Yankee-Institute-Torch-Logo-Stack
Donate
Take Action
Submit A Tip
pexels-pixabay-159397

Department of Public Health concerned about PFAS in solar panels near drinking water

Regulation , , , , , , 0 Comments

The Department of Public Health has concerns over the presence of the chemical PFAS in solar panels that will be installed near a watershed area that supplies drinking water, but the unnamed solar company has not answered the department’s questions.

During a Nov. 3 meeting of the Connecticut Water Planning Council, Lori Mathieu, chief of the CWPC Drinking Water Section of the DPH, said they were receiving “push back” on their questions related to PFAS and solar panels.

“PFAS, solar panels – We’ve asked the question, we’ve received some information, we have also received some push-back when we ask those questions about whether these panels contain PFAS and different PFAS chemicals,” Mathieu said.

“You place this kind of technology in a public water-supply area, that is a concern for us,” Mathieu said. “This is an important issue. Where should these go? Who is saving the money? Where is this funding going? Who is benefiting from all of this? Does the private citizen benefit from all of these installations?”

PFAS, or Polyfluoroalkyl substances, refers to a large group of manmade chemicals used for manufacturing industrial and consumer products and can accumulate in both the environment and human body over time.

The use of PFAS in firefighting foam came to light following a spill at Bradley International Airport that leaked thousands of gallons into the Farmington River.

In July of 2019, Gov. Ned Lamont created an interagency task force “to protect human health and the environment from the harmful effects” of PFAS by minimizing environmental exposures for Connecticut residents, minimize future releases of PFAS into the environment and “identify, assess and clean up historic releases of PFAS to the environment.” 

The legislature also approved $2 million in funds for water testing and cleanup but the COVID-19 pandemic delayed much of that work, according to an article posted by CT Mirror.

Reached for comment, DPH Communications Director Av Harris said he could not reveal the location of the proposed solar panel site or the name of the company because it “concerns critical infrastructure and is exempt from FOIA.”

However, he did confirm that the solar company has not yet been cooperative with DPH in disclosing the chemical contents of its panels.

“In conjunction with a recent application from a water company, the DPH requested information on the PFAS content in all the components associated solar power generation and whether that PFAS can leach from the components to impact drinking water supplies,” Harris wrote in an email. 

“The solar company proposing to install the system did not verify that the system was PFAS free, nor did it confirm that PFAS potentially in the system could not adversely affect the public drinking water source of supply,” Harris said.

Although the location of the solar panel development is unknown, according to the Connecticut Siting Council, there is an application posted for a solar generating facility in South Windsor and petitions for construction of solar panel electricity generating facilities in Hampton, Ansonia, Stonington, Watertown, East Windsor, Southington, Hamden, Bristol, Bethlehem and Burlington.

Basically, there could be more solar panel facilities popping up all over Connecticut, part of the state government’s push for the state to generate all of its electricity from renewable resources by 2050.

According to the Carolina Journal, the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed that a PFAS chemical treatment known as GenX is used in the production of solar panel components and that they’re not really sure what the potential effects of those chemicals could be.

The concern over PFAS chemicals made its way to the U.S. House of Representatives, where a bill requiring the labeling of certain PFAS chemicals as hazardous and investigation into other chemicals by the EPA passed in January of 2020 but hasn’t been taken up in the Senate.

However, some solar advocates dismiss the concern over PFAS in solar panels.

According to Dr. Annick Anctil of Michigan State University, “PFAS is not customarily used in solar panels because safer, effective alternatives have already been developed and commercialized. Moreover, no studies have shown the presence of leaching of PFAS from PV panels – either while they are in active use or at the end of their life (e.g., in a landfill).”

In a 2018 presentation by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, the department said it had not found PFAS contamination near solar sites but had not specifically studied run-off near solar installations and hadn’t reviewed solar panel designs to determine if PFAS was used. 

**Meghan Portfolio contributed to this article**

Connecticut_State_Capitol,_Hartford (1)

Connecticut’s fixed costs to grow $2 billion by 2024, continue to dominate state budget

Budget , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

Connecticut’s fixed costs like Medicaid, debt service and retiree benefits continue to grow faster than state revenue and make up 52 percent of the state’s budget, according to the Office of Fiscal Analysis.

In fiscal year 2021, Connecticut will spend $11.46 billion per year on its fixed costs between the General Fund and the Special Transportation Fund, but that figure is projected to grow to $13.54 billion by 2024 when it will consume nearly 55 percent of the state budget, according to the OFA.

The breakdown of the increased costs to the state’s General Fund between 2021 and 2024 are as follows:

Medicaid/Entitlements: $386.7 million – Medicaid and Community Residential Services represent the largest chunk of fixed costs at 36.1 percent. These increases do not reflect any potential resurgence of the COVID-19 virus which could once again force some people out of the job market and require increased Medicaid services. The total cost of Medicaid/Entitlements will be $4.3 billion in 2024.

Debt Service: $490.4 million – According to the OFA, the primary cause for the increase in debt service is new debt issuance, which accounts for $267.5 million of the increase, and the “backloaded repayment schedule” for pension obligation bonds for the Teachers Retirement System, which will increase by $197.3 million. Connecticut’s total debt service payments will be $2.8 billion by 2024.

State Employee Pensions and Retiree Health Costs: $306 million – While the normal cost for pensions will actually decrease, the unfunded liability costs will increase over the next few years. The increase for retiree health care is primarily due to “increases in the costs of medical and prescription services for Medicare, and non-Medicare, eligible dependents.” Connecticut will spend $2.8 billion on state employee pensions and retiree healthcare in 2024.

Teachers’ Retirement System Cost: $497.9 million – This massive increase in costs is largely due to revised mortality estimates under the state’s latest experience study. This revision is largely responsible for increasing the total unfunded teacher pension liability by $1.3 billion. Connecticut will spend $2 billion on teacher retirement costs by 2024.

Fixed costs paid out of the General Fund also include the settlement between the state and Connecticut’s hospitals for Gov. Dannel Malloy’s hospital tax scheme, which totals $568 million per year. However, the cost will not increase between 2022 and 2024.

The Special Transportation Fund will also see increases to fixed costs paid out of that fund, including $225.5 million in debt service, $81 million for rail and bus operations and $28.3 million in fringe benefit payments. The total fixed cost payout from the STF is projected to be $1.59 billion by 2024 with revenues projected to be roughly $2 billion.

The growth in Connecticut’s fixed costs will continue to outpace estimated revenue growth until 2024, a long-standing problem that creates a structural imbalance in the state’s budget.

Between this year and 2024, “annual fixed growth in projected to be on average $67.5 million more than revenue growth, a seemingly small structural imbalance,” the OFA wrote in its analysis. “Notably, however, the average growth rate for revenue is 2.8 percent while they average fixed cost growth rate is 5.4 percent. This means that more than 100 percent of revenue growth is needed to cover over fixed cost expenditure growth.”

Revenue estimates for Connecticut during the pandemic have seen their ups and downs, with market returns and federal stimulus money helped Connecticut go from a projected $1 billion deficit in fiscal year 2020 to closing out the year with a small surplus.

That trend, however, is not projected to continue and the projected deficits will eat up the state’s entire $3 billion Rainy Day Fund in just two years. 

According to the OFA, fiscal year 2021 will have a deficit of $854.5 million, followed by a projected deficit of roughly $2 billion in fiscal year 2022.

If both of those deficits are covered with Connecticut’s reserve fund, it will leave only $91.4 million in savings to address a $2.2 billion deficit in 2023 and a $2.1 billion deficit 2024.

Connecticut’s revenue, which leans heavily on the state’s personal income tax, has proven to be volatile over the years and largely dependent on the financial sector of the state’s economy. 

State revenue to the General Fund has grown from $13.2 billion in 2000 to a projected $19.3 billion in 2024, a decrease of .1 percent when adjusted for inflation despite three major tax increases in 2009, 2011 and 2015.

Fixed costs paid out of the General Fund, however, have continued to make a steady climb upward from $5.3 billion in 2000 to now $12 billion by 2024, a 51 percent increase when adjusted for inflation.

Revenue growth is projected to catch up with fixed cost growth in 2024 when revenue growth will outpace fixed costs by $136 million, according to OFA, but these are estimates from several years out that is subject to change in volatile economy struggling through a pandemic.

“There is still a serious concern going forward that a wave of business failure could have a cascading effect on other businesses, the stock market, and the whole economy,” the OFA wrote. “On the other hand, there is some reason to hope that collections will turn out to be better than anticipated.”

“Due to the disparate impact various sectors have on state revenues, the nature of the downturn and which parts of the economy are most damaged or spared will have significant implications for the state’s financial well-being going forward,” the analysis said.

AP_19009610388396

Giving Thanks, Offering Hope

Carol's Column, Featured Columns 0 Comments

Somehow, Thanksgiving felt slightly transgressive this year amid pervasive gloom – and not just for those who defied repeated injunctions from “authorities” and gathered with family and friends anyway. Given everything that’s happened in 2020, many Americans seemed to feel a little like the child I overheard in a zoom classroom one Friday. Asked by his teacher to name something for which he was grateful, the boy answered without hesitation, “That this is almost over.”

Perhaps it’s worth remembering that Thanksgiving was born amid dark times. Only 45 of the original 102 on the Mayflower even survived to celebrate at the first feast; Abraham Lincoln formally proclaimed Thanksgiving a national holiday in 1863, amid the bloodiest conflict this country has ever known. Americans have defied despair by giving thanks before.

Even so, as we move into the Yuletide season, it’s a grim reality: circumstances have changed for many since last year, and not for the better. Connecticut’s economy has shrunk by almost one-third thanks to the policies chosen to combat coronavirus. That statistic represents the death of the dreams of owners of thousands of small businesses – including restaurants, bookstores, and boutiques – that simply couldn’t stay afloat amid lockdowns and other restrictions.

It’s heartbreaking. No one has a finger on the pulse of the American dream like a small business owner. They are the “canaries in the coal mine” for the rest of us when it comes to overregulation, bureaucracy, and other forms of petty oppression. No one works harder or is more keenly aware of the link between free enterprise and prosperity. Small business has long been understood as the avatar of much that has made our national character great – and rightly so.

Likewise, too many nonprofits have been left to wither on the vine. To take just one example, as Yankee Institute’s Marc Fitch recently reported, the Inner-City Foundation for Charity and Education announced it was closing after nearly 30 years – the pandemic having strangled its ability to host major fundraising events (Yankee likewise canceled its gala this year).

After the Foundation’s endowment has been spent down, there will be one fewer organization available to fund charities helping those in poverty or educating adults and children. A survey of more than 250 Connecticut nonprofits found that fully 82 percent had experienced financial losses because of the pandemic – with a whopping 46 percent of smaller organizations reporting they were struggling.

This, too, is alarming. Our country has a long, proud history of a flourishing nonprofit sector, generously supported by a citizenry committed to a wide variety of good works. These organizations are vital to our country’s health. Like churches, clubs, professional organizations, and other institutions, charities serve as “mediating institutions” between people and their government – each a little bulwark of freedom against a state that otherwise can grow too large and too powerful, with too much control over the lives of the people it governs.

So whether we spent last weekend giving thanks to God for the blessings in our lives – or simply being thankful that 2020 is nearly over – as we enter this season of hope, perhaps we can make three easy resolutions to make the holidays more hopeful for some badly in need of some hope. Let’s:

  • Support Connecticut’s independent, small businesses (rather than large chains that were never locked down) for holiday shopping;
  • Strenuously oppose any efforts by state government to pick winners and losers a second time by locking down some retailers while allowing others to remain open, selling the same items; and
  • Partner as generously as possible with a Connecticut charity of your choice.

At Yankee Institute, every single day (and especially on this “Giving Tuesday”!), we’re thankful for the commitment to liberty, fairness, and opportunity for all that unite so many of us across the Constitution State. Together, let’s continue being transgressive – cheerfully defying the predictions of the naysayers, as we each do our part, together, to bring about the change our state so desperately needs.

aerial-photography-architecture-building-1546168-1080x675

Waterbury and Hartford see big increases in renting, homeownership over last ten years

Economy, Taxes , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

Waterbury had one of the highest increases in the percentage of residents renting apartments in the country, while Hartford, on the other hand, saw one of the highest increases in homeownership over the last ten years, according to a new report by RentCafe.

“Waterbury, Conn., saw the most dramatic change in the structure of its population,” the study says. “Renters here now make up 60.9% of the brass city’s residents, compared to 48.8% at the beginning of the decade.”

Waterbury was one of 23 cities that saw the number of renters overtake the number of homeowners based on U.S. Census figures from 2010 to 2019. The report does not include the real estate upheaval brought on by the pandemic in 2020.

Meanwhile, during the same time period, homeownership in Hartford saw one of the highest increases in the country, with a 27 percent increase in the share of city residents who owned their own homes.

The authors write that homeownership declined at the start of the decade and continued to decline until 2012 – possibly the residual effects of the 2008 recession that saw a collapse of the housing market.

Renting peaked in 2015 and in 2016 began to decline while homeownership increased “as a robust economy and low mortgage rates gave more Americans the opportunity to become homeowners,” the report says.

The report offers no specifics for why one city saw an increase in renters while the other saw an increase in homeowners.

Municipal data from the Office of Policy and Management shows that in 2010 Waterbury had a population of 110,366 and Hartford had a population of 124,775 and both had low median household incomes: $24,820 for Hartford and $34,285 for Waterbury.

Hartford’s equalized net grand list accounted for $7.7 billion in 2010, while Waterbury was $7 billion.

By 2019 – the most recent OPM data available – both cities had lost roughly 2,000 residents but median household incomes had increased by $10,000 in Hartford and $6,000 in Waterbury. 

The grand list for Hartford remained relatively stable at $7.4 billion, while Waterbury dropped to $6.1 billion.

One stark difference, however, may lie in the property tax rates of both cities. 

Waterbury’s mill rate increased from 41.82 in 2010 to 60 mills by 2019, one of the highest rates in the state.

Hartford has the highest mill rate in the state at 74.29 mills, but the city only assesses 35 percent of the property value on residential homes, cutting the effective mill rate for homeowners down to 37.15 mills.

Although the exorbitant property taxes for commercial property in Hartford is cited as hurting commercial growth in the city, the mill rate for residential homeowners can make it a more attractive city to purchase a single-family home.

Conversely, the lower mill rate for commercial property, including apartment buildings, means that Waterbury could be more attractive to multi-family real estate developers and renters.

According to RentCafe, the average apartment rental in Waterbury is $952 per month, compared to $1,210 per month in Hartford.

Linda Fercodini of Fercodini Properties in Wolcott says prior to the pandemic there was an increase in the number of rentals in Waterbury and that the tax rate likely had an effect on renters and homeowners.

“I think it does have somewhat of an effect on real estate,” Fercordini said. “Naturally, when a buyer is getting pre-qualified for a mortgage taxes are a big consideration. It depends on the tax situation as to how much of a house any purchaser can buy. The higher the taxes the less house they can purchase.”

I’ve been doing this for 41 years. I have been in many buyer markets, many seller markets but I never expected what we saw post-pandemic.

Linda Fercodini of Fercordini Properties, Walcott, CT

“With the taxes a little bit higher we saw a lot of people that wanted to rent,” Fercodini said. “So, they would rent, save up their money and then when they would purchase, they would purchase.”

However, the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the real estate market in Connecticut in ways Fercodini says she’s never seen before, with an influx of New Yorkers buying up property and rentals in Waterbury.

“I’ve been doing this for 41 years,” Fercodini said. “I have been in many buyer markets, many seller markets but I never expected what we saw post-pandemic.” 

Fercodini says only a handful of apartments and houses in Waterbury remain on the market at this time, with people flowing out of the big cities to smaller Connecticut cities. “It’s incredible, nothing I’ve ever been through before,” Fercodini said.

The influx of new people to Connecticut may reverse a long trend of losing residents to other states and has also increased the selling price of homes in cities like Hartford, which saw a 15 percent uptick in median sale price of homes, according to REMAX 2020 housing data.

Absent the pandemic, RentCafe sees the potential for long-term changes in renting and homeownership as the Millennial Generation begins to settle down to start families and Generation Z enters adulthood and potentially searches for apartments.

“Overall, the housing trends of the past decade suggest that renting is maintaining its popularity in the nation’s large and mid-sized cities, while homeownership has and will continue to rebound,” the report said. 

Home-image-3-768x512-1

Connecticut Port Authority unable to provide documentation supporting project labor agreement for State Pier

Labor , , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

The Connecticut Port Authority was unable to provide documentation for why a project labor agreement was included for the estimated $157 million State Pier project in New London, according to a Freedom of Information request.

Project labor agreements require a contractor to use union labor and abide by union rules on a project, including paying union benefits. The inclusion of a PLA on a state or municipal project often prevents non-union contractors from submitting competitive bids.

According to state statute, a project labor agreement can only be included on a state project when it is determined to be in the public’s best interest.

According to the Request for Qualifications issued by the Port Authority, the Port Authority “has determined that it is in the public’s best interest to require a Project Labor Agreement (“PLA”) for this Project” after considering the effects listed by state statute.

But the Port Authority was not able to provide for how it reached the determination a PLA was in the public’s best interest.

From Connecticut Port Authority’s Request for Qualifications

The September 28 FOI response notes the Port Authority is “attempting to obtain the additional requested information regarding the decision to include the Project Labor Agreement requirement in the Authority’s solicitation from another State agency and will provide an update as soon as the information is available.” 

Thus far, no further information has been received.

But the inclusion of a PLA for the State Pier project was a source of frustration for state contractors, some of whom are qualified to perform the work but will no longer bid on project because of the union requirements. 

Chris Fryxell, president of the Associated Builders and Contractors of Connecticut who filed the FOI request, believes the Port Authority violated state statute by limiting the number of contractors who could or would bid on the project.

“If the Port Authority can’t come up with any objective rationale for discriminating against qualified, experienced contractors then the decision to use a PLA was a political one and that should concern taxpayers,” Fryxell said.

If the Port Authority can’t come up with any objective rationale for discriminating against qualified, experienced contractors then the decision to use a PLA was a political one and that should concern taxpayers.

Chris Fryxell, President of the Associated Builders and Contractors of Connecticut

“This project, like all publicly funded projects, should be subject to a fair, open and competitive bidding process that treats union and open shop contractors the same,” Fryxell continued. “The process the Port Authority used to suppress competition is wrong and, we think, in violation of state statute.” 

Reached for comment, newly-appointed Connecticut Port Authority Executive Director John Henshaw pointed to an appendix in the Request for Qualifications stating that “time is of the essence for the State Pier New London Project.”

The appendix says the PLA will provide a uniform labor contract expiration date so the project “isn’t affected by the expiration of various, local union agreements;” contains no-strike and no-lock-out provisions; provides “alternative dispute resolution procedures” and “assures that contractors get immediate access to a pool of well trained and highly skilled workers.”  

The State Pier is being redeveloped as a staging area for an offshore wind energy project by Eversource and Danish company Ørsted known as Revolution Wind, which will also be constructed under a project labor agreement as required under legislation authorizing the procurement of offshore wind energy.

Although a contractor has not yet been selected, the Port Authority and its construction administrator AECOM have narrowed the selection down to two companies: Skanska USA Building headquartered in New Jersey and the Kiewit Corporation headquartered in Nebraska.

Work is expected to be completed by August of 2022 so that the offshore wind project can also meet its deadlines.

Previous studies have shown that PLAs often increase the cost of a project significantly. An examination of school construction costs in Connecticut found the use of project labor agreements increased the cost by upwards of 19 percent, or $503 million in taxpayer dollars.

According to CT Examiner, State Senators Heather Somers, R-Groton, and Paul Formica, R-East Lyme, sent letters to Gov. Ned Lamont with concerns over the rising cost of the project and transparency at the Port Authority. 

The original agreement was for $93 million but the scope of the project increased with Eversource/Ørsted now committing $77.5 million and the state of Connecticut and the Port Authority funding $79 million.

Eversource/Ørsted will then lease the State Pier for $2 million per year for 20 years.

Despite the potential for increased costs and fewer bidders, the Lamont administration has shown a favoritism toward project labor agreements in the past. 

During the debate over tolls, it was revealed that $19 billion worth of state projects listed in the tolling proposals would be completed using PLAs, which sparked controversy because the projects had not even been put out to bid. 

Unions heavily backed Lamont in his campaign to become governor in 2018, spending over $1 million in independent expenditures and holding rallies for him and fellow Democrat candidates.

The Connecticut Port Authority also came under fire in 2019 after a series of reports caused a leadership shake up at the quasi-public authority. 

Executive Director Evan Matthews was placed on administrative leave for unknown reasons; Port Authority Board Chairwoman Bonnie Reemsnyder stepped down after it was revealed the Authority paid her daughter $3,000 for professional photographs and board member Scott Bates resigned when it was revealed he offered no-bid contracts to business associates.

A 2019 state audit further revealed the agency spent thousands of taxpayer dollars on dining and travel, piling on to the Authority’s long list of troubles and lead to further outcry by legislators who held hearings on the matter.

In August, former Executive Director of the Maine Port Authority John Henshaw took the leadership role at the Connecticut Port Authority with an annual salary of $200,000. He was not working at the Port Authority when the PLA was issued.

53265481_1925507920904502_1171909640921808896_n

Charitable foundation closes after “many” donors leave Connecticut, COVID ends fundraising events

Economy , , , 1 Comment

The Inner-City Foundation for Charity and Education, based in Bridgeport, announced it was closing its nearly 30-year operation after corporate donations dried up, donors left for other states and the pandemic ended their ability to host major fundraising events.

“We’ve decided to close our doors due to a confluence of circumstances,” Inner-City Foundation Executive Director Karen Barry Schwarz wrote in an October 13 letter to donors.

The Foundation provided grants to charities and service providers who helped those living in poverty and helped fund education programs for both adults and children.

Schwarz wrote that the Foundation was initially supported by corporate donors in its early days, but large sponsorships have run dry during “trying economic times.”

In a posting on their website, Schwarz notes that longtime corporate sponsors have also left the area. “Connecticut corporations – historically our largest donors – have considerably decreased charitable giving or have left the area, and our total charitable giving is down among individual donors.”

“Many more of our longtime donors have left the area for warmer climes, like Florida,” Shwarz wrote in the letter.

The U.S. Census Bureau reported that Connecticut lost 29,517 people to other states in 2017, with the majority of them – 63 percent – decamping for Florida.

The loss Connecticut residents to states like Florida is particularly pronounced among individuals on the higher end of the income bracket who take with them higher earnings than those moving into the state, resulting in a net loss of wealth, according to figures from both the Internal Revenue Service and state reports.

In their 2019 report, the Connecticut Council for Philanthropy reported that charitable giving among those earning more than $1 million dropped by 12 percent from 2015 to 2016, while the overall number of residents in that income bracket fell by only 4 percent.

The CCP’s report was based on 2016 IRS figures, the most recent available at that time.

Since then, a survey conducted by the CCP found that 40 percent of Connecticut non-profits reported a decline or expected a decline in charitable giving in 2018.

The 2017 federal Tax Cut and Jobs Act, which doubled the standard tax deduction, lead to concerns that fewer people would donate to charities and foundations because fewer individuals would itemize their tax returns. 

The Inner-City Foundation’s annual gala fundraiser was canceled this year due to the pandemic and “that method of fundraising is likely to be challenging in the future,” Schwarz wrote on the foundation website.

Since 1992, the Foundation has provided $32 million in grants to Fairfield County programs to help the needy, along with an additional $24 million in education support and $8 million to programs providing food and shelter, according to the Schwarz’s letter.

The Foundation will be using its endowment “to help those in need right now, in these difficult times, rather than continue to attempt to raise funds.”

«‹ 3 4 5 6 7 ›»