State Pier project faces new objection while port authority continues work

Greg Smith

New London — The owner of a road salt business displaced by the planned reconstruction of State Pier for the offshore wind industry continues his attempt to block or delay a state environmental permit needed to complete work at the pier.

DRVN Enterprises owner and President Steven Farrelly has filed what is known as a notice of exception, his recourse for a previously denied objection to the Connecticut Port Authority’s plans for the pier. He argues he should be allowed to stay at the pier, where he has operated his business since 2014. Told to leave but given time to sell the remainder of his salt pile as part of an agreement with the port authority, DRVN left the site at the end of February.

The state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection already has issued a proposed draft decision on the port authority’s application that recommends issuance of a permit. If finalized, the decision would permit the port authority to perform work essential to a $235.5 million project that includes as dredging and filling in between the two piers to create one larger pier able to accommodate large wind turbines.

Joint venture partners Ørsted and Eversource, contributing $70 million toward the project, are expected to lease the pier for 10 years while it constructs its planned offshore wind farms. State Pier is to be used as a staging and assembly area for offshore wind turbines.

The Jan. 10 legal filing from Farrelly sets into motion a timeline for legal briefs to be filed from all sides by July 2. Oral arguments are scheduled for July 14.

Farrelly has argued that DRVN is entitled to accommodations at the pier as a water-dependent user and argues DEEP’s proposed final decision either fails to address current pier tenants or is giving preferential treatment to the two commercial fishermen working off one of the two piers. The Connecticut Port Authority is accommodating the fishermen at State Pier.

Farrelly argues DEEP’s prior “notice of insufficiency” on the construction plan was issued because the port authority had failed to include information about current water-dependent uses.

“The claim that DRVN is not entitled to receive what all other water dependent users received at the time of the Letter of Insufficiency because it was forced to vacate the State Pier is a plain misreading of the requirements ... against the recognized preferential treatment of water dependent users, against the clearly stated policy in the (Request for Proposals) as it relates to current users and disingenuous,” Farrelly wrote.

Farrelly also argues the request for proposals for State Pier should be admitted into evidence and requires specific concession be made to retain existing users of the pier.

Connecticut Port Authority Executive Director John Henshaw said the briefs and oral arguments were anticipated and will not impact the construction schedule. The port authority initially had anticipated obtaining DEEP and Army Corps of Engineer permits by May. Work at the pier is slated to be completed before the end of 2022.

On Tuesday, the port authority’s board of directors approved a measure that would allow Henshaw to sign contracts with three more contractors, for a total of $23.9 million. The largest of the newest contracts is with marine construction company JT Cleary for work on a relieving platform — a heavy lift pad at the east berth on the State Pier. It is the second largest work package approved, after dredging. A complete list of bid awards is available at bit.ly/nlspupdates.

Henshaw said the board has to date approved about 70% of work packages with more to follow at upcoming meetings. So far, he said the total amount spent is $4.8 million below the guaranteed maximum price for awarded packages.

Gov. Ned Lamont rejects veto plea from solar industry, signs labor-backed legislation for higher wages and benefits  

Stephen Singer

Gov. Ned Lamont rejected a veto plea from the solar energy industry and signed into law Monday labor-backed legislation requiring clean energy projects to pay higher wages and benefits that apply to public works projects.

Alternative energy companies unsuccessfully opposed the legislation that passed the Democratic-controlled General Assembly, 24-12 in the Senate and 89-59 in the House.

The industry said the state has no business applying to the private industry the so-called prevailing wage — rules governing the level of wages and benefits — reserved for publicly-financed projects.

“What industry is next?” said Mike Trahan, executive director of Solar Connecticut, an industry group. “By specifically designating solar for this new law seems punitive.”

Trahan warned that the higher costs for wages, benefits, training and other factors will slow the advance of solar energy in Connecticut.

“All over America commercial solar is booming. Not in Connecticut,” he wrote to Lamont June 9. “There’s been no increase in the pace of commercial solar construction or jobs in recent years.

Trahan said permit rules, land-use bottlenecks and capped solar project size have limited solar power project expansion. The legislation will reduce demand for solar energy, he said.

Connecticut’s prevailing wage laws have previously applied only to publicly funded projects such as roads, bridges and public buildings when state money was involved. The legislation for the first time extends that to private projects, he said.

In other industries, employers are boosting wages, offering signing bonuses, fast-tracking jobs to management positions and devising other strategies to fill jobs. However, Trahan said if solar installation costs rise due to the legislation, fewer jobs will be created.

Fuel Cell Energy, a Danbury manufacturer of fuel cells, was blunt in its opposition to the legislation.

“Each year, Connecticut finds itself vying for two disreputable titles: (1) Most expensive energy in the United States and (2) Most business-unfriendly state in the United States,” it told lawmakers in written testimony in March. “Senate Bill 999 is perfectly poised to deliver and reinforce both.”

Fuel Cell Energy also criticized a provision of the legislation that requires “community benefit agreements.” The agreements call for local organizations to represent residents of the host community. Such agreements have no limit “on the demands that can be made by special interest groups,” adding to a project’s costs, the company said.

Christopher Fryxell, president of the Connecticut chapter of the Associated Builders and Contractors, said the legislation discriminates against the 86% of the construction industry in Connecticut that is not unionized.

Requiring the community benefit agreements, also called project labor agreements that favor a unionized work force, would prevent “reputable Connecticut companies and their employees from a fair opportunity to compete,” he said.

Organized labor, however, said the legislation is necessary to promote Connecticut’s alternative energy industry. Keith Brothers, secretary-treasurer of the Connecticut Building Trades Council, said unemployment is 30% among building trades workers and he blamed the coronavirus pandemic and the failure in Connecticut and the U.S. to develop “job-generating infrastructure projects.”

The legislation “will will help Connecticut build an in-state clean technology workforce that will be ready to make the state fully ready to transition to clean energy,” he told lawmakers.

Sal Luciano, president of the Connecticut AFL-CIO, said the legislation funds pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs that provide job training for disadvantaged workers, helping to create construction careers “that last long after the project has been completed.”

The Connecticut chapter of the Sierra Club, which also supported the legislation, says it will help to develop “well trained and well paid labor” as Connecticut’ plans offshore wind power projects in New London and Bridgeport.

Renewable energy workforce bill now law, over objections from solar sector

Zachary Vasile

rushing off calls for a veto from the solar industry, Gov. Ned Lamont on Monday signed into law a package of reforms intended to boost wages and expand employment opportunities within the state’s burgeoning renewable energy sector.

The legislation, known as SB 999, requires developers of renewable energy projects to pay all employees, including construction and maintenance workers and security personnel, “at least the prevailing wage” for their position.

That language had drawn fierce opposition from solar companies, who questioned why prevailing wage rules, which are normally applied to public works jobs, would now be extended into the private renewable energy sector, especially at a time when Connecticut is attempting to encourage growth. Industry groups, including Solar Connecticut, submitted testimony opposing the bill as it was making its way through the General Assembly and later called on the governor to exercise his veto power once the act reached his desk.

In a statement released last week, Solar Connecticut Executive Director Mike Trahan claimed the reforms violate the 14th Amendment, part of which provides protections for private contracts.

“[SB 999] does nothing except increase the cost of commercial solar and pass the cost to electric ratepayers,” Trahan said. “We’re not talking about projects the state funds or finances. This bill has state government getting involved in a contract between a private company and a private consumer. That’s about as intrusive as it gets.”

“These projects don’t take a nickel of state aid,” he added. “No other industry in Connecticut must play by these rules.”

Aside from the prevailing wage provision, the law requires renewable energy companies that receive any form of assistance from the state to enter into a “community benefits agreement” demonstrating how their proposed project will help the community where it is sited and create opportunities for local businesses and workers.

The act also mandates the creation of workforce development and training programs with the aim of recruiting people from zip codes with high rates of poverty and unemployment, as well as people with disabilities, people who have been incarcerated and workers who have been traditionally underrepresented in their field.

The rules would apply to all state-assisted energy projects with a capacity of 5 megawatts or more, to utility-owned projects and to all grid-connected projects that are designed to create between 2 and 5 megawatts of power.

Democrats and labor groups had framed the bill as an effort to ensure that traditionally underprivileged communities will share in the benefits of a green energy boom as Connecticut attempts to pivot away from reliance on fossil fuels. But solar energy firms have complained that the rules will throttle growth by making projects more expensive to complete.

“To the extent that this adds costs, Connecticut will suffer by comparison with other states,” said Lee Hoffman, an attorney with Pullman & Comley who specializes in energy.

Hoffman pointed to a law that went into effect in 2019 requiring state officials to carry out an impact study for all legislation that could affect prices for electricity customers.

“They never did that ratepayer analysis,” he said. “The General Assembly didn’t adhere to its own requirement.”

Industry figures have also questioned the specificity of the requirements, which do not apply to the fossil fuel sector and exempt offshore wind facilities.

“Why was the renewable energy sector singled out?” Hoffman asked rhetorically. “That’s what’s left me scratching my head. I don’t understand the logic behind that.”

Committee approves funds for new Bassick High School in Bridgeport's South End despite debate

Brian Lockhart

BRIDGEPORT — Expressing their commitment to building a new Bassick High School on what has proven to be a controversial South End property, City Council members Monday authorized borrowing $8 million to prepare the site for construction.

But the budget committee’s nearly unanimous vote followed a lengthy debate during which critics of last year’s $6 million deal to move Bassick from the West End to land purchased from the University of Bridgeport re-litigated that decision.

Citing West End developer Gary Flocco’s recently reported renewed interest in instead locating Bassick at the former Hubbell factory, South End Councilman Jorge Cruz told his budget colleagues, “As far as I’m concerned, they need to revisit the Hubbell site, the mayor needs to renegotiate with Mr. Flocco (and) forget about Bassick coming to the South End. It’s a flood zone there.”

Cruz was the only one on the committee to vote against the $8 million expenditure — drawn from $27 million the council set aside for the new high school a few years ago. The $8 million is for completing designs, demolishing UB dormitories and other site work.

Councilwoman AmyMarie Vizzo-Paniccia and others said it was time to move forward with replacing the 92-year-old Bassick.

“I’m hoping we can all look forward to promoting this, voting for it and getting shovels in the ground,” Vizzo-Paniccia said.

The $8 million still needs the approval of the full, 20-person legislative body. Then the state, which in 2019 committed nearly $91 million to the project, must give Bridgeport the OK to proceed. The state must also re-authorize that grant, which expires this summer since construction has been delayed.

The UB land is the third location for Bassick after Mayor Joe Ganim’s administration explored keeping it at its current West End address, then moving it nearby to Hubbell, which Flacco and Geof Ravenstine of Corvus Capital Partners purchased in 2019 as part of their ongoing residential/retail redevelopment.

The city had seemed poised to finalize a deal with Corvus before it was suddenly announced last July that the Ganim administration had instead paid $6 million to UB for the South End acreage.

Cruz and other opponents of that move have for months complained about the secrecy surrounding the negotiation and whether the land deal, authorized by the standing school building committee using the money the council had previously approved for Bassick construction, should have legally gone back to the full council for a vote.

“The City Council never voted for land acquisition,” Councilwoman Maria Pereira, who is not a budget committee member, argued Monday. She said that $6 million was specified for “new construction costs” and to spend it otherwise was “completely illegal.”

Councilman Marcus Brown, a building committee chairman — the group includes representatives from the council, school board and Ganim’s administration — read aloud language establishing that entity that specified “the committee shall select as necessary the site for the project and take or request others to take all action necessary to acquire the site.”

“We have the authority to purchase the site with the money the council authorized,” Brown said. “To say we’re somehow doing nefarious actions, it’s not in reality but based on the lack of information.”

More recently questions have been raised about whether work on the new Bassick can move forward before completion of a federally funded, state-managed flood mitigation project in the works for several years to protect the South End from severe water damage during major storms. Work is scheduled to begin in 2022 and run through 2023.

Brown and other officials have said they are worried the flood work will take several years to complete and Bassick can be built independent of that project.

Councilman Alfred Castillo, though not on the budget committee, advised its members to hold off on approving any more funding for Bassick. Castillo has been one of the most vocal critics of moving the high school to the South End.

“Out of the blue this Bassick High School was moved into a flood zone area,” Castillo said. “That’s a flood zone. You can’t do nothing on that area until 2023, maybe longer.”

The budget committee Monday also indicated concern over comments Konstantinos Diamantis, head of Connecticut’s school construction grants office in Hartford, made last week regarding a possible reconsideration of the Hubbell factory in light of the South End flooding issues. Diamantis has a key role in authorizing Bassick move forward with state funding and warned if Bridgeport pivots back to Hubbell, “I would probably say, ‘Cancel this project until you figure out where to put it and someday when you decide ... give me a call.’”

“I want to just warn this committee (to) read what Hartford said — that Bridgeport better get its act together or they’re gonna lose an opportunity,” Councilman Ernie Newton, a budget committee co-chairman, told colleagues Monday. “We don’t want to send the wrong messages to the state ... that Bridgeport doesn’t have its act together.”

RTM adds rules for Greenwich school construction projects so they don't 'fall between the cracks'

Ken Borsuk

GREENWICH — Saying it will create more transparency — but not more bureaucracy — the Representative Town Meeting passed a change to the town code that requires the Board of Education to form building committees to oversee certain capital construction projects.

The change passed, 121-70 with six abstentions, at the RTM meeting on Monday night.

“This is intended to remedy what District 9 believes is a serious omission in the town code,” RTM District 9 member Jane Weisbecker said

The school board must now set up a building committee to oversee any capital project that receives state or federal funding or requires the town to issue a municipal improvement ruling. Previously, a building committee was required only if the Board of Education used state funding for a project.

“Major school projects where there is no application for state aid, like Cardinal Stadium, are destined to fall between the cracks,” Weisbecker said. “These projects would clearly benefit from the supervision of a town building committee will not get one” without the change.

Under the change, the school board can also seek a waiver of the requirement. The Board of Education, by a majority vote, must seek the waiver from the Board of Selectmen, which must approve it by a majority vote.

Weisbecker said the wording change had been “double- and triple-vetted,” with input from the Department of Public Works, the town’s legal department, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Selectmen.

She said this would not cause “an unworkable spike in building committees” and said it closed a loophole in town code, with other RTM members agreeing.

“Ultimately, I don’t see this as a profound change,” District 5 member Dan Ozizmir said. “I just think it’s good process. The Board of Education can request a waiver at any time, so I do not think we’re impacting their flexibility if they have a good reason.”

District 9 member Donna Gaudioso-Zeale added, “This is going to insure oversight, transparency and financial responsibility for the tax dollars of the people of Greenwich.”

The building committee requirement has been in the work for months, but the waiver was added in the past few weeks to address concerns that projects would be forced to get building committees even if they don’t need them.

The RTM’s approval of the new requirement came at the objection of Board of Education Chair Peter Bernstein. Bernstein, who spoke as an individual and not on behalf of the board, spoke against the change at the meeting, saying it was not necessary and would impose more process on the school board.

“If you vote for this, you should be pursuing building committees for all town capital projects,” Bernstein said. “Do not lose sight of the fact that the genesis of this is the stadium project — and there are those who wanted more control over that project beyond the Board of Education. … Ultimately, decisions about whether to request a building committee outside of the parameters of the current ordinance should come from the Board of Ed, not the RTM and not an outside group. All projects have oversight and accountability.”

Bernstein noted that the rule was imposed only on the Board of Education and not on other town departments, pointing to the new police and fire stations and the future new ice rink.

RTM member Betsey Frumin, chair of District 9, said that if someone wanted an ordinance to require DPW projects to form building committees, they should request one.

“This ordinance cannot easily be changed into a catch-all for DPW projects,” Frumin said. “We have done our homework. We don’t believe this adds another layer of bureaucracy. We believe it is good governance. It brings more of the public into the process.”

District 9 has been pursuing the building committee requirement since December over concerns that the ongoing multiphase bleacher replacement project at Cardinal Stadium at Greenwich High School was not properly supervised. In January, the RTM pushed back against the building committee requirement over concerns it could delay the bleachers project. But on Monday night, the change was approved.

“It made no sense then and it makes no sense now” to not form a building committee for the bleachers project, Weisbecker said.

The second phase of the project would include new visiting side bleachers and a new access road from East Putnam Avenue closer to Cardinal Stadium. That part of the project has not yet received needed approvals, but it would need a building committee once it is approved.

A motion to postpone consideration of the change until September, when the RTM reconvenes after a summer break, failed by a vote of 87-121, with one abstention.

Hartford councilors approve tax deal for Spinnaker’s $63M mixed-use development

Matt Pilon

artford city councilors on Monday approved a 15-year property tax deal for a major mixed-use development proposed at a historic office building adjacent to Bushnell Park.

The tax-fixing agreement for 55 Elm St., which is slated for a $63 million conversion to apartments, commercial space -- and potentially, hotel rooms -- will mean millions of dollars worth of property tax savings for Norwalk-based developer Spinnaker Real Estate Partners, which is leading the project.

The agreements are common for significant real estate projects in the Capital City, which has the state’s highest mill rate (74.29), forcing many projects to ultimately hinge on public subsidies.

Under the newly approved agreement, 55 Elm would pay at least $5.4 million in property taxes over a 15-year period, or a minimum of $5.7 million if Spinnaker ultimately decides to convert some or all of the apartments to hotel rooms.

The local revenue could be higher, as the agreement calls for a tax bill equivalent to 6% of gross revenue in taxes in the first five years, 7.5% in years five to 10, and 10% in the final five years (9% if there are hotel rooms).

The Capital Region Development Authority in March authorized $13.5 million in financing for the project, including a $7 million construction loan and $6.5 million historic tax credit bridge loan.

The state Bond Commission OK’d the funding in April.

City councilors had approved an assessment fixing deal for 55 Elm several months ago, but the new agreement added a different gross revenue percentage and minimum tax bill for the potential hotel rooms.

Grants save Torrington residents millions for new school

Lance Reynolds

TORRINGTON — City taxpayers will spend a lot less on the $159.5 million Torrington Middle/High School project than the dollar amount they approved last November.

The city school district has received an 85% state reimbursement via school construction grants the General Assembly approved last week before the session ended. That reimbursement rate is up 23% from the 62% voters approved in a referendum, increasing the state’s share to about $135.6 million and lowering the city’s share to about $23.9 million, district Business Director Ed Arum said Tuesday.

Taxpayers had faced an initial $74.5 million cost.

City school leaders and state Rep. Michelle L. Cook, D-Torrington, presented the savings outside Torrington High School on Tuesday.

Cook credited bond ratings being at an “all-time-low” to the “unbelievable” savings. She said she hopes the city invests the savings in future projects to improve its broadband and carbon footprint.

“This is far more than just dollars and cents,” Cook said. “This is about giving back to our community something they’ve desperately needed for decades.”

The General Assembly authorized 15 school construction state grant commitments worth $393 million in total.

The approved bill exempts 20 school construction projects from regulatory requirements, allowing for higher reimbursement rates, an analysis of the bill states. Less wealthy municipalities typically receive more state funding.

Torrington is included in the Alliance District program, which provides funding to the state’s 30 lowest-performing districts. The city also is part of the state’s Public Investment Community Index, which provides financial aid to 42 municipalities.

Resident Keri Hoehne attended Tuesday’s news conference and said her three daughters will spend at least one year in the new grade 7-12 school, which is scheduled to open for the 2024-25 school year.

Hoehne advocated for the new school leading up to the referendum as a member of the political action committee Vote Yes New School Bright Future.

“It’s easy to dismiss our community, and think Torrington isn’t a place that invests in these buildings and these communities,” she said. “If you educate people about what it takes to make a better community and education system, and you empower them to get involved in the process, they’ll rise to the occasion.”

Arum said the savings will help reduce an initially projected $106.4 million bonding and principal cost, or $4.6 million per year, to about $40.6 million, or $1.7 million per year.

The city’s 46.17-mill tax rate was anticipated to start increasing in 2022-23 at 0.31 mills through a bond that will expire in the 2044-45 school year, according to an impact chart presented at a special meeting in May 2020. The city was anticipated to see its highest tax rate in 2027-28, with a 3.23-mill increase from its current level to 49.40. One mill equals $1 of tax for every $1,000 of assessed property value.

“It looks like we could save money on the percentage of rates,” Arum said. “It’s better to do it now than waiting because you never know when the rates are going up.”

Before receiving the 85% state reimbursement, the project’s building committee accrued about $8.7 million in savings, building committee Co-Chairman Mario Longobucco said. Plans to modernize and renovate the existing THS gymnasium will help save nearly $1 million, project officials have said.

“All the credit in the world for this achievement should go to Michelle,” Longobucco said of Cook in reference to the increased state reimbursement. “She single-handedly made this possible by working tirelessly on behalf of the city of Torrington as she always does.”