sitting Council report is that “solar facilities generate the most electricity during daylight hours which often coincides with periods of high energy use such as during the summer when air conditioning use increases. This overlap would help to ease pressure on the grid during peak times and thus lower the risk of overloads or outages,” according to a Connecticut Siting Council report.

The proposed facility would have consisted of approximately 7,686 photovoltaic panels rated at 540 Watts each. The panels were to be arranged in linear rows in an east-west direction, separated by approximately 17-foot-wide vegetated aisles.”

The nearest property line and residence to the solar facility perimeter was approximately 71 and 190 feet, respectively, to the northwest at 270 West Hill Road,” according to the Connecticut Siting Council report.

The proposed facility had a design capacity of approximately 2.988 MW AC at the point of interconnection and that would interconnect to an Eversource electric distribution circuit on West Hill Road, records show.

Lodestar said in the Connecticut Siting Council’s report that noise emissions from the facility would be during daytime operations from the 20 inverters and two transformers. The facility would not have operated or generated noise at night.

An email seeking comment was sent to Lodestar.

Ultimately, the Connecticut Siting Council’s conclusion was to deny the project.

“Based on forest impacts, bat habitat impacts, proximity to reservoirs and water quality impacts, the Council will not issue a Certificate for the construction, maintenance, and operation of a 3.0 MW AC solar photovoltaic electric generating facility and associated equipment south of West Hill Road Torrington, Connecticut, and associated electrical interconnection,” the Connecticut Siting Council’s decision concluded.

Bridgeport gives Cherry Street Lofts developer more time to pay taxes, settle suits

Brian Lockhart

But the black netting draped late last year over Gary Flocco’s blighted buildings at 62, 72 and 80 Cherry St. and 1325 Railroad Ave. is considered a sign of progress at the residential redevelopment long-delayed by legal and financial woes.

Three months ago Mayor Joe Ganim’s administration was getting ready to demolish the ex-factory structures. But then the city agreed to provide Flocco's Hancock Avenue Partners company more time to finally get the next phase of his Cherry Street Lofts rehabilitation project moving.

Flocco has already built an adjacent 158 apartments and a charter school with an additional 138 units planned. 

So he was granted 90 days to better secure the undeveloped properties as well as make headway paying off overdue property taxes and creditors and solidifying financial backing. And while as of last week he has not checked off that entire to-do list, Flocco accomplished enough to earn a 30-day extension.

“We needed to make sure there was progress being made for that to be granted,” explained Thomas Gaudett, Ganim’s chief administrative officer, on Thursday.

Besides the netting installation, as of last week Flocco had windows boarded up and had paid $10,000 of his over half-million-dollar municipal tax bill, plus provided city officials paperwork indicating a pending $3.9 million loan.

Flocco on Friday said that loan will not only make Bridgeport whole but pay off contractors who have gone to court to collect on other bills he owes. As long as those legal actions are pending, the state’s economic development department cannot release $3.2 million worth of previously-awarded grants Hancock Avenue Partners needs to clean up contamination at the site ahead of his intended renovations.

“We’re going to keep the shell of the buildings up, re-secure with timber infrastructure and redo the whole interior,” Flocco said. “Everything on the inside will be brand new.”

He said his original $78.1 million budget now stands at “about $82 million” due to cost increases over time.

“The project works financially,” Flocco continued. “We’ve just got to get over this hump.”

How precarious is the developer’s financial situation? Netting Nerds, the Madison-based company Flocco hired late last year to, per his 90-day deal with Bridgeport, help stabilize 62, 72 and 80 Cherry St. and 1325 Railroad Ave., has yet to be paid its $86,200 bill and taken legal action to collect.

“I missed my family Christmas party to do it,” the firm’s frustrated founder, Conor Dowd, said Thursday. “We were supposed to be doing other work. … We helped him out.” 

“They’re doing what they need to do to protect themselves,” Flocco said Friday. “They’ve been decent to work with. Everyone’s going to get paid.”

Previously broken promises to clear up his legal and money problems led to the city’s decision last year to try to raze Flocco’s undeveloped buildings. 

Cherry Street Lofts' first phase opened in 2018 and a ceremonial groundbreaking for the next section involving 62, 72 and 80 Cherry St. and 1325 Railroad Ave. was held in 2021 and attended by Ganim and Gov. Ned Lamont.

But by spring 2024, with no visible progress, the city formally condemned those four addresses and took other initial steps to tear them down. Flocco successfully asked for more time to get his affairs in order. 

Still seeing no construction as of last summer, the Ganim administration advertised for bids from interested demolition contractors for the job, picking Total Wrecking & Environmental out of New York. The mayor’s office even scheduled a press conference — which they then canceled — to promote the teardown.

In response, in late September Hancock Avenue Partners went to court and the two sides struck the 90-day deal.

The state is also taking a closer look at Flocco’s status. Jim Watson, a spokesman for Connecticut’s economic development department, re-confirmed that the $3.2 million in aid will not be activated while the developer’s “legal and other issues … remain unresolved.”

“Additionally,” Watson wrote in an email, “Due to the time that has passed (we) are reassessing the project budget to ensure that there are sufficient available funds to complete the cleanup. … This review is necessary because of potential cost increases and the deterioration of the buildings.”

Gaudett Thursday acknowledged that Bridgeport may not have much choice but to remain patient and work with Flocco and Hancock Partners rather than undertake the threatened demolition.

“We’ve been told that new construction is incredibly, incredibly difficult to finance and if we were to demolish … we probably wouldn’t see development there for a much longer period of time,” Gaudett explained. “So we’re sticking with 'option A' because that’s the most viable.”

Gaudett added that while it has been a few years, Flocco was successful with Cherry Street Lofts' first phase.

“From our perspective they did the project right next door,” he said. “We want this to work.”

CT Construction Digest Friday February 27, 2026

Connecticut Siting Council denies solar farm for Torrington forest on West Hill

Sloan Brewster

TORRINGTON — The Connecticut Siting Council has denied Lodestar Energy's application for a solar farm on 41 acres West Hill Road.

“The Siting Council determined that the scale of forest clearing and the associated environmental impacts outweighed any potential benefits of the project,” Mayor Molly E. Spino said in a statement. “We appreciate the council’s careful consideration of these factors.”

The city has opposed the project since learning of Lodestar’s plans last January to submit an application to develop a 3.0-megawatt ground-mounted solar photovoltaic electric generating facility.

Spino, in her announcement, noted the city also represented the interests of Torrington residents in the opposition. Pointing out that the project offered no direct benefit to local taxpayers, she said installing the more than 7,500 solar panels called for would have required clearing 19 acres of prime forest and impacting 24 acres of farmland soil.

Of the forest, 10 acres are considered "core forest" and the remainder is consider "edge forest" which generally borders non-forested land.

Core forests provide habitat for wildlife unable to tolerate significant disturbance. The loss of such forest cover diminishes water purification and habitat values, according to the state's website.

Spino also noted that the city had “significant environmental concerns,” about the project, including that the site is located near drinking water reservoirs that also impacts an endangered bat habitat.

Lodestar Energy could not be immediately reached for comment.

Torrington had hired attorney Bruce L. McDermott, of Harris, Beach, Murtha, in New Haven, to help fight the project. Last May, McDermott requested and was granted permission for the city to be named a party or intervening municipality in the process. It was the only intervening municipality. 

Because the city was a party, it will be reimbursed by the state treasurer for legal expenses using money Lodestar had earmarked for that, said Attorney Tomasz Kalinowski, corporation counsel for the city.

“There will be no direct cost to taxpayers,” he said.

Former Mayor Elinor C. Carbone, who lead the battle against the project and who has repeatedly said the city is overburdened with solar farms, said she was pleased with the results.

“I’m excited,” Carbone said. “This is the fourth application that was presented for property in Torrington. We felt after the third one, which was on Lover’s Lane, that enough was enough.”

Last February, the Siting Council granted approval for Lodestar to put in a 3-megawatt solar farm on property next to Country Woods Condominiums on Lovers Lane. The city also objected to that application but did not become a party in the process.

A solar farm is also going up at the landfill and there are two other solar farms in the city, Carbone has said.

Clarice "Pinky" Johnson, who has spoken against the project in hearings, said she is “very pleased” about the denial, calling it a win for the town. Johnson said there are plenty of open areas in Torrington more suited to solar than wooded land with natural springs and a nearby watershed.

“Getting rid of 20 acres of forest to me was horrible when there’s open spaces in town, “she said

Johnson was also concerned about electromotive force or EMFs from the solar arrays.

“I’m thankful that they hired the lawyer because if they didn’t it probably would’ve been pushed through,” Johnson said.

Tweed Airport Expansion Moves Ahead as Residents Question Flooding, Wetlands Impact

Amy Wu

As Tweed-New Haven Airport moves closer to a $250 million expansion, officials used a public information session Wednesday to outline the environmental review process as residents continue raising concerns about flooding, wetlands and transparency.

Since launching in 2021, the expansion has been the subject of controversy. Project administrators have said it would benefit the local economy and attract an estimated 2,500 jobs by 2030. However, area residents — especially in East Haven where the airport is located — have expressed concern about quality of life impacts, including increased sound, air pollution and traffic congestion from more flights.

Environmental advocates and groups like Save the Sound are also concerned about the impact on the wetlands and wildlife, considering the airport’s proximity to wetlands and coastal marsh areas.  

The airport is in a coastal flood-prone area about 12 feet above sea level near Long Island Sound. Parts of the airport are in Federal Emergency Management Agency-designated flood zones. 

Save the Sound has a pending lawsuit in federal court in which the organization argued that the Federal Aviation Administration along with the airport authority violated the National Environmental Policy Act and did not adequately assess environmental impacts.

“We want them to do a full environmental impact statement that would require them more meaningfully and honestly evaluating the impact including how many passengers would be flying in and out of the airport, and the impact of the wetlands on the taxiway they are going to build,” said Roger Reynolds, senior legal director of Save the Sound. “They are claiming there is no significant environmental impact, so they don’t need to do a full-on impact report.” 

Reynolds said a ruling from a federal appeals court could come by summer.

The project involves building a new 84,000-square-foot terminal and runway extension. Construction is slated to start in 2026 with completion expected by 2028. As of summer 2025, the Tweed New Haven Airport Authority and operator Avports — the two entities managing the project — said the new terminal’s design is 60% complete. An application for a Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Inland & Wetland permit has been submitted, although there are no specific timelines as to when the permitting process evaluation will be complete. 

The Wednesday public information session was led by Avports, with presentations from Eliza Heins, an attorney with DEEP, and Kimberly Peace, an environmental coordinator at Hoyle Tanner, the design engineer for the project also leading permitting. 

Heins outlined the permitting process, explaining how DEEP evaluates applications and how the public can participate. A team of five analysts assigned to the project is reviewing potential impacts on tidal and inland wetlands, water quality and stormwater runoff before and after construction, and wildlife including endangered and protected species. 

“Technical review is the most intensive part of the process for DEEP, and our analysts must determine whether the permit application satisfies all statutory and regulatory requirements,” Heins said. 

Andrew King, vice president of external affairs for Avports, told CT Examiner the meeting was held as part of public outreach. 

“We are offering these opportunities because the formal process does not,” he said. “We truly care about the community’s understanding of the impacts — this is literally a community airport in a residential neighborhood.”

King said the meeting wasn’t formal because they received a notice of determination per the DEEP permitting process and are not in the public comment period.  

Wednesday’s meeting was the 14th public information meeting held since the project launched in 2021. There will be four more meetings in April in East Haven with dates to be announced. 

However, longtime environmental advocate East Haven resident Lorena Venegas said she didn’t think Avports officials have been transparent. 

“I thought [the meeting] was very misleading and there was disinformation in those slides,” she said of the Wednesday presentation. 

Venegas said she’s been attending the public meetings since the start of the project, but not getting any answers.  

“I live about a mile and a half away and the main thing that’s going to affect my neighborhood is really the access roads,” she said. “… All of the access roads are state roads, and they flood — Short Beach, Hemingway — the entire area is surrounded by marsh. You’re bringing millions of vehicles into an area surrounded by marsh and swamp, and they still can’t explain what happens to all that water.”

Venegas also runs 10,000 Hawks, a Facebook group opposing the airport expansion.

After the meeting, Venegas told Heins via email that it was very difficult to follow what was happening with the project application.  

“Last night, Kimberly Peace mentioned several wetlands areas in her presentation that the public are not aware of including taking up parking lots and substituting 25 acres as mitigation. No details have been given to the public,” Venegas wrote in her email, which was shared with CTExaminer.

Venegas ended the note with: “There is a lack of communication and transparency.”

In response, Heins thanked Venegas for the note and said DEEP does not discuss the details of applications while they are under technical review. 

CT Construction Digest Thursday February 26, 2026

Wage theft, labor violations in crosshairs of Connecticut lawmakers. 'The bad guys ... got the leg up'

Paul Schott

State legislators examined Tuesday two bills that aim to combat wage theft by potentially withholding payments in response to labor violations on public-works projects and making contractors liable for the unpaid wages of subcontractors’ employees. 

The discussion during a five-hour hearing of the General Assembly’s Labor and Public Employees Committee made clear that efforts to bolster worker protections will again be a top objective for the panel. A number of state officials have already rallied around one of those bills, Senate Bill 268, which would allow the state comptroller to suspend payments to contractors and subcontractors for prevailing-wage violations, when stop-work orders are issued by the state Department of Labor. 

“This is just kind of another tool in our toolbox, if we are having difficulty collecting wages for these workers, as well as penalties and fines,” Danté Bartolomeo, the commissioner of the state Department of Labor, said during her testimony to the committee. “It would allow me to hand this over to the comptroller, if we’re having difficulty. And then he could withhold, after a 10-day warning to the employer, public-fund payment to the employer.”

Prevailing wages comprise hourly rates and benefits paid to most workers on public-works projects. Breaches of prevailing wages are among the violations for which the Department of Labor issues stop-work orders.  

“Right now, the Department of Labor can investigate cases when contractors cheat employees and even place stop-work orders on public projects until workers have been repaid,” Comptroller Sean Scanlon, a first-term Democrat, said in written testimony. “However, there is currently no ability for my office to withhold state payments to such contractors, allowing them to still be paid by taxpayer funds even when they are being actively investigated for a prevailing-wage violation. That’s wrong, and we shouldn’t reward employers who fail to follow the law with taxpayer dollars”.

The bill’s supporters also include a number of unions. 

“What this is about is getting the company to come into compliance, getting restitution paid, and these penalties paid back to the state, and everybody can move on, and we can proceed with the project,” said Kimberly Glassman, director of compliance and government affairs at the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 478. 

There was also extensive debate Tuesday of House Bill 5275, the legislation that would make contractors liable for unpaid wages owed to subcontractor employees at any “tier.”  

“In the construction industry, when something goes wrong, the first thing that happens is people start pointing fingers, and no one takes accountability,” said Joseph Toner, executive director of the Connecticut State Building Trades Council, which represents approximately 30,000 construction workers across the state. “When these construction managers… are awarded these projects, it is  incumbent on them to make sure that people are being paid in their entirety.”

Other proponents of the bill include Matthew Capece, representative of the general president of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. In his written testimony, Capece cited data showing that, in Connecticut, up to approximately 28% of the construction workforce is paid off the books or misclassified as independent contractors, resulting in $146.5 million in lost state and federal revenues, $111.7 million in unpaid premiums for workers’ compensation and $30.2 million in theft of overtime wages. 

“Who should be prevailing in the construction industry? Should it be the good guys that are following the law or the bad guys that are breaking the law?” Capece said in his in-person testimony Tuesday. “I tell you, right now, it’s the bad guys that got the leg up, and that is wrong.”  

But several advocates for the construction industry expressed their opposition to HB 5275. Jim Perras, CEO of the Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Connecticut, which represents about 900 businesses statewide, asserted that the measure constituted “a sweeping and unprecedented expansion of liability in private construction” and would exacerbate the state’s “full-blown housing crisis.” 

“This bill will increase construction costs, reduce subcontractor participation and make projects harder to finance and insure,” Perras said. “Small- and minority-owned subcontractors will be the first to be pushed out. Fewer subs means less competition, higher prices and slower production. And slower production is the last thing that Connecticut can afford.” 

Christopher Fryxell, president of the Associated Builders and Contractors of Connecticut, which represents more than 260 businesses, took a similar position. 

“Contractors will figure out a way to protect themselves from liability. The only way they can do is to increase bond requirements on those subcontractors or increase their insurance coverage to help insulate themselves, protect themselves from that liability,” Fryxell said. “Those costs… are going to be built into the overall bid number on a project and eventually be passed down to those subcontractors.” 

Fryxell also submitted testimony against Senate Bill 268. 

The Labor and Public Employees Committee did not vote on any bills on Tuesday. But the committee’s co-chairpersons, state Sen. Julie Kushner, D-Danbury, and state Rep. Manny Sanchez, D-New Britain, as well as state Sen. Jorge Cabrera, D-Hamden, the committee’s Senate vice chairman, issued Tuesday written statements in support of SB 268. 

“What's clear is that if a contractor hires a subcontractor, and that subcontractor is not abiding by all the state's labor laws, that contractor should be held responsible for the actions of their employee,” Kushner said in her statement. “When we pass this bill, it should have the effect of forcing contractors to be much more thorough in vetting and ensuring that the subcontractors they hire have a good track record of complying with state labor laws.”

Torrington eyes 'pie in the sky' ideas for former Hendey site after foreclosure ruling

Sloan Brewster

TORRINGTON — With lofty ideas for eventual redevelopment, the city is working with a land bank on cleanup plans for the former Hendey Machine Company property that burned down last September.

Superior Court Judge Ann Lynch recently issued a judgement of strict foreclosure on the Summer and Litchfield Street properties that make up the nine-acre former manufacturing site. Property owner Wei Wang, who owns the properties under Yun Hua Inc. and Ying Bao LLC, has until March 30 to pay $1.4 million in blight liens and $166,568 in back taxes or the city will take the titles the following day.

The city is working with CT Brownfield Land Bank, Inc. on a planned environmental cleanup of the site, Director of Economic Development William Wallach said. They are currently in negotiations to determine who will hold the title during cleanup.

Wallach, noting they were “pie in the sky” ideas from his “crazy brain,” said he envisions a regional draw such as Stew Leonard’s, Costco, Trader Joe's or Whole Foods.

“Those are things that people travel out of the way to,” he said. “It reshapes what this downtown looks like long term." 

Wallach said it’s too early to say what may eventually be constructed on the property as it is unclear what it will take to clean it up.

“It’s so hard to put something together because of the environmental contamination," he said.

Most recently the former Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. was on the property, but the buildings date back to the late 1800s and early 1900s when it was the Hendey Machine Company, a machine tool company that built machinery on order, according to Mark McEachern, executive director of the Torrington Historical Society.

Now they are a pile of rubble.

Deputy Fire Marshal John Ryan said the fire remains under investigation by the State Police Fire and Explosion Investigation Unit.

Mayor Molly Spino said the foreclosure was a positive step forward and the city is focused on cleanup and positioning the site for redevelopment that will support economic growth and benefit the surrounding neighborhood.

“The city will continue to follow the court process and evaluate next steps as timelines allow,” she said.

The city, land bank, the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and the United States Environmental Protection Agency will likely work together on the cleanup, Wallach said.

The $1.4 million in blight liens owed to the city topples the property’s appraised value.

According to the city’s land records, the buildings and land on the property were appraised at $889,500.

The city filed for foreclose in January 2025. In anticipation of a judgement in the city’s favor, officials put in an application for a brownfield cleanup grant last September, days before the fire.

“I think we submitted on September 25 and then the place burnt to the ground,” Wallach said.

In light of the fire, the city did not receive the grant, he said. At the time, officials were considering putting a public safety complex there.

Once it is clear what it will take to clean up the property, the city will apply for more grants for the actual cleanup. In the meantime, it is investing approximately $170,000 towards assessment for the cleanup.

After that, officials will consider potential redevelopment projects.

Wallach said the redevelopment opportunity connects with the mostly abandoned 14-acre Stop & Shop Plaza across the street, which went into foreclosure last year. In September Cushman & Wakefield, a commercial real estate brokerage in West Hartford, was named receiver for the property.

The two properties compile 24 acres, Wallach noted.

He said it's rare to find a redevelopment opportunity like this in a downtown district in Connecticut.

“Twenty percent of the district is ripe for redevelopment," Wallach said.

CT Construction Digest Tuesday February 24, 2026

There are ‘unscrupulous companies’ in CT that use a tactic to make money. A push is on to end it.

P.R. Lockhart 

State Comptroller Sean Scanlon is backing legislation that would cut off companies that commit wage theft from contracting with the state.

The comptroller is putting his support behind Senate Bill 268, which contains several measures to root out wage theft — that is, when an employer does not pay an employee wages they’ve earned. Wage theft includes instances when an employee is paid for fewer hours than they worked or not given certain benefits; in other instances, employers steal tips or force employees to work during off hours.

Under the bill, the comptroller’s office would have the power to withhold payment from state contractors that are under Department of Labor investigations for wage violations until the investigation has concluded.

This is the second year in a row the comptroller’s office has pushed for this legislation. Last year, a similar bill cleared the Senate but was not taken up by the House.

“The premise of this is really simple: We shouldn’t be rewarding companies with taxpayer dollars who are not rewarding their employees and their workers with fair wages,” Scanlon said during an afternoon press conference.

Lawmakers also expressed determination to pass the bill this session.

“People should be able to go to work, get paid fair wages to come home safe and not have to worry about being robbed by an unscrupulous contract,” Sen. Jorge Cabrera, D-Hamden, vice chair of the Labor and Public Employees Committee, said during the press conference. “So let’s get it done.”

For years, state officials have struggled to get their arms around the issue. Many of the state’s most vulnerable workers continue to miss out on receiving their full paychecks or are misclassified as independent contractors by their employers, advocates say. Over the years, that has cost Connecticut workers millions of dollars.

In 2024, the state Department of Labor reported a backlog of around 1,000 wage theft cases, with some waiting several months before they were examined by the state. The DOL has requested more wage-and-hour investigators to help deal with the backlog, but it has faced difficulty getting legislators to agree to the request, which would require more funding for the agency.

Joined by state lawmakers, union advocates and representatives of construction and building trade groups, Scanlon and other speakers described how passing S.B. 268 would be a critical step towards protecting victims.

“This is about accountability,” said Joelyn Leon, executive director of the Foundation for Fair Contracting of Connecticut. “When public dollars are being used to fund the construction project, those dollars should go to companies that are performing the work, follow the law and treat their workers with respect and fairness.”

Others said the bill would help bring Connecticut’s wage theft laws more in line with other states.

“We are so far behind our neighboring states that people are being disbarred from neighboring states, and then they’re setting up camp in Connecticut,” said Joe Toner, executive director of the Connecticut Building Trades Council. 

The problem of wage theft in the state goes back years. Previous reporting from the Connecticut Mirror has found that there were more than 13,000 complaints filed with the state Department of Labor between 2019 and 2023. Almost $17 million in wages has been returned to workers after these complaints were investigated.

The issue affects workers in the hospitality, retail and construction industries, in particular. Wages are more likely to be stolen from vulnerable workers in the state, including undocumented workers, women of color, workers with disabilities and those reentering the workforce after incarceration.

Local advocates noted that involving the comptroller’s office could be a powerful way to help on the issue.

“Wage theft does exist. It is a part of how unscrupulous companies make money,” said Kimberly Glassman, the director of compliance and government affairs for the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 478. “These [legislative] proposals help deter companies from breaking the law and from hurting working people here in the state of Connecticut.”

At a public hearing before the legislature’s Labor and Public Employees Committee Tuesday afternoon, the state labor commissioner offered support for the legislation.

“This is another tool in our toolbox if we are having difficulty collecting wages for workers,” Commissioner Danté Bartolomeo said.

Public testimony on the bill, both written and in-person, was broadly supportive.

But some contractors took issue with the particulars of the bill.

In written testimony, Andrew Kao, corporate counsel for The Middlesex Corporation, a Massachusetts-based construction organization, said companies could potentially get dinged before an investigation had actually been resolved.

“Since withholding under SB 268 hinges on the existence of a stop-work order, not on a final violation finding or adjudicated backwage amount, the Comptroller’s ability to withhold after 10 business days even if the stop work order is under timely contest effectively imposes financial penalties prior to final administrative resolution, i.e. punishment before adjudication,” Kao wrote.

Two Bridges Under Construction On Interstate 95 in West Haven

Ken Liebeskind

The Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) has launched a major bridge construction project in West Haven, replacing two bridges that carry traffic over I-95. The project has been described as involving "one of the longest and most heavily traveled bridges in the state."

That description comes from Middlesex Corp., the lead contractor on the $136.5 million project. Funding includes 90 percent federal funds and 10 percent state funds.

According to CTDOT, Bridge No. 00161, which crosses over First Avenue, was originally built in 1956 and reconstructed in 1990. The bridge will be fully replaced with a new structure designed to increase vertical and horizontal clearances along First Avenue.

The southbound direction of the new bridge will include three 12-ft. travel lanes, a 5.5-ft. left shoulder and a 10-ft. right shoulder. The northbound direction will feature three 12-ft. travel lanes, a 12-ft. acceleration lane carrying the entrance ramp from Exit 43, a 5.5-ft. left shoulder and a 10-ft. right shoulder.

Bridge No. 00162, which crosses over the Metro-North Railroad right-of-way, was built in 1956 and rehabilitated in 1988. This bridge will be removed and replaced with a wider structure. In the southbound direction, the new bridge will include three 12-ft. travel lanes, a 12-ft. operational lane, a 16-ft. left shoulder and a 12-ft. right shoulder. The northbound direction will include three 12-ft. travel lanes, a 16-ft. left shoulder and a 12-ft. right shoulder.

Middlesex noted that the I-95 southbound bridge to the Kimberly Avenue ramp has already been demolished. In addition, the I-95 bridge over Ella T. Grasso Boulevard was replaced with a single-span bridge measuring 101.7 ft. long and 131.8 ft. wide. The project also included reconstruction of approximately 4,659 ft. of I-95 over the Amtrak bridge east of the Howard Avenue structure.

In outlining the project's scope of work, Middlesex listed the following activities:

• Construction of temporary trestles in the West River to access pile-supported pier locations, erection of structural steel and demolition of the existing bridge.

• Construction of a temporary roadway crossing ramp to maintain vehicular access over a pipeline.

• Temporary highway construction to accommodate traffic shifts.

• Reconstruction of highway approaches and exit ramps serving Ella T. Grasso Boulevard and Kimberly Avenue.

• Construction of new West River bridge piers and superstructure.

• Demolition of the existing West River Bridge.

• Replacement of the I-95 bridge over Ella T. Grasso Boulevard.

• Installation of drainage improvements.

Matt Maher, senior project manager of Middlesex, said construction began in spring 2025 and is expected to be completed by spring 2028.

"We completed tree clearing, installed micropile foundations and performed temporary drainage work, and we are now in the middle of demolishing Bridge 00161," Maher said. "We're constructing a new bridge abutment for Bridge 00161, which is being replaced in its entirety. Bridge 00162 is being widened to span the Metro-North Railroad. We're also installing MSE (mechanically stabilized earth) walls and excavation sheet piling to retain soil during excavation."

Construction equipment being used on the West Haven I-95 bridge project includes Cat 308, 321, 335 and 349 excavators; a Cat M322 rubber-tire excavator; Komatsu PC138 and PC238 excavators; two Cat 265D skid steers; two Cat 938M loaders; a Cat CS54 60-in. single-drum roller; Cat D3 and D5 dozers; and a Link-Belt RTC-8080 II rough-terrain crane. CEG

Wilton to rebuild deteriorating bridges and fix others using state, federal grant money

Eric Bedner

WILTON — The Board of Selectmen unanimously approved funding last week for several bridge projects in town, including the complete replacement of two and rehabilitation of four others.

While the replacement of two bridges and renovations to four others is expected to cost a total of nearly $15 million, the town is only on the hook for about $516,000 as the remainder is being paid through federal and state grants, Public Works Director Frank Smeriglio said.

The state inspects bridges every two years and provides a rating system based on their structural integrity. 

The bridge on Honey Road over the Norwalk River was found to have a reduced weight limit due to deterioration, making it a high priority for the state and enabling the project to be largely covered by more than $6 million in grants.

Wilton taxpayers will have to pay about $116,000 for masonry work on the bridge, and Aquarion Water Co. will pay nearly $250,000 to relocate a water main.

The Honey Road bridge spans 46 feet and was originally built in 1957, and reconstruction is expected to begin this spring, according to the state Department of Transportation. 

Grants totaling more than $6.56 million will cover a majority of the cost of replacing the bridge on Cannon Road over the Norwalk River.

Because Cannon Road is a historic area, the cost associated with its masonry work is included in the grant amount, leaving the town to pay only $32,800 for decorative lighting, Smeriglio said.

The bridge was also categorized as a high priority following state inspections that revealed erosion, he said.

It was built in 1956 and reconstruction is also expected to being this spring, according to the DOT.

Four other bridges — Old Ridgefield Road bridge, Middlebrook Farm Road culvert, Seeley Road bridge, and Old Mine Road bridge — are in need of renovations, but not complete rebuilds.

Grants totaling nearly $2.35 million will cover the entirety of construction, but the town will have to pay more than $367,000 for stone work and steel-backed timber guiderails.

Masonry on the bridges are intended to be similar to other bridges in town, leading to the cost of the stonework, Smeriglio said.

CT Construction Digest Friday February 20, 2026

What's next for proposed Bridgeport soccer stadium site after CT nixes state funds?

Brian Lockhart

BRIDGEPORT — The owners of the lower East Side land where entrepreneur Andre Swanston has wanted to build a minor league soccer stadium are moving on from that idea and instead pursuing their own mixed-use, sports-centered redevelopment project.

“We’re continuing to hone the site plan,” Robert “Bobby” Christoph, a consultant for 255 Kossuth LLC, which purchased the property in 2022, said Wednesday. 

The news comes just days after Gov. Ned Lamont’s administration dealt a severe blow to Swanston’s two-plus-year-old proposal by denying the key state funding the entrepreneur had sought. 

The alternative vision for the 255 Kossuth St. address is not a dramatic swerve from what Swanston and his Connecticut Sports Group organization had in mind  —  housing, restaurants, and a hotel, but now anchored not by a soccer venue but a for-profit community sports facility with multi-purpose courts and fields for training, tournaments and other athletic events.

Christoph confirmed the concept is similar though smaller than Stamford-based Chelsea Piers.

“There is a large demand for facilities like this … to practice and play on, whether a college, a university, a high school, a club program,” he explained, adding the intent is to further engage with the local community, Bridgeport and state officials as the plan evolves. 

If Christoph’s name sounds familiar, he and his father, Robert Sr., have spent years slowly redeveloping the nearby Steelpointe site along the harbor just over Interstate 95 from Kossuth Street, which boasts retail, restaurants and a marina, with apartments well under construction and a hotel on the way.

Swanston has been publicly pursuing his minor league soccer venue since fall of 2023 and was negotiating with 255 Kossuth LLC to acquire its property, a longtime industrial site along the Pequonnock River that most recently housed the shuttered Shoreline Star off-track betting facility.

He had been seeking $127 million in state monies for what he claimed was a $1.1 billion mostly privately financed mixed-use redevelopment. Lamont had continually expressed reservations about that size of an investment but never publicly said “no,” and the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development had been in months-long talks with Swanston.

Then last Friday, Lamont’s office and the DECD announced that they were taking a pass.

In his response Sunday, Swanston said “we are evaluating our alternative stadium development plans” but acknowledged the venue may not be able to remain in Bridgeport. He does have a team, CT United, whose players launch their inaugural season March 1, practicing in Stamford at Chelsea Piers and playing at to-be-announced locations around Connecticut and out-of-state.

Reached Wednesday about the future of the 255 Kossuth acreage, Connecticut Sports Group said, “CT United’s majority owners reside in Connecticut and own businesses in Connecticut. Several of our minority owners live, grew up, or attended school in Connecticut. Although markets in other states have already reached out to gauge our interest in moving, we are committed to keeping the team in Connecticut.”

Christoph said 255 Kossuth LLC understands that the stadium is just not possible on that particular East Side property without the state support.

“I do believe he will continue to grow the opportunity in Connecticut. It just won’t be at this location,” Christoph said of Swanston, adding, “We waited for two years for this opportunity (the soccer stadium). And if this was able to happen we wanted it to occur.”

Swanston had a purchase option for 255 Kossuth St. but that expired last summer, raising some doubts at the time about the future of his soccer proposal even before Friday’s bad news from the state.

“Now that that’s been decided, we’re going to move expeditiously,” Christoph continued.

And likely try to take advantage of some of the ground work laid by Swanston and his supporters.

That includes tapping a pair of state grants totaling $16 million awarded in 2024 to clean-up the contaminated Kossuth Street land. While those monies were to have been used to prepare the site for stadium construction, Lamont administration officials had emphasized they were not directly linked to that specific project.

DECD spokesman Jim Watson on Tuesday reaffirmed that position.

“The grant funds are tied to the cleanup and redevelopment of specific parcels of land,” Watson said. “Both … grant awards will remain in place at this time. The grant recipients — the City of Bridgeport and BEDCO (Bridgeport Economic Development Corporation) — can work with the site owner and DECD to identify and request a new end use for DECD’s approval to proceed.”

Christoph mentioned the possibility of the Kossuth sports facility idea benefiting from legislation passed by the Connecticut General Assembly last summer allowing Bridgeport officials to establish a tax incremental financing (TIF) district in that neighborhood.

Similarly originally aimed at but not tied to the stadium, the TIF can be utilized to help pay for up to $190 million worth of infrastructure improvements by allowing a portion of any new real estate taxes generated by the redevelopment to pay off the debt rather than going directly into Bridgeport’s municipal coffers.

In a brief interview Tuesday, Mayor Joe Ganim expressed hope Swanston’s CT United might still call Bridgeport home at other locations. He suggested John F. Kennedy Stadium at Central High School as one possibility.

“Let’s prove its success,” Ganim said of having a minor league soccer team in town.

Then on Wednesday, in response to Christoph’s comments on 255 Kossuth LLC’s decision, the mayor’s chief administrative officer, Thomas Gaudett, said the administration would definitely be interested in learning more.

“I think we would be excited to hear … ideas for housing, a hotel and entertainment space on that site,” Gaudett said. “That is consistent with the general vision we have.”

As for using the tax incremental financing legislation, Gaudett added, “That would certainly be in play if we had a formal proposal.”

The Kossuth Street neighborhood is in the district of state Rep. Antonio Felipe’s, D-Bridgeport. He had heard there was a “Plan B” in the works “but any kind of attention paid to that prematurely was a disservice to the possibility of having soccer.”

“Anyone would be foolish not to support a mixed-use development there, especially when it comes to building more housing in the city,” Felipe said.

He wants 255 Kossuth LLC to include affordable units. Swanston claimed 40 percent of the 1,000 apartments he intended to have built would have been for lower-income tenants. 

Felipe said while he respect’s Lamont’s position, he believes it was “short-sighted” for Connecticut government not to embrace Swanston’s and Connecticut Sports Group’s vision.

“That was a much bigger opportunity to create something exciting, fresh and a draw to the city,” he said. “Soccer was the big fish and we just couldn’t reel it in.”

An aging swing bridge in Connecticut could be all yours — if you can move it

Brianna Gurciullo

The Connecticut Department of Transportation may have a bridge to sell you.

Or, actually, you could have it for free.

Though it has yet to make a final decision about the fate of the William F. Cribari Memorial Bridge, which brings Route 136 over the Saugatuck River in Westport and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the state DOT has put out a call for letters from parties interested in moving the structure to a different location and reusing it.

The agency released a draft report this week on the potential environmental impacts of rehabilitating or replacing the swing bridge, which has multiple “structural and functional deficiencies.”

Officials said that if they ultimately decide on replacement, they will contact the parties that have expressed interest in taking the bridge and ask them to submit formal proposals for how they would relocate, reassemble and preserve it.

But who in the world would want to take ownership of a bridge originally built in 1884?

“There are a variety of groups that could be interested in reusing a bridge, including towns, non-profit groups, or community organizations,” said Josh Morgan, DOT’s director of communications. “There is no restriction on who could submit a proposal, assuming all requirements are met, but priority will be given to a potential new owner who would use the structure in a transportation related capacity.”

“The bridge would be available for free, provided that the entity that acquires it has the financial resources to restore and reuse the bridge,” Morgan added. “Additionally, CTDOT would provide monetary assistance for moving the bridge up to the amount that transport and disposal of the structure would cost the agency if it were not reused.”

Morgan said it wouldn’t be the first time a bridge has been relocated in the state. In the 1990s, he noted, Mansfield moved two bridges that used to carry cars to the Nipmuck Trail to instead carry pedestrians. During the same decade, Canton acquired a bridge on Route 6 in Farmington and reused it on Powder Mill Road.

More recently, DOT sought proposals for the relocation of the Stiles Bridge in East Windsor in 2023, but Morgan said the agency received no responses. In Norwalk, no entity was able to reuse the entire Walk Bridge, but parts of it will be repurposed, he said.

If no one expresses interest in the Cribari Bridge, and DOT decides to move forward with a total replacement, “the bridge will be removed to all state and federal standards, like any other bridge replacement project,” Morgan said.

John Suggs of the Westport Preservation Alliance said he's not supportive of the idea of moving the bridge elsewhere, arguing that its location is a part of its historic significance.

“It’s not something that I’m too excited about or think is very probable,” Suggs said.

He said his group has “consistently been advocating for the preservation and the ongoing maintenance of the bridge rather than its destruction.” It has also voiced concern about a new, larger bridge becoming a draw for big trucks looking to avoid highway traffic.

Christopher Wigren, the deputy director of Preservation Connecticut, said if DOT does decide to replace the bridge, it would be good to find a new home for the historic structure. But he said he is unsure how likely it is that any group would be able to take on a project to move and repurpose a span of the Cribari Bridge's size while meeting all of DOT's requirements. 

“It would be a big job,” Wigren said.

The 287-foot-long, 26-foot wide, two-lane bridge carries an average of about 13,000 vehicles every day, according to the environmental assessment prepared by the state DOT and the Federal Highway Administration.

Its vertical and horizontal clearances are inadequate, the assessment says, meaning there isn’t enough space for vehicles to easily cross the bridge without hitting objects. School buses, for instance, are at risk of clipping mirrors or the bridge’s trusses.

And because of the bridge’s “deteriorated condition,” vehicles that weigh more than 20 tons cannot use it, the assessment states. Eventually, the structure will be unable to support the weight of vehicles like fire trucks and buses.

The span also has a substandard guardrail system, and the mechanical and electrical equipment used to open and close the bridge is situated under the deck, making it vulnerable to flood damage. The bridge has gotten stuck in the open position several times in recent years, the assessment notes.

The “preferred alternative” is to replace the bridge where it currently stands with a new one — a project that would cost an estimated $78 million to $86 million. Construction would take about three years.

Another option would be rehabilitating the bridge, which would include higher vertical clearances for vehicles and the installation of a new guardrail system and water-resistant equipment, for an estimated $50 million to $55 million.

But a replacement would have additional benefits, according to the environmental assessment, including wider travel lanes, improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists, more space for boats to pass under the bridge and quicker bridge openings. The service life of a rehabilitated bridge would be 25 to 40 years, while a new bridge’s service life would be 75 to 100 years.

Officials dismissed the idea of leaving the existing bridge in place and building a new bridge to the North or South. Such a project would require “substantial property acquisitions,” and the existing bridge would still need repairs, according to the assessment.

The report acknowledges that members of the public have raised concerns about a new or upgraded bridge leading to an uptick in truck traffic through the town but claims that such an increase would be unlikely to happen.

“Since there are no improvements to the surrounding local roadway network beyond the immediate project area, truck drivers are more apt to continue to use I-95 or Route 1 to cross the Saugatuck River,” the report states. “In addition, the Town of Westport can take the additional action of imposing limitations on truck traffic along its local roads.”

A public hearing on the draft environmental assessment is set to take place March 19 at Westport Town Hall. DOT is also accepting comments online until April 17.

State Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-Westport, said he thinks there is a way for both DOT's and town residents' needs to be met.

“I'm hopeful that the town and DOT can arrive at an understanding that will bring this classic swing bridge up to current safety standards — before we have a problem — while also addressing local traffic concerns, particularly regarding big trucks,” Steinberg said.