CT Construction Digest Friday March 18, 2022
$36 million more needed to build new Norwalk High, officials say
NORWALK — City officials say they will need to go back to the state to fully fund the new Norwalk High School project.
The estimated cost of the total project is $225 million. However, the state reduced the city’s initial request and approved $189 million for the project at a reimbursement rate of 80 percent in 2020.
“The city would need to request to increase the project budget in the amount of $36 million,” said Alan Lo, Norwalk Building and Facilities Manager.
Lo told the Board of Education this week that the city tried to design the project toward the $189 million, “but we had so much trouble trying to do that.” The reality is the $225 million is the amount needed, Lo said.
The board approved the city’s recommendation to move forward with design “option B” for the new high school, which would construct the building on the existing football field. The Common Council’s Land Use and Building Management committee will discuss the recommendation next before moving it to the full council.
Officials said the hard costs for “option B,” which include the physical construction of the building, equipment and materials used, and labor costs, is $193 million. The remaining $32 million would be soft costs, including builder’s risk insurance, architectural fees, design fees and developmental consultant fees.
The city already approved more than $50.5 million for the high school project in 2020 to cover the 20 percent that was not going to be reimbursed by the state plus costs that would have a lower reimbursement rate like the athletic facilities and the pool, according to Lo.
The $193 million estimate for hard costs does not include the $8 million that the city estimates for the pool construction.
Since the estimated cost already exceeds $189 million, the city would not be eligible for the 50 percent reimbursement rate for the pool that the state also approved in 2020.
Under “option B,” the new building would be constructed in three years. At that time, students and staff could swing into the new school while the old building was demolished. The work would continue for another two years to rebuild the athletic facilities displaced during the school construction.
Nearly every outdoor fall and spring sport would be relocated during the five-year construction process, including football, soccer, field hockey, tennis, softball, lacrosse and track and field. Norwalk High School baseball already plays and practices at Nathan Hale Middle School and the baseball field near City Hall.
Doug Marchetti, the athletic director at Norwalk High, outlined on Tuesday where each sport would be relocated during construction. In the fall, football would practice at Nathan Hale Middle School and play their games at Brien McMahon High School. Field hockey would practice and play at Nathan Hale Middle School.
The plan is for boys and girls soccer to practice and play at West Rocks Middle School. For track training, the boys and girls cross country teams can go to Brien McMahon High School, he said.
In the spring, boys and girls lacrosse would practice and play at Nathan Hale Middle School. The schedule would need to keep lacrosse and baseball games on separate nights because the parking lot can not accommodate all players, coaches and spectators, according to Marchetti.
Softball practice and games would either be held at Brien McMahon High School or a new field built at Cranbury Elementary School. Alternate sites being considered for boys and girls tennis include Oak Hills Park or the courts at the Norwalk/Stamford Grassroots Tennis & Education facility.
The sport still looking for a temporary home is track and field. The only alternate site is Brien McMahon High School, but with so many athletes for each school team, the facility could not accommodate both teams at the same time, Marchetti said.
He and the city are looking at a netting system that would allow the Norwalk track team to train safely while lacrosse teams practice on the football field.
Norwalk Public Schools would contract with another transit company to transport athletes between the high school and their alternative facilities so regular bus routes run by Durham School Services would not be affected, according to Johanna Zanvettor, the district’s transportation director.
The total project cost includes the cost of transportation for athletics, estimated at $218,000, as well as small improvements to make the alternate sites feel more like home fields for the players such as putting up signage.
The city slightly tweaked the “option B” design to accommodate a request by neighbors on King Street to eliminate a bus entrance on the street. An unpaved egress from King Street may be needed for emergency vehicles, but Lo told the board it would likely be gated and locked to not allow regular through traffic.
Groton residents raise concerns about data center proposal
Groton — Dozens of residents at a Town Council meeting Wednesday night spoke for more than three hours against a data center proposal, raising concerns about the impact on property values, noise and the environment, among other issues.
The vast majority of the roughly 48 speakers were opposed or sought more information and time for the town to deliberate. Residents were applauded after they spoke, and some wore stickers that said "NO DATA CENTER NOW."
NE Edge LLC, under manager Thomas Quinn, is asking the council to approve a host fee agreement to bring one data center or more to land between Flanders and Hazelnut Hill Roads, south of Interstate 95 and north of Groton Open Association's Sheep Farm properties. The agreement outlines criteria and sets the annual revenue paid to the town in lieu of taxes, as the state allows 20- to 30-year tax exemptions for data centers. If the council ultimately approves the agreement, the developer would seek approvals from the Inland Wetlands and Planning and Zoning commissions.
Related column: Groton residents finally got their say on data centers, and it was a resounding no
Paula MacDougall, who lives on Flanders Road and was among the residents from neighborhoods near the industrially zoned property, said the town revised the agreement to address some of the neighbors' requests and the noise factor, but she had remaining concerns, including if the technology is available yet to make huge fans quiet, and "the possible need for an addition of transfer stations to handle the electric power which could be another destruction to residential areas."
"These are middle-class homes. Middle-class people's wealth, it's well known, is mainly tied up in their homes. I believe our homes would be worth less," added MacDougall, who implored town officials to not enter into the agreement and suggested they could help find another site in town.
Larry Dunn, chairman of the Conservation Commission, which took the position to not support or oppose a data center, said the host fee agreement limits the environmental impact by requiring the purchase of specific diesel generators to restrict pollution, provides direction on uses of hazardous materials, limits noise pollution and donates to the town 50 acres of open space.
Groton Conservation Advocates Co-Chair Eugenia Villagra said the council had passed a resolution to seek reductions in energy consumption to minimize carbon emissions. "Our objective is to lessen future climate change impacts by lowering the town's emission, not raise them by building a data center," she said. "Data centers use staggering amounts of electricity and generate a lot of heat which will contribute to local and global warming."
Villagra raised concerns about the impact of cutting down about 14 acres of trees and blasting: "How could this not have a huge negative impact on the many wetlands there, the wildlife, the beloved Sheep Farm, and what about the neighbors, their health, and their property values?"
"Destroying woodlands to build an energy-sucking corporate park is opposite the direction we should be going," said Kristin Distante, a resident and member of the Groton Conservation Commission. "Data centers are absolutely necessary, and there's plenty of empty factories and malls that should be repurposed to that end. Not pristine woodland."
Resident Douglas Schwartz said he grew up on Thames Street and has seen a lot of development in town. When he was a kid, the business district was on Thames Street, and Long Hill Road only had a bakery and a supermarket.
"We can’t go back at being a village but we can’t turn into Bridgeport either, and I think the council tonight — I'm getting a very good feeling — I think the council’s getting the message that the citizenry doesn't want to be Bridgeport," he said.
Lynne Marshall spoke about the importance of specifying noise limits in the agreement: "You don't want to build the data center and then have the neighbors justifiably complain about the noise."
"We are concerned justifiably about our environmental risks, and I am speaking as one family who lives across the street," said resident Michelle McCullen Green. "My child's life is going to be impacted by this."
Resident Kimberly Sheriff cried as she told the council that she just bought her "forever home" on Hazelnut Hill Road and wants to make sure the proposal won't affect her, her children or her two young grandchildren, who go hiking in Sheep Farm.
In a letter read aloud, Michael Kickingbear Johnson, acting tribal historic preservation officer for the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation, said construction would change the landscape around Flanders Road, creating "a substantial likelihood that ceremonial stone and other cultural features located within the project site will be adversely affected or destroyed."
Some residents, including Joan Smith, president of the Groton Open Space Association, called for town officials to take their time in their review.
“We recommend that the Town Council resist pressure to decide quickly and to take time to evaluate the host fee agreement, the promised financial benefit, the applicant’s reported history, his financial backing, the risk of litigation and potential environmental harm," Smith said. "The community deserves a more transparent and detailed plan before any decision is made to move forward."
Some residents publicly criticized or questioned the developer's experience and background and some people also criticized town staff and some of the councilors, and called for more vetting of the developer and the proposal. Some expressed anger over the Mystic Education Center proposal, the current data center proposal and a previous agreement signed with Gotspace. Several residents also discussed a recent column written by The Day's David Collins.
"I just really wish that we would take a look at our development process. I would like you to look at your own values. I'd like you to look at all these people here who are trying to give you input," resident Janet Mayer told the council. "The analysis — was enough analysis done? Here we go again. What about ethics and transparency? And I agree this should not be all on your plate. A lot of this should be done ahead of time."
Resident Genevieve Cerf, who also is a Representative Town Meeting member, referenced a Forbes article about how major data companies “have been negotiating with local towns through these little shady organizations.”
Resident Michael Boucher, who held a "Stop Quinn" sign at the meeting, criticized some of the councilors and called it a "new low for the Town of Groton government getting pressed by Quinn to rush the vote with no agreement yet available."
"We, the residents of the town of Groton, have to decide what direction we want the town to go in, not town staff," said Rosanne Kotowksi of the Mystic Oral School Advocates group.
Joyce Olson Reznikoff, who represented the Groton Shopping Plaza, said her father showed her in 1951 that he was going to build the only shopping center in the county.
"The reason I'm here tonight was to say I look forward to bringing business into our town but I didn't expect to hear what I'm hearing tonight, and I understand where everybody's coming from but I don't like how you do speak, and I'm very proud that I know Tom Quinn and I'm very, very proud to have a son, Christopher Regan, working with Tom," she said.
Regan, a partner in NE Edge, said he wanted to address some of "the misconceptions and misfacts" circulating. He said there are no lawsuits against Quinn.
According to court records, there is litigation against Verde Group related to a proposed Montville data center. Vineyard Meadows Investment and Bruno Blanchet filed a lawsuit against Verde JG LLC, Verde Group LLC and the late founder Joel Greene, and All of Us at North LLC filed a lawsuit against Mohegan Hill Montville LLC, Kleeman Farms LLC, Verde Group LLC and Joel and Donna Greene. Quinn, who was referred to as the CEO of Verde Group, said he was paid as a consultant to secure land permits and is not a party to the litigation.
Regan said the annual fee to the town from the data center proposal would make it the third-highest taxpayer in town after Pfizer and Electric Boat. He said the 50 acres the developer will give the town is a donation, not a penalty for noise, and the data proposal will bring 2,000 construction jobs and between 80 to 160 permanent jobs that are opportunities for students in town at Ella T. Grasso Technical High School. He said the agreement would require an environmental study.
Resident Edward Jacome, who also is an RTM member, said he doesn't have much of a preference now about whether or not a data center is constructed and asked the town and elected officials to "continue to do their due diligence." But he said he thinks "constantly attacking the staff is not fair," and he expects a better outcome than constantly bringing down morale when they are doing the best they can and always attempting to listen to residents and governing bodies.
He said he heard people say that this might not be the right location for the data center proposal, so he asked them where they would want it: "Where would everybody want it? You want to put it down in the city? You want to put it in downtown Groton? No."
Quinn said in an email to The Day on Thursday that if two 32+ megawatt data center buildings, as conceptually sited, are approved, the annual fee paid to the town would be $1.5 million, plus escalation over the length of the contract. Adding a third, smaller 16 megawatt building would add an additional $500,000 per year, plus escalation. He said the agreement includes lighting, well protection, sound protocols, sidewalks and a 2-acre recreational park.
Next steps
The council initially was scheduled to potentially vote Wednesday on the proposed agreement, but later decided to postpone the vote after the town manager raised concerns, including about sound, to the developer, and they agreed more time was needed.
Town Mayor Juan Melendez Jr. said in a statement to The Day that he had been prepared to vote no, "but more time and information to deliberate on is always appreciated." He said he and the town manager will have to flesh out how to move forward. They likely will consult the council at an upcoming meeting.
“What became clear from a three-and-a-half-hour public hearing was that Groton citizens deeply value our unique landscape and will not prostrate themselves before the world's wealthiest individuals and their global corporations seeking to squeeze out more billions in profit at our expense," Councilor Aundré Bumgardner said in a statement. "We also learned the value of thoughtful citizen input in guiding elected representatives. As a whole, we are far smarter than as individuals. Democracy works, and works best the more people become involved and the more opportunities for them to participate."
"I’m proud of my community for showing up, voicing their concerns and urging their representatives and town staff to conduct their due diligence in regards to this type of development," Councilor Portia Bordelon said in a statement. "This is the most important part of democracy."
In addition to health, environmental and legal concerns raised during the meeting, she said her main takeaway is "we, as a town, need to reform and restructure the process by which these developments are deliberated upon" and include public hearings.
Councilor David McBride called the turnout "overwhelming." He said in a statement that residents brought up many concerns which have been discussed over the past few weeks, and it's now up to the councilors to determine if they can incorporate these changes into the agreement. He said he was prepared to make recommended changes at Wednesday's originally scheduled council meeting that would incorporate most of the concerns.
He thinks the councilors still need to answer three main questions: should another data center agreement be entered into once the necessary changes are made, is the current proposed location appropriate, and are they comfortable moving forward with the developer?
Town Manager John Burt said it was great to see such a large turnout of interested residents and he is waiting for guidance from the council as to next steps.
NEW BRITAIN – The city’s Common Council has agreed to sell a collection of city owned parcels to a developer, moving forward with the second phase of the Berkowitz building construction project.
The city will sell parcels 634, 666, 676 and 686 Main Street to Douglas Bromfield, the developer renovating the Berkowitz Building. The 24,500-square-foot building at 608 Main St. is the entrance to the Polish business district within the city. The Berkowitz Building was sold in early 2015 to Douglas Bromfield of Capital Restoration Inc. of Hartford for $130,000. The property includes two additional parcels stretching down Beaver Street.
The Council passed a resolution last week to sell the city owned property at 634, 666, 676 and 686 Main St. for $65,000 to Douglas Bromfield of Berkowitz Block, LLC. The resolution was passed after it received a favorable recommendation from the committee on planning, zoning and housing to sell the property.
Alderman Robert Smedley said the city had previously entered into an agreement with Douglas Bromfield, Capital Restoration, the parcels of land would be available to purchase provided that the rehabilitation of 610 through 626 Main St. and 49 and 53 Beaver St. was completed. Smedley said because that promise has been kept, the city agreed to sell them the parcels.
“The parcels will be used for construction of additional buildings and parking to align with the character and design of the neighborhood,” Smedley said.
The sale of the collection of parcels will kick off phase two of the Berkowitz Building project. The 100-year-old Berkowitz Building at 608 Main Street had been empty for years, before it was purchased by the developer. The area will undergo renovation for a mixed-use building and parking space. In 2017, the developer struggled for a bit to find more financial assistance for the project. However, in 2019, Bromfield was able to utilize a combination of private funding, local and state tax credits to fund the construction. The renovation of the building is said to consist of 24 apartments.
The second phase involves the development of the parcel leading up to Beaver Street. The mixed-use development is one of several redevelopment projects in the downtown area with proximity to CTFastrak, which will add to this city’s transit oriented development plan. Mayor Erin Stewart told the Herald Wednesday she was excited to see the next phase of the projects.
“When Mr. Bromfield purchased the original Berkowitz Building back in 2015, I told him I would only sell him the remainder of the parcel when he was done with the renovation of that building,” Stewart said. “I am thrilled that time has finally come to make that sale, and I look forward to seeing his plans for transforming these empty lots.”
Manchester issues new RFP for former Parkade site
Manchester officials are once again looking for developers for the former Parkade property on Broad Street and have issued a request-for-proposal for the site.
Almost two months after nixing a deal with Easton-based Manchester Parkade 1, the developer picked two years ago to lead a $140 million mixed-use project at the site, the town has issued another RFP for the 23.2-acre property.
Per the RFP, town officials want the new developer to carry out the vision for a revitalized Broast Street area it's been pursuing since the adoption of the Broad Street Redevelopment Plan back in 2009.
“Residential, retail, service, office, entertainment and civic uses are possibilities throughout the area and for the redevelopment parcel. The Town recognizes market realities will play a significant role in the eventual success of a project,” town officials wrote in the RFP. “Whatever the proposed use, the development should be compact and dense, creating a strong sense of place where people want to be.”
Among other things, the town said it is willing to discuss negotiated land sale prices or land lease arrangements; tax increment financing; tax assessment agreements; and public financing in the form of revenue bonds with developers.
The town first bought the multi-parcel property in 2011 after Manchester voters approved an $8 million bond to revitalize the Broad Street area. Since then, all buildings on the site have been removed and it's been prepped for development.
In 2019 the town named Manchester Parkade I LLC as the preferred developer for the site. The developer’s planned $140 million project, called Silk City Green, would have converted the vacant Broad Street site into a mixed-use development with housing, retail space and a hotel. The project was expected to break ground on initial construction this spring, and the developers expressed surprise that the town was moving on.
The town and Manchester Parkade I signed a development agreement in April 2021, which was subsequently twice extended as the developer grappled with financing issues related to Department of Housing and Urban Development funding. Those funding issues were resolved, the developer said.
Officials from Manchester Parkade 1 said in January that they’ve already pumped $1.3 million into the project, so they’d be consulting with their legal team about what options they have moving forward.
The RFP acknowledges this back and forth.
“The Development Agreement expired and the Town is no longer working with the Prior Developer to develop the Parkade site. Nevertheless, the Prior Developer may claim certain contractual rights to the Parkade site, which the Town denies, but any proposal to develop the Parkade may be subject to claims of the Prior Developer,” the RFP states.
The full RFP can be read here.
Preston wetlands commission closes public hearing on proposed RV park
Preston — After four public hearing sessions, each lasting two or three hours, the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission will begin its review next month of a permit application for the controversial RV park proposed at the junction of routes 2 and 164 abutting Avery Pond.
Following the final three-hour session late Tuesday, the commission closed the public hearing on the application by Maryland-based Blue Water Development Corp. for the RV park and campground resort on 65 acres of land owned by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation.
The wetlands commission will begin deliberations on the wetlands permit application at its April 12 meeting at Preston Plains Middle School. The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold its second public hearing session March 22 at 7 p.m. at Preston Plains Middle School.
Prior to Tuesday’s hearing, project attorney Harry Heller submitted revised plans that backed work away from Avery Pond and nearby wetlands. The changes eliminated the proposed T-shaped floating dock in the pond, an elevated boardwalk near the pond and nine safari tent sites at the northwest portion of a peninsula abutting the pond. In total, 22 campsites and one of the three proposed bathhouses were eliminated, Heller said.
The project now would have 280 campsites, a welcome center, two bathhouses, a swimming pool and volleyball, tennis, squash and bocce areas. Roads and parking areas would be gravel-based, except near the welcome center, which would be paved.
Heller said the revision came in response to strong objections from residents in neighborhoods near the pond, who complained the dense development, proposed kayaking and other activities in and near the pond would destroy the habitat.
Blue Water also hired Carl D. Nielsen, a limnologist — a scientist who specializes in freshwater systems — and certified lake manager, to assist with revising plans to avoid potential adverse impacts to Avery Pond, Heller wrote in a letter submitted with the revised plans.
Nielsen told the commission Tuesday he was pleased that the developer "heard and they listened" to his recommendations to avoid the pond and its wetlands. He also proposed a future study of the Avery Pond ecosystem.
During public comment late Tuesday, residents said the last-minute revisions — what one resident called "due diligence on the fly" — showed that the original plans would not have protected the pond and wetlands. Several residents said the commission should require more revisions to scale down the project further.
Gary Piszczek, chairman of the Preston Conservation and Agricultural Commission, had submitted a letter to the commission at the Jan. 18 public hearing session urging the wetlands commission to deny the project. Piszczek said Tuesday the conservation commission did not receive the latest plans, but he was pleased work was removed from within 100 feet of Avery Pond and its adjacent wetlands.
He asked that the project also scale back work from within 100 feet of wetlands along Indiantown Brook, which snakes along the eastern border of the property. That would eliminate more campsites, but he called it “a good tradeoff” to preserve wetlands and wildlife along the brook.
“It is a wildlife corridor,” Piszczek said. “We look at this, not so much as just Avery Pond, but the entire watercourse all the way to the cove and the Thames River. So, we’re going to stick with our recommendation that the wetlands commission rejects any activity in the entire upland area, all the way through the whole project.”
Susan Hotchkiss of 20 Lynn Drive and Jennifer Hollstein of 12 Lynn Drive — Lynn Drive is located along the west shore of Avery Pond — obtained intervenor status and submitted scientific reports to the commission. One called the technical reports submitted by Blue Water incomplete. Attorney Michael Carey, representing the intervenors, on Tuesday asked the commission to continue the public hearing to allow his clients to review the revised plans.
The commission closed the hearing without discussing the request to extend the hearing again.
Heller said reports by experts submitted to the commission show that the project would not adversely impact Avery Pond and the wetlands. He repeatedly reminded the commission that its role did not include analysis of wildlife in the upland review area from wetlands and that state law does not prohibit development within 100 feet of a wetland.
“You as a wetlands commission have the right to regulate activities to determine if there is an adverse physical impact to the wetland or watercourse,” Heller said. “It is not a no-go zone. It is a site-specific determination.”