Release of Biden's infrastructure plan details delayed

Zachary Phillips  

• President Joe Biden’s first address to a joint session of Congress — where he is expected to outline specific goals and priorities for measures like an infrastructure package — will not occur this month as was expected.
• The speech will most likely take place in mid-March, according to legislative experts from contractor groups, who said it has been pushed back due to lawmakers' focus this month on former President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial and on passing a new COVID-19 relief package.
• The coronavirus package is legislators’ top priority, as they eye a March 14 deadline on unemployment benefits. Biden’s address would likely come shortly after a decision on the bill, which could face some hurdles, according to USA Today.

Contractors have eagerly awaited details of Biden’s multitrillion Build Back Better infrastructure plan, which he said he will provide when he speaks to Congress. 

It’s likely Biden will take the opportunity next month to address lawmakers, touting what he believes will be a win for the COVID-19 relief package, before focusing on the next priorities, said Jimmy Christianson, vice president of government relations at the Associated General Contractors of America. Although Biden has said infrastructure will be one of his administration’s top priorities, there are many questions that contractors are waiting for the president to answer. 

“Every contractor is interested in the opportunity for more work,” Christianson said, “but infrastructure has been the bridesmaid many times.” He said there is both skepticism and optimism surrounding an infrastructure package, as contractors would relish the opportunity for more work even though there will almost certainly be new federal strings attached.

Project labor agreements and local hiring mandates could impact contractors working on federal projects, and build new hoops for them to jump through. Additionally, it’s not clear whether the infrastructure package will come from deficit spending or raised taxes. Christianson also said he anticipates that Biden will emphasize renewable energy practices, following the recent weather-induced power outages in Texas and surrounding states.

The route to an infrastructure package isn’t clear, said Peter Comstock, director of legislative affairs at Associated Builders and Contractors, and will depend on bipartisan support and budget reconciliation — a fast-tracking process for bills embodied in Congress’ budget resolution. How long it will take is still unclear, Comstock said, but a move toward a big infrastructure bill will likely have a September 2021 deadline, when the extension on the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act extension runs out.

“They do have [that] deadline. Whether or not they kick the can or do something substantial has yet to be seen,” Comstock said.

House approves big municipal aid pledge, tax incentive bills

Keith M. Phaneuf and Mark Pazniokas    The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a measure Wednesday that effectively promises $110 million to $120 million in new annual aid to cities and towns — but doesn’t officially fund the initiative just yet.

The House also endorsed fast-track legislation from Gov. Ned Lamont’s administration to encourage data center development in Connecticut.

Both measures now head to the Senate, which had been scheduled to meet Thursday but now plans to meet on Monday.

“Today is a little different, it’s unorthodox,” House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, said before Wednesday’s session, at which lawmakers endorsed a new new program to bolster non-education aid for communities with large quantities of tax-exempt property. “We want to put a marker down.”

The “marker” Ritter referenced involves the state budget for the 2021-22 and 2022-23 fiscal years — a package not expected to be adopted before May or later. More specifically, the enhanced PILOT or Payment In Lieu Of Taxes grant methodology that cleared the House doesn’t include a mechanism to pay for it.

But Ritter said local finance boards and municipal councils across Connecticut can count on those additional funds being included in the next two-year state budget roughly three months from now.

“It’s going to be a cornerstone of what we do,” the speaker added. “We want them to feel confident they can rely on … these figures.”

Legislatures and governors have struggled to maintain their commitment to PILOT over the past two decades as surging pension and other debt costs have consumed more and more of the state budget.

PILOT grants are supposed to replace about 45% of the funds communities lose because they can’t tax state property. Communities currently get less than 15% back, according to the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities. Similarly, the grants once designed to replace 77% of taxes lost on nonprofit colleges and hospitals now cover less than 25%.

No community would receive less PILOT aid than it currently does through the bill under consideration, but those in low-income municipalities would receive additional funds.

Gov. Ned Lamont, who did not propose any additional PILOT funding in the biennial budget he recommended on Feb. 10, instead proposed giving towns a one-time $100 million boost in non-education aid next fiscal year — with half coming from state borrowing and half from emergency federal coronavirus relief funds.

Lamont nonetheless backed the measure passed in the House on Wednesday by a margin of 125-24. “Changes to our PILOT program will help lift up our cities, the cultural heartbeats of our state, and provide them with the resources they need to thrive,” the governor said.

Rep. Holly Cheeseman of East Lyme, ranking House Republican on the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee, questioned why majority Democrats were enacting a bill that guaranteed no funding, offering little more than a promise.

But Cheeseman, who voted for the bill, added that towns desperately need the funds and warned lawmakers would be held accountable if they don’t deliver the dollars in May.

“If we don’t live up to our word as a legislature,” she added, Connecticut would have to “change our motto from the Land of Steady Habits to the Land of Broken Promises.”

Advocates for cities and towns, which have seen their finances rocked by the coronavirus pandemic and related economic chaos, expressed similar sentiments this week.

“Our hope is that it’s not just very real this year, but that it’s sustainable,” said Joe DeLong, executive director of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, who added that communities are grateful for all the added support. “There has to be a commitment here.”

Elizabeth Gara, executive director of the Connecticut Council of Small Towns, called any effort to reverse the trend in PILOT grants “good news” but added the “PILOT funding is only a piece of the puzzle, and we hope this doesn’t impact the other levels of municipal aid.”

Majority Democrats also wrote two other components into the bill that, at other times, might have been offered as separate measures.

One, which enjoyed strong bipartisan support, would clarify that more than 100,000 Connecticut residents who work in other states and pay income taxes to those jurisdictions still can get a credit for those taxes on their Connecticut returns.

New York and Massachusetts enacted laws holding that telecommuters working from home for “convenience” actually owed taxes first to their employers’ home state. Connecticut responded with its own convenience law in 2019, and those and other northeastern states are battling the issue out in federal court.

The second additional concept wrapped into the municipal grant bill would end the controversial practice of placing liens on the homes of former welfare recipients.

More than 50 members of the GOP minority — many of whom objected to the welfare lien component — tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill to break it down into its components. 

Some Republicans charged that it was a political stunt to force those who wanted to protect workers at risk of double-taxation to support other concepts at the same time.

“Why are we not doing separate bills? I don’t think it’s proper,” said Rep. David Yaccarino, R-North Haven. “It just goes back to transparency.”

Tax incentives for data center development

The House did tackle a second, separate fiscal bill Wednesday, voting 133-13 to approve legislation that would waive state sales tax obligations for 20 years for any data center that invests at least $200 million in the state — or just $50 million if the facility is located within a state-designated enterprise zone.

The sales tax exemption would be extended to 30 years if a $400 million investment is made, or a $200 million investment in an enterprise zone.

New London community recreation center gains key approvals

Greg Smith  New London — A planned $30 million community recreation center received two key endorsements this month.

The city’s Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously agreed to issue a positive referral on use of land at Fort Trumbull for the planned facility.

The Renaissance City Development Association, the city’s development arm that markets the Fort Trumbull property, likewise approved of the use of the land and determined it was in line with a Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan approved in 2000.

The Planning and Zoning Commission’s vote came earlier this month as part of a statutory review triggered whenever the city plans a change of use, sale or purchase of property. A negative referral would have forced a two-thirds vote, instead of a majority vote, by the City Council on upcoming approvals related to the community center.

The City Council already has approved the bonding for the estimated cost of the facility, which is still early in the planning stages.

The Planning and Zoning Commission is still in the position to approve or reject the future site plans for the community center once it progresses to that point. The city is putting together criteria in anticipation of hiring an owner’s representative and a project manager for the project.

The early plan developed by consulting firm Brailsford and Dunlavey calls for a 62,000-square foot facility to house gymnasiums, a six-lane indoor pool and space enough to house the city’s Recreation Department and its various programs. The estimated $2.1 million in annual operational costs would be funded through memberships and rental income. Rates would be offered on a sliding scale to accommodate lower-income families.

Prior to its nod of approval, the RCDA sought a legal opinion on use of the land — nearly 7 acres encompassed by parcels 3C and 3B — in consideration of a Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan.

That plan led to acquisition of properties, demolition of buildings, environmental remediation and infrastructure improvements.

It was also a major source of controversy and an eminent domain struggle that concluded with the landmark 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld actions of the RCDA’s predecessor, the New London Development Corp., in implementing the plan.

Mark S. Zamarka, attorney for the RCDA, said that the proposed use is consistent with the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan, city zoning regulations and Kelo v. City of New London ruling.

“Pursuant to section 5.1 the proposed land uses for parcel 3 include a ‘health club complex with pool,’ which will be ‘available to ... members of the business and residential communities in the city,’” Zamarka wrote.

“Moreover, the community center would serve the City as a whole. This is consistent with the holding in KELO, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the actions taken by the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) in implementing the MDP,” he said.

Zamarka cited Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote for the majority in the Kelo ruling and who “emphasized that the MDP served a public purpose and was not solely for economic benefit.”

The idea of constructing a community center at Fort Trumbull has raised some eyebrows from some who have argued the land is better suited for a taxable development. The RCDA lists 35 acres of development project sites in the more than 80 acres encompassed by the MDP.

City officials have argued that if properly done, the facility would serve to attract more development on the peninsula.

Planning and Zoning Commission member Ronna Stuller at this month’s meeting said she was in favor of the community center but disappointed the city had not been more imaginative when planning for the location. The site of the proposed apartment complex on Howard Street, she said, would have been a more visible, if not more accessible, spot.

Brailsford and Dunlavey had ranked several possible sites for the facility, places like Ocean Beach Park and Bates Woods, and determined Fort Trumbull was the highest-ranked choice.

Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Barry Levine at this month’s meeting said he was “150%” in favor of a recreation center but asked, among other things, that city officials and the City Council go into the project with “eyes wide open.”

“The city does not have a great record of maintaining its properties,” Levine said, echoing similar criticism from members of the public. He said he worried about maintenance and repair costs as well as projected revenues.

“I hope the council takes a careful and sober look at whatever comes before them moving forward,” he said.

Mayor Michael Passero said sustainability was one of his own main concerns about a community center project but said the proper study was completed to crunch the numbers. He said third-party management will be a key to maintaining the membership base needed to support the facility “and most importantly to support the marginalized and less capitalized members of our community that will benefit from this facility.”

Norwich receives bids for Franklin Square roundabout project

Norwich — The city received 10 bids ranging from $538,899 to $1.2 million Wednesday for the plan to convert the Franklin Square intersection of Main and Franklin streets into a roundabout that would allow two-way traffic in all directions.

The project calls for removing two traffic lights on Main Street and a stop sign on the southbound lane of Franklin Street and allowing Franklin Street traffic to continue directly to Main Street. Currently, Franklin Street traffic must stop a block short of Main Street and divert along Bath and lower Broadway to reach Main Street. On-street parking would be adjusted, as well.

Nunes Companies of Ludlow, Mass., submitted the low bid of $538,899 for the project, plus $74,169 for an alternate bid item to install stamped concrete for walkways.

The city received a $400,000 state transportation grant for the project. City Public Works Director Patrick McLaughlin said he never expected the grant to pay for the entire project, and the low bid was about what he expected. The rest of the project cost would come from the $5 million road improvements bond voters approved in November 2019.

McLaughlin said if the bid is approved, the project could go forward in April, when seasonal asphalt plants reopen.

Apartment plan near UConn Health draws Farmington neighbors’ opposition

Don Stacom  A developer’s plan for 146 apartments near the UConn Health Center is drawing stiff neighborhood opposition.

Farmington-based Metro Realty Group is presenting its plan as a way to bring modern apartments to a stretch of Route 4 that has become a medical and technology jobs corridor.

But more than 80 homeowners are urging town officials to reject a zone change for the project, warning that it would worsen traffic, harm the environment and ruin the atmosphere of their neighborhood.

“Our privacy will be eliminated, our home devalued and we have serious concerns that a project of this magnitude will disrupt the natural flow of water, pollute our well and add serious noise and light pollution,” Craig and Teresa Korsen told Farmington’s planning and zoning commission.

Corporate neighbors, however, are strongly in favor of the plan. UConn Health, the Carrier Corp, Jackson Laboratory and Stanley Black & Decker all have encouraged the town to approve Metro Realty’s plan.

“There is no doubt this type of housing will improve the attractiveness of the corridor for both our student and employment base, which is an important component of our ability to attract top talent,” Chris Hyers, a UConn Health vice president, told the town in a letter.

Metro Realty is proposing the four-story complex for a wooded area on the opposite side of Farmington Avenue from the UConn Health building.

The property is behind the Hartford Health Care Medical Group’s office at 406 Farmington Ave. It would be built off a dead end called Quarry Road, with the entrance drive reaching Farmington Avenue roughly across from the Homewood Suites hotel.

Metro Realty would need a zone change to proceed. Neighbors have been pressing for a “no” vote because, they say, a 45-foot-high building in a previously undisturbed woodland simply isn’t in keeping with what the town’s development plan recommends.

“This large facility seems horribly and unfairly intrusive to the residents of Prattling Pond Road,” wrote Mountain Spring Road homeowner Martin Pazzani. “A historically wooded and private area becomes a crowded residential area for no logical reason.”

Pazzani and other neighbors warn that if Farmington authorizes this project, it would invite more.

“What’s to prevent another developer from forcing a similar project next to the Hillstead Museum or some other town landmark?,” Pazzani asked.

To the major employers in the area, though, the prospect means affordable, modern and convenient rental housing in a section of town that has very little.