Two construction teams vie for Hartford federal courthouse contract, Q&A event set for Wednesday
The planned $345 million federal courthouse in downtown
Hartford is moving closer to construction, with two teams competing for the
design-build contract and an informational event for subcontractors and
suppliers set for Wednesday at Dunkin’ Park.
The new courthouse will be constructed on a 2.2-acre surface
parking lot at 154 Allyn St., between Union Station and the PeoplesBank Arena.
The 281,000-square-foot building will have up to 11 courtrooms, 18 judges’
chambers, offices for court-related agencies and secure parking.
The GSA expects to award the design-build contract in
January 2027, with construction starting in summer 2027, according to the
agency’s project timeline. The courthouse is expected to be substantially
complete in early 2031.
The U.S. General Services Administration on June 3 named the
two firms shortlisted for the contract: Turner Construction Co. of New York,
and a joint venture between Rhode Island-based Gilbane
Building Co. and Massachusetts-based Consigli Construction.
Consigli has a Hartford office on Allyn Street, in the
building next to the planned courthouse site.
The new courthouse will replace the Abraham A. Ribicoff
Federal Building and Courthouse at 450 Main St., which was built in 1963 and no
longer meets the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut’s needs
for space, functionality and security. When the project is finished, the
district court plans to move its headquarters from New Haven to Hartford.
Congress has authorized $344.97 million for the site
acquisition, design and construction. The design will incorporate classical or
traditional architecture, in accordance with a presidential executive order on
federal buildings.
On Wednesday, the GSA will host an Industry Day to inform
businesses about contracting opportunities on the project. It will include a
question-and-answer session and panel discussion.
Construction and building services firms, trade
subcontractors and material suppliers are encouraged to attend and engage with
the design-build teams as they develop their proposals.
“This courthouse project reflects our commitment to
effectively managing the judiciary’s real property portfolio,” said Michael
Gelber, the GSA’s acting commissioner of the Public Buildings Service. “It’s
creating local jobs and investing in infrastructure that will serve Connecticut
for decades to come.”
The event runs from 9 a.m. to noon at Dunkin’ Park’s YG
Club, 1214 Main St. Registration is available at gsa.gov/hartfordcourthouse.
Why hiking the US gasoline tax is back on the table
Wallace Tyner,Energy Economist, Purdue University
(THE CONVERSATION) It is well known that the US has a major
infrastructure problem with our national highway system. Many of our bridges
are in a very poor state of repair and highway maintenance is not keeping up
with needs. The American Society of Civil Engineers in 2013 gave the US road system the grade
of a D and estimated that US$190 billion would be needed annually to
significantly improve conditions.
The main source of funding for highway and bridge investment
is the gasoline tax. And with the rapid drop in gasoline prices over the past
several months, more commentators and policymakers are saying now is the right
time to raise
the tax.
Why haven’t gasoline revenues kept pace with highway funding
needs? And if taxes should be adjusted, what’s the most effective way to meet
highway funding objectives?
Roots of the shortfall
One reason for this highway infrastructure funding issue is
that the gasoline and diesel taxes have not been increased since 1993 – 22
years ago. Meanwhile, the costs of building and maintaining our highway
system have increased
substantially, about 29 % in that time period.
That means that the purchasing power of the fixed gasoline
and diesel taxes has fallen to such an extent that the tax revenues cannot meet
the growing funding needs of our transportation system. In 2013, the gasoline
tax, which is 18.4 cents per gallon, generated nearly $25 billion in revenue
while the diesel tax, at 24 cents a gallon, generated $14 billion, according to
my calculations using Department of Energy data.
The problem is that fuel tax revenues have not kept up with
construction cost inflation. Tax revenues have also fallen because US fuel
consumption has been declining since 2007 when gasoline consumption peaked at
142 billion gallons per year.
Gasoline consumption fell because of the recession, but more
recently it has been declining because of the increase in average vehicle fuel
economy. The US has fuel efficiency standards known as the corporate average
fuel economy (CAFE) standards, which require that fuel economy increases to
54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Fuel consumption is projected to continue to
decline in the future. So it is the combination of the reduced purchasing power
of the fixed gasoline and diesel taxes plus the declining fuel consumption that
have brought us to the current situation.
Bridging the gap
There are a number of possible solutions to address the fuel
tax shortfall, including the following:
Transfer funds from general revenue to the highway trust
fund to make up for the shortfall. In fact, that is being done now, but many
people think that the level of the transfers is not adequate for the needed
infrastructure maintenance and improvements.
Change from a per-gallon tax to a tax on vehicle miles
driven, an approach the State
of Oregon is investigating. This option addresses the issue of
increasing vehicle fuel efficiency because it’s a per-mile-driven tax
regardless of the amount of fuel used to drive that mile. However, it does not
address the increasing construction cost problem.
Index the fuel taxes to the rate of increase in highway
construction costs, an approach proposed by the
Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. In this case, Congress would not
need to adjust the tax since it would be done automatically on an annual basis,
similar to the way Social Security benefits are adjusted annually to account
for inflation.
Vary the fuel tax inversely with the wholesale price of
gasoline. The advantage of this system is that it would impose higher fuel
taxes when fuel prices are low and cut taxes when fuel prices are high. Thus,
the higher taxes would come at a time when consumers could most afford them.
Hitching gas tax to wholesale prices
There are many ways a variable tax could be linked to the
wholesale price of gasoline; one way is illustrated in the table below. In this
system, gasoline and diesel prices are adjusted every quarter based on the
previous quarters NYMEX wholesale gasoline price. It is anchored at a NYMEX
wholesale gasoline price of $3 per gallon. Normally the retail price is about
75 cents higher than NYMEX, so there would be no incremental tax if retail
gasoline price was above about $3.75.
The addition to the current tax would be 10% of the
difference between $3 and the NYMEX price the previous quarter. The NYMEX
gasoline price on January 7, 2015, was $1.35, so the tax increment would be
16.5 cents, and the total gasoline tax would be 34.9 cents, and the diesel tax
40.5 cents.
In this scenario, the impact on revenue added to the highway
trust fund is significant: for gasoline alone, it would be $32 billion per
year.
If crude oil and gasoline price remain low for a while as
expected, this kind of tax system would provide enough revenue to help
replenish the highway trust fund when consumers could best afford to pay.
Essentially, this system would change the tax from a
constant per-gallon tax to one that varies inversely with gasoline prices, so
that consumers pay more when they can most afford it and pay less when they can
least afford it.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a
Creative Commons license. Read the original article here: https://theconversation.com/why-hiking-the-us-gasoline-tax-is-back-on-the-table-36191.
Warehouse moratorium begins in Killingly, another proposed in neighboring Plainfield
Sara Bedigian
As a 12-month moratorium to pause new zoning applications
for large warehouse and distribution centers began in Killingly on Monday,
Plainfield is looking to do the same.
At its meeting Monday, the Plainfield Conservation
Commission discussed proposing a moratorium on new warehouse development at the
next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Aug. 11.
This proposal comes after several warehouses have been built
in Plainfield including Amazon, Uline and Lowes, and most recently, a proposed
1.1 million square-foot Costco depot center was approved. The Planning and
Zoning Commission passed
the Costco development after months of court negotiations in June.
Stephen Randall, member of the Conservation Commission, said
members are trying to stop warehouses from coming in and preserve “The Last
Green Valley,” as the area is known for, but there is only so much they can do.
“What part of it is green if you look at Google Earth?”
Randall said. We have been strip mining the earth with our gravel bags and we
have these major industries coming in. ... It’s overwhelming,” he said.
Killingly’s moratorium, which began Monday and is in effect
until June 30, 2027, will prohibit developers from filing new applications for
“distribution centers, fulfillment centers, e-commerce centers, truck and
freight terminals” in the town’s general commercial, mixed-use interchange,
business park or mill mixed-use development districts.”
However, Killingly residents are still opposing two
warehouse developers that filed before the moratorium began.
Developers of a 1.3 million-square-foot Amazon distribution
center, also known as “Project Husky” on Westcott Road withdrew their
application after the Inland
Wetlands and Watercourses Commission rejected their proposal on July 7. Since
the commission denied the application without prejudice, the developer could
make changes and resubmit, which it did on July 15 before the moratorium went
into effect July 20.
The new application will be reviewed at Killingly’s next
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Aug. 17.
Another pair of 178,750-square-foot and 297,500-square-foot
warehouses at 90 Putnam Pike has
been in discussion for months. It is not known what companies would fill
the buildings.
John Knuff, attorney representing the applicant Killingly 1
LLC for the Putnam Pike project, said at the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting Monday night it has received design comments from engineering firm
Tighe and Bond on the plan and will be responding promptly.
However, the Putnam Pike developments still need Planning
and Zoning Commission approval.
Residents came out Monday to urge the commission to reject
the proposal, saying that the warehouses do not fit their community needs and
listed repeated concerns from traffic and road safety to pollution and the
environment.
“Please don’t destroy this quiet area with noise, please
don’t ruin the aesthetics of our beautiful rural area, ...” Killingly resident
Russ Goulet told commission members Monday. night. “Please don’t destroy our
quality of life.”
“We don’t need them in our town,” added resident Rebecca
Rainville said. “We are supposed to be the Quiet Corner.”
Siting Council to weigh draft findings on controversial Simsbury solar project
A proposed solar array on the site of a former Simsbury golf
course will come before the Connecticut Siting Council on Thursday, as the
panel takes up draft findings of fact in its review of the controversial
project.
The council will consider the draft document during its
regular meeting, which begins at 1 p.m. via Zoom. Draft findings of fact
typically precede a formal opinion and decision, making Thursday’s meeting a
key step toward a final ruling on the petition.
Lodestar Energy, based in West Hartford, is seeking
a declaratory ruling to build a 4.65-megawatt solar installation on
18.2 acres at 140 Nod Road, the 118-acre former Tower Ridge Golf Club property.
The site currently hosts a disc golf facility and the Talcott Mountain
Collective event venue.
Because the project exceeds 1MW, it bypasses local zoning
review and falls under the Siting Council’s jurisdiction. The council held a
public hearing April 23 at the town’s request, though one was not legally
required.
The proposal has drawn objections from Simsbury officials.
First Selectman Wendy Mackstutis told the council the panels would be visible
from the historic Heublein Tower on the Talcott Mountain ridgeline and from the
surrounding state park — which she called one of the most treasured assets in
the Farmington Valley.
The town has also raised concerns that a large portion of
the array appears to fall within a Special Flood Hazard Area, with wetland
pockets nearby, and that the proposed landscaping plan would not adequately
screen the project from the Nod Road corridor.
Town officials have additionally asked the council to
require that roughly $316,930 in delinquent property taxes owed by the site’s
owner, Simsbury Real Estate Holdings, be paid before any approval, or that
payment be made a condition of the decision.
Attorneys for Lodestar have told the council the facility
would generate about $45,000 annually in real estate and personal property
taxes. Power from the project would be sold to Eversource. The estimated
project cost is $10.9 million, with construction expected to take six to nine
months.