Up to $51B in transportation grant awards at risk, advocacy group says

Up to $51 billion in federal funds that have been awarded by the U.S. Department of Transportation but not yet obligated could be defunded, according to a March 14 analysis by Transportation for America, a transportation advocacy organization. 

Rural and Midwestern states may lose the most funds on a per-person basis, especially for projects related to road safety, electric vehicle infrastructure and transportation climate resilience.

The organization analyzed a leaked policy memo from the DOT’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy directing agency heads to review all awards lacking grant agreements and partially obligated grant agreements. 

The memo cites presidential executive orders and a previous order and memorandum by Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy that orders agency administrators to identify and eliminate rules, regulations and funding agreements that include or reference climate change, racial equity or environmental justice among other criteria. 

On March 10, Duffy announced in a press release the rescission of two Biden-era memoranda. These included policies aimed at improving road safety, making streets and transportation infrastructure accessible to those with disabilities, and fostering renewable energy and electric vehicle charging stations. The latest DOT policy memo targets bicycle infrastructure as well.

“While it is normal for a new administration to set its own agenda, it has always applied to spending and policy going forward,” Transportation for America said in an online post. “This administration is setting the precedent that any project not underway can be undone when there is a new president.”

Examples of programs that could be impacted include the Safe Streets and Roads for All grant program: just $515 million has been obligated across 979 grants, leaving nearly $2.4 billion at risk. Of the $7.6 billion announced under the RAISE/BUILD program, which provides grants for surface transportation infrastructure projects for fiscal years 2022 through 2025, only $1.25 billion or less has been secured and obligated, according to Transportation for America.

The organization also warns of potential further action, noting that the current memo only applies to competitive grants. “There is good reason to expect that this administration will expand this review to cover other programs, too, if they find they don’t agree with how states, regions, localities, and transit agencies are using the funds,” the post states.

Meriden officials want public to weigh in on the competing senior center plans before April decision

Mary Ellen Godin

MERIDEN — A controversial plan to renovate the existing senior center at 24 W. Main St. is back in the spotlight after the City Council recently voted to send it back to committee.0:30

The Senior Center Building Review Committee rejected the proposal two months ago and opted to hold out for a new $36 million facility at 116 Cook Ave. However, that plan has been significantly delayed by flood control and dredging work, estimated to cost an additional $10 million.

Demolition of the former medical office building on Cook Avenue begins Wednesday, city officials said. 

"There was a proposal to revisit the issue," said Councilor Bruce Fontanella, who chairs the Senior Center Building Review Committee. "Personally, I'm against it. The committee investigated sites and all issues were raised in the final proposal."

After surveying seniors and selecting the Cook Avenue location, the committee discovered last fall that design and construction could not begin until at least 2027. The project had initially included a new Health and Human Services Department but after learning about the delays, health department and city officials agreed to rehabilitate the agency's offices on Miller Street. 

The City Council tasked new City Manager Brian Daniels with seeking alternatives for a proposed senior center. Within weeks, Daniels crafted a plan to modernize and expand the space at 22 W. Main St., and purchase the building next door. The final designs included skylights, a 30,000 square-foot improved layout, and an art studio with exposed brick and an urban vibe.

The price tag was also much cheaper than building new.

The city would have to budget $36 million in its capital improvement program for the Cook Avenue construction, but the new design is estimated to cost $6.3 million, with more than $1.2 million in grant funding. The purchase price for 28 W. Main St. is $275,000 and included in the project estimate. Another benefit, is the city planned to repair leaks in the roof and walls, so construction can begin quickly.

But there were disadvantages.

The building at 22 W. Main St. is an 80-year-old former department store with stairs and an elevator. Parking is in the rear across Hanover Street, forcing seniors to cross traffic to enter. There is also minimal green space, perhaps for a bocce court, maybe some raised bed gardens, officials said. The Cook Avenue site would have space for pickleball, a courtyard and access to Harbor Brook.

Outdoor access and onsite parking were top priorities listed in the senior survey.   

Mayor Kevin Scarpati rejected the renovation plan in December, but Councilors Dan Bunet and Bob Williams said Monday a public hearing was never held.

"We asked the city manager to get options," Williams said. "It's an alternative plan but there was no public input. With Cook Avenue there are a lot of issues with timing and cost."

"The cost disparity is significant," Brunet added.

There is also an economic development benefit to demolishing the former medical building and readying the site for a potential commercial user.

The Factory H property in the rear combined with 116 Cook Avenue offers developers a single large block of land allowing them to return to the tax rolls as commercial properties, according to Daniels' presentation. 

The Senior Center Building Review Committee will join the Health and Human Services Committee on April 1 to discuss the renovation in more detail. The City Council will vote on the matter on April 7. The public is invited to attend and offer input. 

"I encourage people to come out and express their opinions," Fontanella said.

Danbury seeks $4.2M in CT grants to rescue old hat factory, courthouse sites from contamination

Rob Ryser

DANBURY – An overgrown former hat factory site with mercury in the soil and a vacant former county courthouse with asbestos and lead paint in its interior are the target of separate cleanup plans worth $4.2 million in state brownfield grants.Skip Ad

Despite the sites’ distinct histories, city leaders hope the properties have a common destiny as active players in a healthier downtown, where the economy has been languishing for decades behind Danbury’s commercial east end and its booming west side.

The former hat factory site at North Street and Barnum Court has been off the city’s radar since a devastating fire the mid-1990s, while the old Fairfield County Courthouse on south Main Street has been in the headlines as a potential new home for the city museum, and more recently as the centerpiece of a complex multiproperty redevelopment plan that turned out to be more ambitious than successful.

“The state did not want to do that complex of a project,” said Jim Maloney, a former congressman and the architect of a plan, in an interview on Monday. “The state preferred to do it in various pieces.”

That means that instead of Danbury's plan to take control of the old courthouse and restore it as part of a larger revitalization of south Main Street and Park Place with 100 workforce apartments, the city is now focusing on negotiations to buy the 1899 national historic landmark from Connecticut for an as-yet undetermined use.

“We don’t have anything concrete that we are ready to share,” Mayor Roberto Alves said during a March 4 City Council meeting. “This building is just beautiful … and what we are committing to is keeping that beautiful structure where it is on Main Street.”

The first step, which the City Council took on March 4, is to apply for a $200,000 state grant to study the severity of the contamination in the building.

“The state had a certain amount of money they wanted for the building,” said City Council member Emile Buzaid at the March meeting. “Does that still stand or has that changed?”

“That has changed, sir,” said Farley Santos, a Democratic state representative who was answering questions as Alves’ economic and community development adviser. “We are leveraging relationships and … having conversations where the state would be conveying this property to the city of Danbury.”

“Have there been some suggestions as to potential use?” Buzaid asked.

“That has been part of the conversation we’re having. What the state wouldn’t want to see is someone put this building up for bid and build apartments in that location,” Santos said. “This would be for municipal services.”

“Are you at liberty to say what possible uses they may be?” Buzaid pressed.

“It could be for city departments, municipal services,” Santos said. “That is to be determined.”

The discussion referred to a landmark building that has been vacant for years with “significant leaks in the roof” but otherwise solid, said Antonio Iadarola, Danbury’s public works director and city engineer.

“The use of the building will dictate how much work needs to go into it,” said Iadarola, who told the City Council he was last in the building three years ago. “Overall, I didn’t see any major failing foundations or anything of that magnitude – nothing that would require a tear down and rebuild.”

But private investment in the old courthouse is out of the question, Maloney told Hearst Connecticut Media Group on Monday

“Just to make it usable as a building would be $5 million, and to restore it (to its historical integrity) would be $10 (million) to $20 million,” Maloney said. “It is not a commercially doable project.”

In contrast, on the northern-most border of Danbury’s downtown, the contaminated property on Barnum Court could be revitalized after a cleanup with construction of a new 4,000-square-foot commercial building with parking, said Taylor O’Brien, Alves’ chief of staff.

“Prior to 1950, 13 Barnum Court was home to a series of hat manufacturing operations (and) from 1950 to 1994, the site was occupied by retail businesses,” O’Brien said. “In 1994, a fire severely damaged the main building structure, leading the city to foreclose on the property due to tax delinquency and to demolish it.”

The City Council on March 4 applied for a $4 million grant to remove mercury from the site, which is bordered on the east by the Kohanza Brook.