CT Construction Digest Thursday February 15, 2024
Opinion: Developers cry a river over having to pay CT residents fair wages
Kimberly Glassman
Boo hoo hoo. Another rich developer is screaming from the rooftops over having to follow our state’s laws and compensate workers appropriately if they accept a state grant. Can you imagine the hardship these developers must be enduring? Accepting a taxpayer-funded grant from our state’s Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) and then having to follow the laws associated with said grant? We should all take out our violins and play a sad tune for these multi-million-dollar companies.
The most recent victim of having to follow our state’s laws seems to be a developer in the Town of Fairfield. Post Road Residential is angry that, by accepting a brownfield remediation grant from DECD, they are required to ensure the construction workers hired to perform work on their development project would earn not less than our state’s prevailing wage. They’re apparently also upset by having to ensure a certain number of housing units are set aside as affordable. To be clear, this developer, who just a few years ago took a $33M loan from Citizens Bank, is trying to garner sympathy for having to pay their workers a livable wage and make sure that people can actually afford to live in their luxury Fairfield apartments. Yeah, I’m sure it’s really tough for these guys.
In 2017, the bipartisan budget expanded prevailing wage protections for workers employed on projects funded with economic development monies. It passed with strong support from both sides of the aisle in both chambers. This was a commonsense initiative — if a private company is seeking public assistance dollars for development, then they’re going to in turn pay our state’s workforce a livable wage. These dollars should be recycled back into our local economies, not used to line the pockets of elites while our construction workers struggle to get by. But now that a few power brokers are throwing temper tantrums, the law is being called into question.
A study published by the Illinois Economic Policy Institute on Jan. 17, 2023 titled, “The Economic Impact of Prevailing Wage Law Repeals on Construction Market Outcomes,” found that, “there is no evidence that any of the six repeals of prevailing wage laws between 2015 and 2018 reduced public construction costs or saved taxpayers any money.” The study further indicates that, “The data are clear that prevailing wage laws attract qualified workers through family-supporting wages, develop skilled workers through contributions to apprenticeship programs that boost productivity, and retain experienced workers with strong health and retirement benefits that promote long-term economic security. Repeal has the opposite effect.”
When Fairfield developer Post Road Residential claims that following a state law that’s been on the books since the 1930s will increase their project costs by 30 percent, you have to ask what are they are paying their workers? Labor rates only account for 20 percent of total project costs.
Just last month, CT Mirror published an article, “Charting CT: One of the richest, and most unequal, states,” where they reported that, “To get an idea, Fairfield County's personal income per capita was more than double that of Windham County. Meanwhile, 2022 estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, whose methodology differs, place Connecticut at second-most unequal in the nation, right behind New York.”
Look, we want developers to take a chance on Connecticut. We want apartment buildings and shopping centers built, but not at the expense of our residents’ livelihoods. As politicians love to say, we’re open for business. But if you’re going to flout our laws and worsen wealth inequality, then you’re simply not the company we want to do business with. Rather than echoing this developer’s gripes, the Town of Fairfield, and frankly DECD too, should instead stick to its principles. Fine, don’t take our money. There are plenty of other developers who will.
Kimberly Glassman is director of the Foundation for Fair Contracting of Connecticut.
Construction begins on controversial solar project in Torrington, Litchfield
TORRINGTON — Residents are opposing a solar project as trees are being removed and open fields are transformed into an access road and clearings for more than 51,000 panels.
The project, which is owned by Silicon Ranch and sits on 212 acres in Litchfield and Torrington, was approved in September 2021 by the Connecticut Siting Council.
But it's still drawing opposition and requests from those nearby, including First Selectman Denise Raap, who recently wrote to the siting council about one of the abutting property owners who has had to hire a lawyer to "protect not only his property rights, but also insure his home is not damaged by the blasting."
Silicon Ranch did not return requests for comment.
"I am concerned with multiple issues related to this project," Raap wrote, in a Jan. 30 letter to the council. "With thousands of trees being removed and with that their stabilizing root systems and the blasting of a bedrock, there is a concern about the amount of runoff water anticipated to be collected and how and where it will dissipate."
In Litchfield, the site is east and west of Wilson Road off Town Farm Road. Torrington's site is a combination of four properties, located south of Highland Avenue and east and west of Rossi Road.
Ed Townsend, a Torrington resident who lives near the the Highland Avenue property, said he was surprised when a crew arrived in January and began clearing the land off Highland Avenue, which he described as having "a beautiful view."
"They have huge machinery up there. There's huge excavators with jackhammers on them," he said. "They're tearing out a big cliff right now so, it's pretty amazing."
"I used to purposely drive on that road to get to Litchfield, up Highland, over to Rossi Road to Litchfield, and it's a uniquely beautiful area," he said. "It's beautiful old New England rolling farmland."
Tree-clearing and other activities began on the site in early November 2023, and blasting began at the end of January. Silicon Ranch made its proposal to the town of Litchfield in 2020 to install more than 50,000 solar panels, called photovoltaic modules.
Earlier in the approval process, neighbors on nearby Wilson Road in Litchfield were commenters, or "parties" to the project, according to documentation from the CT Siting Council. The Litchfield Planning and Zoning Commission, in March 2021, also submitted comments to the council concerning land use, drainage, grading, watersheds, noise, glare, setbacks and groundwater quality.
Raap also sent comments to the council regarding landowner concerns, protection of watercourses, wetlands and natural habitats; and adherence to local zoning and wetland regulations, according to the siting council's report.
In the most recent letter, Raap said the abutting property owner wanted a different stormwater management plan that would avoid his property completely.
In a response, the council's executive director, Melanie Bachman, wrote that the project was approved with conditions and the neighbor's comments about a modified stormwater management north of his property were taken into account.
"A preliminary project design identified the structure as a detention basin with an outlet structure at the southeast end," Bachman wrote. "The project was subsequently re-designed both prior to and during the D&M Plan process, and the structure was changed to a wet swale that discharges at the southeast end."
The neighbor did not return calls seeking comment.
The power generated from the site will be sold to Eversource and United Illuminating, according to documentation from the Connecticut Siting Council, provided by the Torrington land use office.
The siting council reviews and decides on energy project proposals and cell towers in Connecticut. Municipal officials are involved in the process only to comment or make suggestions. The ultimate decision to approve or reject a project is in the hands of the siting council, which also hears testimony from the applicants and experts from the various parties.
"While the council is obligated to consult with and solicit comments from state agencies by statute, the council is not required to abide by the comments from state agencies," according to the report.
Litchfield officials were primarily involved in the proposal, which was first made to former First Selectman Leo Paul in 2020. The town held public meetings on the proposal, according to Siting Council documentation. During the application and approval process, residents living around the site raised many concerns involving wetlands, water quality, stormwater runoff and drainage, and the impact of the plan on their quality of life.
According to Torrington City Planner Jeremy Leifert, the land use office chose to stay out of the process because the primary area for the installation is in Litchfield.
"Although we did send in some comments through our Conservation Commission when the project was being reviewed, we did not have any regulatory review authority on it," Leifert said.
Calling proceeds from the potential sale of its water business “cash coming in the door,” Eversource Energy’s President and CEO Joe Nolan said during an earnings call Wednesday morning that selling Aquarion would help cover the company’s need for $1.3 billion in equity.
Chief Financial Officer John Moreira blamed the Public Utilities Regulatory (PURA) for the company’s cash flow issues, saying the regulatory agency’s new methodology has prevented it from recovering $800 million related to supply costs and arrearages.
PURA no longer allows utilities to forecast costs for supply in rate adjustments. However, Eversource expects to recover that $800 million within the next year, or longer, the company said.
In the meantime, Nolan said Eversource is working to evaluate market interest in the sale of Aquarion. He declined to put a valuation on the company and also declined to provide a timetable.
However, Nolan said the potential sale would move more quickly than the company’s recent divestment from three offshore wind projects.
Aquarion, the seventh-largest water company in the country, would be an attractive asset to many companies due to its size, he added.
“The sale would mitigate any further equity needs that we may have,” Nolan said during the call.
Bridgeport-based Aquarion serves about 241,000 customers in Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire — 92% of whom are based in Connecticut
It had net income of $33 million in 2023 and book equity of $1.3 million.
Eversource acquired Aquarion for $1.7 billion in 2017.
Eversource and PURA have been at odds since last March, when the regulator not only rejected Aquarion's rate increase request, but decreased its annual revenue requirement by $2 million from the current level — about a 1% reduction.
Aquarion appealed PURA’s decision in New Britain Superior Court and the decision is currently in the hands of a judge.
Nolan said he expects a decision in the coming months.
Eversource Surges on Plans to Shed Water, Offshore-Wind Assets
Will Wade
(Bloomberg) -- Eversource Energy surged the most in almost four years after announcing plans to exit the offshore-wind and water businesses, moves aimed at refocusing on its core business of delivering electricity and natural gas to customers in the US Northeast.
Eversource climbed as much as 8%, the most intraday since April 2020, and were up 4.5% to $56.97 at 11:25 a.m. in New York.
The Springfield, Massachusetts-based company announced Tuesday a deal to sell its 50% stakes in two US offshore-wind projects to Global Infrastructure Partners LP. That follows a January agreement to sell its 50% stake in a third project to its joint venture partner Orsted A/S.
Eversource also said it would start the process of seeking a buyer for its Aquarion water-distribution business.
The moves will pare operations seen as less critical to the company’s core business, according to Chief Executive Officer Joe Nolan. It also follows the trend among US utilities including Exelon Corp. and Dominion Energy Inc. that are shedding assets to focus on the basic, regulated functions of providing energy to homes and businesses.
“Moving forward, Eversource will focus on the delivery of clean, safe and reliable energy,” Nolan said during a conference call with analysts Wednesday.
Eversource will realize $1.1 billion in cash proceeds for selling the stakes in the South Fork and Revolution projects to GIP, according to a statement Tuesday. The sale is expected to close in mid-2024. That will help offset a $1.95 billion charge the company took in 2023 as the US offshore wind struggled to contend with rising costs that have prompted developers to delay or cancel projects.
“Utilities really are trying to focus on their regulated businesses only,” Nikki Hsu, an analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence, said in an interview. “It’s less risky.”
Rooster River flood mitigation funding in limbo as Fairfield awaits Army Corps of Engineers permits
FAIRFIELD — A multimillion-dollar project to reduce flooding along the Rooster River is in the middle of a town government tussle over how to allocate federal COVID-19 relief funds before they expire.
Town officials said Fairfield has about four more months to commit more than $2.8 million in American Rescue Plan Act funding for the Rooster River flood mitigation work, but they might need to move the money elsewhere if the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers doesn't grant the necessary permits for the project within that time frame.
The potential removal of millions of dollars from the project along the river, a major source of flooding between Fairfield and Bridgeport, has raised concerns about whether the work would receive the same financial backing in the seven-figure capital budget that spans all publicly-funded town projects.
"I hate to direct money away from the neighborhood," Selectwoman Brenda Kupchick said at a Board of Selectmen meeting Jan. 31. "Those people's houses are getting destroyed every year."
Kupchick, the former Republican first selectwoman in Fairfield who still serves on the board, pushed back against a proposal from Democratic First Selectman Bill Gerber, who suggested the transfer of nearly $2.2 million of Rooster River money into paving and sidewalk repairs since USACE permits still haven't been issued.
That motion failed. The board agreed to keep the funds in place for another few months in expectation of timely approval from USACE, the federal agency that hands out permits for construction across the country's navigable waters.
"I don't think your position really makes sense," Gerber said in response to Kupchick's concern about the Rooster River losing funding in the capital planning process. "For me, this is fungible, and I'm lowering the risk that we're gong to lose it by moving it."
ARPA fund recipients are required to allocate the money by the end of 2024 and spend them by the end of 2026, but Gerber said the town would need to go out to bid, requesting project services, by June or July to have enough time to commit the final costs before the deadline.
Town Engineer Bill Hurley said the USACE is late on its target to return a decision by November, and agency officials told him weeks ago to expect one in "a couple of months." He added that the agency has reshuffled the Fairfield applications between a pair of USACE for a second time — a development that was noted within the first selectman's office.
"They've had this for 18 months," Gerber said.
USACE did not immediately return a request for comment.
Hurley said he hopes to receive a decision on the permit applications within a month or two. Fairfield needs USACE permits to build detention basins along the river at Tunxis Hill Park and the Fairchild Wheeler Golf Course.
Gerber stressed his urgency to limit flooding impacts throughout the neighborhoods that hug the Rooster River.
"We're committed to funding this," Gerber said. "It's just which pocket it comes out of. I agree it has to get funded. I've seen firsthand the impact of flooding along the Rooster River, and so that's not really the question for me."
Kupchick said before she supports reallocating the ARPA funds, she wants a commitment from the Board of Finance to fund the contested Rooster River money. Gerber said the Board of Finance voted to move $2 million from a surplus to debt service category at the end of last year to "provide flexibility," which he said opened up the need for extra financial support for the work.
Interim Department of Public Works Director John Marsilio said he needs an additional $2 million for paving projects and $1 million for bluestone sidewalks in Southport — costs that Gerber suggested covering with the Rooster River ARPA funds. The Board of Selectmen approved more than $4.8 million in additional ARPA funds, without tapping into the Rooster River money, to finance the paving and sidewalk work through June 30. The board reallocated ARPA funds from a variety of other public projects, ranging from money for already-completed playground upgrades to COVID-19 recovery assistance that's soon to close.
East Haven Files Federal Court Appeal Against Tweed Airport Expansion
Sophia Muce
EAST HAVEN — The town and the nonprofit Save the Sound have appealed the approval of the Tweed New Haven Airport expansion in federal court on Wednesday, maintaining that an environmental study failed to address “crucial” looming impacts.
After reviewing an environmental assessment of the $165 million plan, which includes the extension of a runway and new terminal and parking in East Haven, the FAA issued a “Finding of No Significant Impact” in December, moving the project forward to the permitting phase without additional environmental studies.
But on Wednesday, East Haven and Save the Sound moved to challenge the FAA, filing separate petitions to appeal the decision with the federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The federal court can now decide to either dismiss the petitions, affirm the FAA decision or reverse it.
According to East Haven Mayor Joseph Carfora — who originally supported the expansion but changed his opinion after questioning the economic benefits for the town — the approved environmental assessment neglected to address environmental impacts on air quality, wildlife and water quality.
In a Wednesday news release, Carfora said the town is committed to a thorough appeals process, and outlined his concerns about the expansion.
“The Town of East Haven is deeply concerned about the environmental impact of the proposed Tweed Airport expansion. The project’s scope, including the construction of a close to 200-million-dollar facility in the middle of wetlands and approximately 6,000 parking spaces at or below sea level, raises serious concerns,” Carfora wrote.
In Save the Sound’s petition, Senior Legal Director Roger Reynolds similarly said the assessment fails to take the “requisite hard look” at environmental justice impacts.
Because both East Haven and New Haven are considered environmental justice communities based on poverty levels and racial composition, opponents have argued that potential impacts of the expansion need further study through an environmental impact statement. The FAA decision, however, blocked the opportunity for additional study under the National Environmental Policy Act review process.
In a Wednesday statement to CT Examiner, Jorge Roberts, chief executive officer of Avports — an airport management company which signed a 43-year lease with Tweed — stood by the original study and said the project would be moving forward throughout the appeal process.
“We’re confident in the thorough process undertaken by the FAA, which resulted in an official finding of no significant impact to the environment. Legal challenges are a normal part of the process, and the FAA has an excellent track record on appeals of this type,” Roberts said. “The project can and will continue to advance as this legal process plays out — design is already well underway and we will continue toward permitting.”
Matthew Hoey, chair of the Tweed Airport Authority and first selectman of Guilford, also noted the merits of the environmental assessment, saying that the board would continue to work on the project as obligated by its lease.
“The airport and its authority have taken part in the detailed, multiyear process for this project, which is overseen by federal and state agencies. The FAA thoroughly reviewed a detailed environmental assessment and subsequently gave their approval,” Hoey said. “While the federal legal process plays out, we will continue to work with Avports and the state of Connecticut to continue the design and permitting phase, as required under our lease agreement.”
While the approved study predicted little significant impacts on air quality, noise, traffic or wetlands, the town spent $250,000 to conduct its own studies exploring the expansion’s effects on traffic, stormwater maintenance, flood mitigation and inland wetlands. Firms like VN Engineers, Inc., Davison Engineering and Trinkaus Engineering concluded that the FAA’s study failed to analyze peak evening hours and intersections, and that the expansion would contribute to nearby stormwater pollution.
10,000 Hawks, a nonprofit group created by residents opposing the expansion, also used a $10,000 grant from New Haven Green Fund to hire a Tufts University researcher to study air quality around the airport. Dr. Neelakshi Hudda concluded that current residents surrounding Tweed may experience impacts from plane exhaust both inside and outside their homes. Several residents have said air quality will worsen if the airport’s plan is implemented.