In total, the renovation project will cost $250,000. The grant, which was approved by the Town Council Monday, will pay for half of the costs while the rest has been budgeted as part of the town’s planned road and bridge repairs this year.

Lou Perillo III, economic development director, said that this sewer line extension has been on the town’s agenda for more than a decade.

“The state paying for half of the project is a big boost,” he said. “We couldn’t do anything until the sewer came over the river on that bridge. The cost of bringing a sewer line under a river, or over it by hanging it on a bridge and redoing the bridge, had been prohibitive in the past.”

This particular area of town has had to rely on septic systems in the past, which Perillo said has been a limiting factor when trying to attract developers to the area.

“This project will carry the line over the bridge to Smoron Court,” said Perillo. “We’re hoping that another developer could then carry it to residential homes. Long-term, we’re hoping to be able to connect the line to West Street. When we have the infrastructure in place, it will make this area significantly more attractive and help us to land prospective tenants.”

Jim Grappone, assistant town engineer, said that the first phase of the project, which has been contracted to Dayton Construction Company, Inc. of Watertown, will begin in April of this year.

The first phase of construction, which will run from April 1 through Sept. 16, will see alternating one-way traffic and the installation of a temporary traffic signal.

The second phase of construction will run from Sept. 16 of this year through July 16 2022. During that time, the road will go back to two-way traffic and the temporary signal will be removed.

The work is expected to be complete in Aug. 2022.

Grappone added that Spring Street may see additional work this summer.

“We’re very close to getting Department of Transportation approval for providing an exclusive right turn lane on Spring Street and Queen Street near the Plan b restaurant. This is intended to eliminate the backup of traffic that is occurring now as you’re exiting Spring Street and turning onto Queen Street.”

Grappone said that the town sought a permit for this work last winter and is hoping to bring a contractor out to start the work in early April.

Perillo said that numerous companies have expressed an interest in coming to town and that he is working with them to find suitable locations. Perillo said that these prospective companies include four restaurants, a solar company, three landscapers, medical offices and market rate apartments.

“There is also a gas station that is looking to open on Meriden-Waterbury Road opposite of Manor Inn,” said Perillo. “They are in the process of submitting plans for a modified zone there.”

Perillo said that interest is “remarkably strong” coming off of the pandemic.

“People have had a year to think about what they want to do and they see Southington as a worthwhile market to do business in,” he said. “We have steady taxes and you get a good value for what you pay for. Southington is also becoming quite well-known as a restaurant destination. People are coming here from all over because our restaurant quality and variety is great.”

Subcommittee will review resolution to see who has final authority on school construction project spending

The Common Council approved Wednesday to refer the item to the Consolidated Subcommittee for further review on the resolution’s language and make potential amendments.

Alderwoman Sharon Beloin-Saavedra said the resolution was made in response to a few issues, to clear up cloudy language in the ordinance, clarify contradictions between the ordinance and the city charter, and address recent disputes between the city and New Britain Schools on how the ordinance is interpreted.

Referencing to three different lawyers from both the district and the city that concluded with three different opinions on the meaning of the ordinance, Beloin-Saavedra said the language needs to be clarified and determine the roles and responsibilities on who can do what.

For those reasons, she urged her colleagues to support the referral to committee in order “to discuss the language and its impact.”

The initial dispute was sparked by the SBC’s hiring of a retired school facilities director last year to lead the Chamberlain Elementary School renovation project and reroofing projects at Pulaski and Slade Middle School. Both city and school district officials questioned the legality of the committee to hire the position.

The SBC is a non-paid 7-member organization appointed by the city, according to the city’s ordinance. It is responsible for developing preliminary plans and cost estimates for each school construction project and reports are made to the Board of Education, the Common Council and the Mayor’s Office.

One of the key points of concern for several city officials and community members was the removal of the BOE and the Common Council’s authority to determine financial expenses, specifically towards hiring positions. Another concern was altering the committee membership by eliminating Common Council appointments.

According to the current resolution, the employment of architects, engineers and construction representatives are subject to the approval of the BOE and the Common Council. With the amended resolution, the employment of contractors was added to the list and the authority of the BOE and Common Council were removed.

The amended resolution states “the school building committee shall engage, select, and enter into or continue all necessary contracts with contractors, architects, landscape architects, or engineers, and within the limits of the appropriations made by the council, this committee shall engage and fix the salary of one or more construction representatives who shall be responsible to the school building committee.”

Several callers dialed in to express their worries about the suggested changes. BOE Member Gayle Sanders-Connolly described the amendments as “incautious” and former BOE member Jim Sanders Jr. said it is disingenuous to the taxpayers who elected both bodies to watch over the tax dollars.

After public participation, Alderman Aram Ayalon said, “there is a lot of responsibility on us to any contract that the city is involved with, especially when it’s involving millions of dollars.”

“If there are contradictions between the ordinance and the charter, we should change the charter,” he said. “To allow a committee to run amok on its own is very irresponsible.”

Alderman Kristian Rosado expressed his concern about the constant back-and-forth between elected officials on this subject and hopes to clear the air by continuing civil discussions about the resolution.

“We have plenty of time to discuss this and I believe as time goes on, something better will come out of it,” he said. 

Lamont should justify tens of millions in utility subsidies

David Collins  In the world of excessive government spending and corporate welfare, I'd say Gov. Ned Lamont has won the sweepstakes, maybe not just for Connecticut but for every state in the country.

Just last week, Lamont barely hesitated after a reporter popped a surprise question about the skyrocketing cost of the governor's State Pier remake during one of his COVID-19 briefings, which he otherwise seems to enjoy.

The question: Are you comfortable with the new price point of $200 million for the pier project?

Yes, the governor responded to the query about the latest surge of more than $40 million in the estimated cost of the project, calling the money a good investment.

In my mind he's largely investing in the hugely profitable wind farm projects of two rich utilities, one foreign, which are also eventually going to charge consumers above-market electric rates for the cost of building them, while taking a profit.

One outrage of this hose-the-consumer/taxpayer plan is that neither the utility nor the state will even tell us how much we will pay for this offshore-generated electricity, despite the fact that they already know the price and have committed Connecticut residents and businesses to paying it.

Why doesn't Lamont just brand the Capitol with a giant Eversource billboard and admit he's handed the state over to the utility and its shareholders?

First of all, even if the State Pier project and escalating subsidies were sensible, the delays and cost overruns, which Lamont agreed to have paid entirely by the state, have been staggering.

When the project was announced in 2019, it was going to cost $93 million, and construction was supposed to begin in January 2020. The public/private cost sharing was then close to being equal, with the utilities actually paying more.

The cost is now at $200 million, according to the governor, and maybe climbing, with the state absorbing all the overruns.

How is this not a giant boondoggle, even without factoring in all the corruption at the port authority, which created the deal.

The big lie about the need for the state to pay for this project is one the governor repeated in his answer to the surprise question at his pandemic briefing.

"It is necessary to get wind power going over the next 10 years," Lamont said.

No it's not. And the governor must know this.

The expensive rebuild of State Pier to suit the rich utilities has absolutely nothing to do with whether the state has access to the renewable energy of offshore wind. Plans to build big wind farms by these and other utilities do not depend in any way on whether Connecticut spends a big part of $200 million making the New London port wind utility friendly.

Indeed, there is nothing in the deals committing the state and the utilities to the offshore wind electricity purchases that require the state to spend so much money rebuilding the port of New London.

If Lamont chooses to walk away from the spending overruns for the pier project, which the deal gives him the right to do, the utilities will just have to go somewhere else to do the work. It's their problem.

And there will certainly be other places to go. Other states are preparing their ports for wind work, seemingly at lower prices than are projected for the New London project.

New Jersey appears to have made progress toward a commitment from the industry for some actual wind component manufacturing, which has eluded Connecticut.

Indeed, the number of estimated jobs for the assembly work planned for New London, some 400 with the rosiest projections, are hardly more than you would get with a new Walmart.

Gov. Lamont needs to explain why he's spending more than $120 million to create some 400 new jobs while at the same time eliminating many others, given the shutdown of existing businesses to make way for the project.

The idea that the pier will be improved for when wind assembly is finished is misguided because so much of the cost is related to the specific needs of the utilities. You could rebuild the port for traditional uses without removing a huge hill and filling in 7 acres of harbor.

Where are the studies explaining why the state should subsidize so much of the utilities' costs in building their profitable farms? Where is the analysis of justification?

This is an enormous amount of money that Lamont is shoving across the table to players who don't need it, at the same time he is trying to squeeze more taxes from an American Indian tribe that is a large employer and significant contributor to the state's budget.

And where are the legislators who should be asking why all this borrowed taxpayer money is being spent to subsidize rich utilities, one foreign, instead of being invested in Connecticut communities?

This is the opinion of David Collins.

USA Hauling plans $30M state-of-the-art recycling facility in Berlin

Matt Pilon  Enfield-based USA Hauling and Recycling plans to invest $30 million to build what it says will be one of the largest and most technologically advanced recycling facilities in New England.

The company announced that its Murphy Road Recycling subsidiary has partnered with Norwalk-based Van Dyk Recycling Solutions, the largest equipment supplier materials for recovery facilities (MRFs) in the country, to build the materials recovery facility.

Frank Antonacci, chief operating officer of USA Hauling, said in a promotional video distributed with the announcement Wednesday that the facility will be “a keystone for the entire recycling infrastructure in the Northeast.”

The so-called All American MRF, slated for completion in early 2022, is designed to improve the purity of the sorted materials it produces, which will help them fetch higher prices from commodities buyers.

The plant will make use of optical scanners to identify and separate single-stream recycling materials based on their chemical makeup. Robotics and artificial intelligence will provide additional scrutiny of recovered materials before baling.

The facility, employing about 50 people once complete, will have the capacity to process about 50 tons of material per hour, or at least 200,000 tons annually, which the companies said would help Connecticut reach its longstanding goal of shrinking -- through recovery of recyclables and organics -- the amount of waste it burns or landfills by 60%.

“We are pleased that Murphy Road Recycling has decided to expand their operations here in Berlin,” Mayor Mark Kaczynski said in a statement. “They have been a great asset in town and we are thrilled that they are making such a large investment in Berlin including the creation of additional jobs.”

The investment comes at a time when many recycling operations are struggling with depressed commodity prices due to China’s crackdown, starting several years ago, on contamination limits in bales of recyclables it will accept. 

That’s forced MRF operators to take pains to remove as much unintended material as possible from bales of cardboard and other recyclables.

There’s also been a significant shift in the mix of materials in consumers’ single-stream curbside bins. There’s less newspaper and more small cardboard boxes and envelopes, a result of what’s known as “the Amazon effect.”

“Today’s curbside material isn’t what it was 10-15 years ago,” said Jonathan Murray, Murphy Road’s operations director. “It was heavy on newspaper and relatively clean.  Today, everyone reads news online and orders everything from the internet.”

USA Hauling’s newly announced investment in Berlin comes after the company, needing more space for a growing number of employees, acquired the former LEGO headquarters in Enfield for $1.9 million

East Haven wants the lawsuit to end. The Farm River Rock quarry owner wants $27 million.

Mark Zaretsky  EAST HAVEN — Three years ago, the town could have settled a federal lawsuit filed by the owner of the Farm River Rock Quarry for $3 million, according to that owner.

But now, as a U.S. District Court judge considers what the plaintiff’s lawyers say what could be the final motions in the case before it heads to trial, another figure looms: $27 million.

That’s what it could cost East Haven taxpayers if Judge Janet C. Hall rules in Farm River Rock, LLC’s favor in the suit, in which the plaintiff alleges the town illegally shut down the quarry at 1 Barberry Road in a remote section of town straddling the North Branford line north of Route 80, depriving the company of its property rights. The town had found in 2017 that the quarry use violated town zoning regulations.

Both sides said in interviews that they’re willing to settle.

In the most recent action in U.S. District Court in Bridgeport, the town filed a 27-page motion asking the judge for a summary judgment.

Farm River then offered a 48-page response, backed by 1,600 pages of exhibits.

But in settlement discussions, Farm River managing member John Patton and his attorney, Peter Alter, and town lawyers and officials — not the same ones who were involved when the case began during the administration of Republican former Mayor Joe Maturo Jr. — both say they have remained far apart.

Patton also is managing member of One Barberry Real Estate Holding LLC, which also is part of the suit, which originally was separate lawsuits filed against the town and then-Mayor Maturo and three other town officials, accusing them of shutting down the quarry for political reasons. The two suits have since been consolidated, according to Garrett Denniston, one of the lawyers representing the town.

Denniston did not give a figure but said the town’s estimate of what the damages might be should the court rule in Patton’s favor was considerably less than Farm River Rock’s.

Alter, of the Glastonbury law firm of Alter & Pearson, said in an interview, “We have been ready, willing and able to meet with the town ... any time they expressed willingness to do that.”

But “those have not been productive,” he said. “The town simply will not respond to any reasonable demand that we’ve made.”

Patton, who lives in Willington, said he reached out to Hearst Connecticut Media Group through a private public relations firm because “the people of the Town of East Haven really ought to know what their exposure is. This could be potentially a very bad situation for the town...”

Any potential settlement “is not going to get cheap” — and “it’s not getting any cheaper,” Patton said in an interview. “It’s going to be expensive for the town of East Haven because it was expensive for me ... I’m trying to tell you — I’m shouting it as best I can ... You’re in a very bad situation.”

He said he made the $3 million offer three years ago through the court, but the town never responded.

Patton first leased the property in 2013 and bought it in March 2016.

Town Attorney Michael Luzzi, who got involved with the case when Democratic Mayor Joe Carfora took office in late 2019, referred detailed comment to Assistant Town Attorney Hugh Keefe, whose firm is handling the case for the town.

“It’s pending litigation. We’re defending it. The matter continues in litigation,” Luzzi said in a phone call. “The matter continues to be defended in federal court. We’ve had a number of scheduling conferences; a number of settlement conferences, as well.”

Keefe, of law firm of Lynch, Traub, Keefe and Errante in New Haven, said in a phone interview that, to him, the case “has every look and appearance of a case that looks like it’s going to go to trial. East Haven has no problem settling any cases if the other side is fair and not difficult to deal with.”

But in Farm River Rock’s case, he said. “It’s about money — it’s about the plaintiff wanting more money from the taxpayers of East Haven.

“In fact, the town of East Haven and the officials have done nothing but tried to protect the citizens of East Haven ... who by the way cannot afford private PR people to manage their affairs,” Keefe said, referring to the Hartford lobbying and public relations firm Sullivan & Leshane, which represents Patton.

Keefe said, in a call that also included Denniston, the attorney in Keefe’s office who is taking the lead on the case, “the litigation itself is pretty simple. Like most litigation, it boils down to credibility — the credibility of their witnesses versus the credibility of our witnesses.”

While the quarry was initially shut down, it recently has begun quarrying again on a limited basis under the name East Haven Trap Rock Quarry, with new partners from New York in control and Patton now having a minority stake, Patton said.

“The quarry is in operation. It’s making stone,” Patton said. “It takes a long time to start up an operation.”

Farm River Rock Quarry had previously shut down after it was issued a cease-and-desist order in 2017 and ordered to stop operating after the town ruled that the quarry wasn’t an allowed use. This occurred— even though the fire marshal previously had issued 37 blasting permits and it had been allowed to take out more than 28,000 loads, Patton has said.

The Zoning Board of Appeals upheld the cease-and-desist order, but a Superior Court judge in 2019 ruled in favor of Farm River Rock, finding the site had been used as a quarry for more than 75 years and the operation was a “legal pre-existing nonconforming use.”

While quarries are not allowed under current town zoning regulations, under Connecticut law, such regulations cannot stop property uses that predate them, according to the judge.

The lawsuit also seeks punitive damages and attorney’s fees.