Up to $51B in transportation grant awards at risk, advocacy group says
Up to $51
billion in federal funds that have been awarded by the U.S. Department
of Transportation but not yet obligated could be defunded, according to a March
14 analysis by Transportation for America, a transportation advocacy
organization.
Rural and Midwestern states may lose the most funds on a
per-person basis, especially for projects related to road safety, electric
vehicle infrastructure and transportation climate resilience.
The organization analyzed a leaked
policy memo from the DOT’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Transportation Policy directing agency heads to review all awards lacking grant
agreements and partially obligated grant agreements.
The memo cites presidential executive orders and a previous
order and memorandum by
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy that orders agency administrators to
identify and eliminate rules, regulations and funding agreements that include
or reference climate change, racial equity or environmental justice among other
criteria.
On March 10, Duffy announced in a press release the rescission
of two Biden-era memoranda. These included policies aimed
at improving road safety, making streets and transportation infrastructure
accessible to those with disabilities, and fostering renewable energy and
electric vehicle charging stations. The latest DOT policy memo targets bicycle
infrastructure as well.
“While it is normal for a new administration to set its own
agenda, it has always applied to spending and policy going forward,”
Transportation for America said in an online post. “This administration is
setting the precedent that any project not underway can be undone when there is
a new president.”
Examples of programs that could be impacted include
the Safe Streets and
Roads for All grant program: just $515 million has been obligated
across 979 grants, leaving nearly $2.4 billion at risk. Of the $7.6 billion
announced under the RAISE/BUILD
program, which provides grants for surface transportation infrastructure
projects for fiscal years 2022 through 2025, only $1.25 billion or less has
been secured and obligated, according to Transportation for America.
The organization also warns of potential further action,
noting that the current memo only applies to competitive grants. “There is good
reason to expect that this administration will expand this review to cover
other programs, too, if they find they don’t agree with how states, regions,
localities, and transit agencies are using the funds,” the post states.
Meriden officials want public to weigh in on the competing senior center plans before April decision
MERIDEN — A controversial plan to renovate the existing
senior center at 24 W. Main St. is back in the spotlight after the
City Council recently voted to send it back to committee.0:30
The Senior Center Building Review Committee rejected the
proposal two months ago and opted to hold out for a new $36 million facility at
116 Cook Ave. However, that plan has been significantly
delayed by flood control and dredging work, estimated to cost an additional
$10 million.
Demolition of the former medical office building on Cook
Avenue begins Wednesday, city officials said.
"There was a proposal to revisit the issue," said
Councilor Bruce Fontanella, who chairs the Senior Center Building Review
Committee. "Personally, I'm against it. The committee investigated sites
and all issues were raised in the final proposal."
After surveying seniors and selecting the Cook Avenue
location, the committee discovered last fall that design and construction could
not begin until at least 2027. The project had initially included a new Health
and Human Services Department but after learning about the delays, health
department and city officials agreed to rehabilitate the agency's offices on
Miller Street.
The City Council tasked new City Manager Brian Daniels with
seeking alternatives for a proposed senior center. Within weeks, Daniels
crafted a plan to modernize and expand the space at 22 W. Main St., and
purchase the building next door. The final designs included skylights, a 30,000
square-foot improved layout, and an art studio with exposed brick and an urban
vibe.
The price tag was also much cheaper than building new.
The city would have to budget $36 million in its capital
improvement program for the Cook Avenue construction, but the new design is
estimated to cost $6.3 million, with more than $1.2 million in grant funding.
The purchase price for 28 W. Main St. is $275,000 and included in the project
estimate. Another benefit, is the city planned to repair leaks in the roof and
walls, so construction can begin quickly.
But there were disadvantages.
The building at 22 W. Main St. is an 80-year-old former
department store with stairs and an elevator. Parking is in the rear across
Hanover Street, forcing seniors to cross traffic to enter. There is also
minimal green space, perhaps for a bocce court, maybe some raised bed gardens,
officials said. The Cook Avenue site would have space for pickleball, a
courtyard and access to Harbor Brook.
Outdoor access and onsite parking were top priorities listed
in the senior survey.
Mayor Kevin Scarpati rejected the renovation plan in
December, but Councilors Dan Bunet and Bob Williams said Monday a public
hearing was never held.
"We asked the city manager to get options,"
Williams said. "It's an alternative plan but there was no public input.
With Cook Avenue there are a lot of issues with timing and cost."
"The cost disparity is significant," Brunet added.
There is also an economic development benefit to demolishing
the former medical building and readying the site for a potential commercial
user.
The Factory H property in the rear combined with 116 Cook
Avenue offers developers a single large block of land allowing them to return
to the tax rolls as commercial properties, according to Daniels'
presentation.
The Senior Center Building Review Committee will join the
Health and Human Services Committee on April 1 to discuss the renovation in
more detail. The City Council will vote on the matter on April 7. The public is
invited to attend and offer input.
"I encourage people to come out and express their
opinions," Fontanella said.
Danbury seeks $4.2M in CT grants to rescue old hat factory, courthouse sites from contamination
DANBURY – An overgrown former hat factory site with mercury
in the soil and a vacant
former county courthouse with asbestos and lead paint in its interior
are the target of separate cleanup plans worth $4.2 million in state brownfield
grants.Skip Ad
Despite the sites’ distinct histories, city leaders hope the
properties have a common destiny as active players in a healthier downtown, where the
economy has been languishing for decades behind Danbury’s commercial
east end and its booming west side.
The former hat factory site at North Street and Barnum Court
has been off the city’s radar since a devastating fire the mid-1990s, while the
old Fairfield County Courthouse on south Main Street has been in the headlines
as a potential
new home for the city museum, and more recently as the centerpiece of a
complex multiproperty redevelopment plan that turned out to be more ambitious
than successful.
“The state did not want to do that complex of a project,”
said Jim
Maloney, a former congressman and the architect of a plan, in an interview
on Monday. “The state preferred to do it in various pieces.”
That means that instead of Danbury's plan to take control of
the old courthouse and restore it as part of a larger revitalization of south
Main Street and Park Place with 100 workforce apartments, the city is now
focusing on negotiations to buy the 1899 national historic landmark from
Connecticut for an as-yet undetermined use.
“We don’t have anything concrete that we are ready to
share,” Mayor
Roberto Alves said during a March 4 City Council meeting. “This
building is just beautiful … and what we are committing to is keeping that
beautiful structure where it is on Main Street.”
The first step, which the City Council took on March 4, is
to apply for a $200,000 state grant to study the severity of the contamination
in the building.
“The state had a certain amount of money they wanted for the
building,” said City Council member Emile Buzaid at the March meeting. “Does
that still stand or has that changed?”
“That has changed, sir,” said Farley
Santos, a Democratic state representative who was answering questions as
Alves’ economic and community development adviser. “We are leveraging
relationships and … having conversations where the state would be conveying
this property to the city of Danbury.”
“Have there been some suggestions as to potential use?”
Buzaid asked.
“That has been part of the conversation we’re having. What
the state wouldn’t want to see is someone put this building up for bid and
build apartments in that location,” Santos said. “This would be for municipal
services.”
“Are you at liberty to say what possible uses they may be?”
Buzaid pressed.
“It could be for city departments, municipal services,”
Santos said. “That is to be determined.”
The discussion referred to a landmark building that has been
vacant for years with “significant leaks in the roof” but otherwise solid,
said Antonio
Iadarola, Danbury’s public works director and city engineer.
“The use of the building will dictate how much work needs to
go into it,” said Iadarola, who told the City Council he was last in the
building three years ago. “Overall, I didn’t see any major failing foundations
or anything of that magnitude – nothing that would require a tear down and
rebuild.”
But private investment in the old courthouse is out of the
question, Maloney told Hearst Connecticut Media Group on Monday
“Just to make it usable as a building would be $5 million,
and to restore it (to its historical integrity) would be $10 (million) to $20
million,” Maloney said. “It is not a commercially doable project.”
In contrast, on the northern-most border of Danbury’s
downtown, the contaminated property on Barnum Court could be revitalized after
a cleanup with construction of a new 4,000-square-foot commercial building with
parking, said Taylor O’Brien, Alves’ chief of staff.
“Prior to 1950, 13 Barnum Court was home to a series of
hat manufacturing operations (and) from 1950 to 1994, the site was occupied by
retail businesses,” O’Brien said. “In 1994, a fire severely damaged the main
building structure, leading the city to foreclose on the property due to tax
delinquency and to demolish it.”
The City Council on March 4 applied for a $4 million grant to remove mercury
from the site, which is bordered on the east by the Kohanza Brook.