Hartford Business Journal

20 Hartford Business Journal • February 12, 2018 • www.HartfordBusiness.com EDITOR'S TAKE Lawmakers must be transparent on tolls T ypically I shy away from writing about the same topic two weeks in a row, but the debate over tolls is so important to Connecticut's future that it's worth the extra ink. Last week, I argued toll locations will be key to the debate over whether or not Connecticut should once again start charging motorists for using the state's roads and highways. I still stand by that notion, but after another full week of debate on the issue, there's a larger point to be made. It's that transparency in general — on toll locations, costs, type and frequency — will be key to the debate. That means lawmakers have an obligation to propose a bill filled with specifics rather than generalities. Residents and businesses have a right to know exactly how many tolls policymakers are considering, where they will be located and how much they will cost. The fear is that Democratic lawmakers could try to jam through legislation that gives state government tolling authority with few or no constraints. Under that scenario, Connecticut residents will likely pay dearly years from now. The fact that border tolls most likely are not legally feasible and that past stud- ies have recommended putting tolls throughout state highways and roads, means policymakers who favor tolls have ambitions to roll them out in a big way. No leg- islation should pass the House or Senate without a full articulation of those plans. Here's the bottom line: Most likely tolls won't pass in a heated election year in which the governor's seat and all House and Senate seats are up for grabs. Frankly, that's a good thing because the next administration should make the call on this issue. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy had nearly two terms to throw his full support behind tolls, but he lacked the political courage to do so. Allowing him to do it as a lame-duck governor, while also tying the hands of his successor, is the wrong move. Also, Malloy, like many governors in their final years in office, is in a legacy- building mode and he'd love to find a funding source for his ambitious 30-year, $100-billion transportation investment program. Again, his successor should make the call on whether the state needs to invest that much money on roads, highways, bridges and public transportation. Connecticut, however, does have a transportation funding issue that must be addressed. It's a situation that will likely be exacerbated in the future as drivers use fewer gas-powered vehicles (the gas tax is the primary funder of the state's Special Transportation Fund). And the business community has said that transportation is a critical issue. Companies would like to see less congestion on our highways, particularly in New Haven and Fairfield counties, so that their employees and goods can be moved more efficiently. In fact, it wouldn't be surprising if the Commission on Fiscal Stability and Economic Growth — which was empanelled last year and is made up of top CEOs and business executives — recommends the adoption of tolls and an increase in the gas tax. But let's remember, tolls are essentially a tax on lower- and middle-class resi- dents, some of whom have the least ability to pay. While Connecticut is a high- cost state for businesses and wealthy individuals, it is even more financially challenging for average earning individuals and families. Most importantly, before lawmakers are essentially allowed to adopt another major tax hike, they must first be held accountable on state spending. Yes, Mal- loy deserves credit for reducing the size of the state workforce and constraining state spending increases, but he hasn't gone far enough in tackling the true cost drivers of state government: union pay and benefits and long-term pension and debt obligations. Once those tough issues are addressed in a more comprehensive way, the toll debate will be more palatable to the electorate. OTHER VOICES State must end project- labor agreements By Chris Fryxell W hen it comes to fiscal stability, Connecticut has not had a good run in recent years. Perpetual deficits, record tax increases and economic stagnation have become the norm for a state that is commonly perceived as being full of wealth. Recently, a lot of ink has been spilled reporting and ana- lyzing the dire outlook of our state's Special Transportation Fund (STF), which will likely result in important projects being cancelled or delayed. The closely divided legislature will have its hands full developing a plan to bolster the STF while also finding creative ways to maintain a balanced budget. However, there is one simple action that our state government can enact that would lower project costs while maintaining the quality of work being performed: put an end to the use of project-labor agreements. A project-labor agreement (PLA) is a discriminatory practice that requires contractors to recognize a union as the sole representative of their employees on a project. Oftentimes the language of a PLA requires contractors to hire from union halls or their employees to join the union; pay union wages and dues and contribute to union benefit plans; and abide by archaic union work rules and job classifications. Due to these stipulations merit shop (or nonunion) contractors, who make up more than 80 percent of the construction industry in Connecti- cut, refuse to bid on any project with a PLA. Limiting competition to just two out of 10 qualified contractors and requiring labor work rules can increase costs by 20 percent or more for the same product. There are thousands of qualified open-shop contractors in Con- necticut, with great reputations for quality, skill and safety. Connecticut taxpayers realize no benefit from excluding these companies from bid- ding on state projects. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has been particularly fond of using PLAs for state infrastructure work. An upcom- ing project on the Gold Star Bridge will purportedly include a PLA and, recently, a PLA was announced for a $100 million road and bridge rehabilitation project on I-84 and Route 8 in Waterbury. The language of that PLA gives un- due preference to union contractors by requiring any signatory company to enter into agreement with labor unions, requiring workers on the project to pay an hourly fee if they choose not to join the union, and forc- ing workers to abide by archaic union jurisdictional rules thereby eliminat- ing the use of multi-trade personnel utilized by open-shop contractors. The Beacon Hill Institute at Suf- folk University concluded in a 2009 study that the benefits of PLAs were unproven but that PLAs do, in fact, result in higher construction costs. As part of that study, Beacon Hill looked specifically at Connecticut pub- lic school projects. A statistical analysis of 71 public school projects, some with a PLA and some without, showed the presence of a PLA raised the cost of building the schools by 18 percent. A similar look at school construc- tion in New York found PLAs raised the construction bids by 20 percent. For a more recent local example, look at Dunkin' Donuts Park Hartford, built with a PLA, which was behind schedule, over budget and resulted in court battles that are ongoing. That's not to say that the PLA caused those problems; but, it certainly didn't prevent them. It is never a good idea for govern- ment to pick winners based on labor affiliation. Doing so is not just dam- aging to taxpayers footing the bill, but also to reputable companies and their hardworking employees who are shut out of opportunities to win work on state projects. Particularly now, when our state is faced with the prospect of cutting important projects due to insuf- ficient funds, our elected officials should be encouraging as much competition among responsible bidders as possible, both union and nonunion, instead of currying favor from special interests. It is within the governor's author- ity to unilaterally end the discrimi- natory practice of attaching PLAs to public-works projects. Just as he has decided to use them throughout his tenure as governor, he can, and should, decide to let future projects be bid competitively. If Malloy fails to act, the legislature should step in. Chris Fryxell is the president of the Connecticut Chapter of the Associated Builders and Contractors. Opinion & Commentary Greg Bordonaro Editor Chris Fryxell

• Cover