Docstoc

GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION

Document Sample
GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION Powered By Docstoc
					    GOVERNOR’S COMMISSION
FOR THE ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION

 OF SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT


         FINAL REPORT
           December 15, 2006
CONTENTS
PRÉCIS ………………………………………………………                                                        1


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ……………………………………..                                                   2


SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ……                                        11


 Defense and Homeland Security ………………………………….                                     12
 Infrastructure and Utilities ……………………………….……...                                  65
 Workforce Development and Housing ……………………..………                                  89
 Marketing and Advocacy ………………………………….…… 110


APPENDICES ………………………………….……………..                                                  118

1. Membership of the Commission, its Executive Committee, Subcommittee
   Chairpersons and Participants
2. National, Regional and State Experts Invited to Address the Commission
3. Interim Report of the Commission (March 31, 2006)
4. Status Report on Interim Report Recommendations (as of Dec. 15, 2006)
5. BRAC Lessons Learned Conference Report (August 24, 2006)
6. "Comprehensive Economic Development (CEDS) Strategy for Southeastern
   Connecticut CY 2006 Update Report," dated June 21, 2006
7. Regional Branding Study of O’Neal Strategy Group (Fall 2006)
8. Presentation of national site consultant Chris Steele, Mintax, Boston, Mass.
   (September 2006)
9. National Defense and Homeland Security Institutions in Southeastern New England
10. Benchmarking Connecticut 2006: Determinants of Economic Growth, Connecticut
    Economic Resource Center Inc. (November 2006)
11. Interstate Marketing Presentation, David Driver, Northeast Utilities (February 2006)
12. Informational Web Site Links
13. Groton Strategic Economic Development Plan (July 2006)


  Please note: Information and research from other regional and municipal plans and
           studies helped inform this report and can be provided on request.
                                        Précis

This report is the product of more than a year of study, analysis and discussion.
Commission members focused with intensity on Southeastern Connecticut’s
economic realities and prospects, drawing on existing reports, new sources and
many experts. The key findings below are a distillation of what follows.


I. Southeastern Connecticut faces imminent economic threats
At first glance, Southeastern Connecticut is doing well economically. For example,
unemployment is low, and the region’s two large casinos, both major employers, plan
further expansions. Despite this, there are reasons for significant concern:

   The regional economy is overly dependent on just a few employers
          o Naval Submarine Base New London, which, barring significant
             investments, is likely to again be targeted for closure in the next round of
             federal base closings, which may begin in less than five years
          o Electric Boat and Pfizer, which are both in downsizing modes
          o Casinos, whose jobs, on balance, require fewer skills and offer lower wages
   Retention of a quality workforce is a growing challenge
          o Skilled, educated workers are retiring and some of the region’s displaced
             workers are choosing to relocate
          o Future educational attainment levels are in jeopardy
   Regional job growth has slowed dramatically since 2001

II. Action is needed in four areas
Bold, innovative actions in four key areas can transform Southeastern Connecticut into a
region capable of future economic success in a global economy.

Defense and Homeland Security
 Lessen the risk of submarine base closure through targeted, strategic investments and
   ongoing dialogue with regional military and private industry interests.

Infrastructure and Utilities
 Ensure that key sites are readily developable, with easy access to critical utilities.

Workforce Development and Housing
 Cultivate a workforce prepared to take on tomorrow’s knowledge-based jobs.

Marketing and Advocacy
 Focus private employers on Southeastern Connecticut’s merits as a business location
  and identify and promote the region’s unique value proposition.




                                                                                           1
Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION

Southeastern Connecticut is a study in economic contrasts.

The fastest-growing part of the state, the region is blessed with scenic beauty, wealthy
communities, an extraordinary workforce and a strategic business location nestled
between major metropolitan areas at the nexus of both land and sea transportation
corridors. The area is home to major tourism destinations; national defense institutions; a
global pharmaceutical company; and a casual, unpretentious lifestyle that is the envy of
many.

But despite its merits, the region faces imminent and growing challenges to its economic
future. Threats abound, from cuts in national defense to a growing reliance on lower-
wage gaming and tourism industries. The area is vulnerable to the vagaries of global
employers and a rapidly changing workforce, some of the most skilled of whom are
leaving the area for a wider array of job opportunities or more affordable housing.

The region has an opportunity to address its shortcomings, build on its strengths and
reinvent itself as a location of choice for global companies and innovative knowledge
workers. Success will involve modeling best practices of regions across the country,
exploring innovative ways of thinking, reaching beyond confining political jurisdictions,
and adopting an economic growth model that values, above all else, communication,
collaboration and focused action.

Complacency is the primary foe. Policy-makers must act – boldly and together – if the
state’s and region’s future is to shine as brightly as its storied past.

BACKGROUND

In November 2005, Governor M. Jodi Rell created the Commission for the Economic
Diversification of Southeastern Connecticut. The commission convened in the aftermath
of the state’s successful effort to remove Submarine Base New London from a list of
bases proposed for closure by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) as part of its Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. That success staved off potentially
catastrophic job losses and retained a vital regional and national defense asset.

To make the submarine base a less likely target for future closure efforts and at the same
time build a stronger regional economy, the governor asked the commission to
recommend federal, state and local actions to:

 Reduce the vulnerability of Submarine Base New London to future U.S. Department
  of Defense closure efforts; and
 Formulate ideas and strategies to more broadly diversify the region's economy.


                                                                                             2
This report sets forth strategies and specific actions in four key areas designed to enhance
the economy of Southeastern Connecticut. It builds on the region’s Comprehensive
Economic Development Strategy (CEDS), identifies the area’s primary challenges, and
suggests various investments in the region’s infrastructure and people.

COMMISSION STRUCTURE AND PROCESS

The commission’s 11-member Executive Committee formed four subcommittees, which
engaged commission members, other interested parties and experts to generate strategies
and recommendations. Following are the subcommittees and their respective missions:

(1) Defense and Homeland Security – Recommend actions aimed at protecting and
enhancing Southeastern Connecticut’s defense and homeland security business base.
This could include actions to be taken by the Governor’s Office, the General Assembly,
the congressional delegation and/or local government leadership.

(2) Infrastructure and Utilities – Create a specific priority list of high-value-added
projects with the greatest likelihood to enhance business growth and improve the area’s
quality of life. These would include roads, ports, mass transit, communications, energy,
and identification and development of ―shovel-ready‖ commercial and industrial sites.

(3) Workforce Development and Housing – Recommend ways to increase the size,
quality and proximity of the region’s workforce to ensure a labor force conducive to
business growth, as well as the availability of enough entry-level housing in the area to
serve the needs of an increasingly diverse population.

(4) Marketing and Advocacy – Identify competitive business development and
marketing efforts and creative ways to promote the region's business location advantages,
industry clusters and other high-potential industry diversification targets.

After first convening in November 2005, the Full Commission met six times in 2006.
The Executive Committee first met in December 2005 and then 13 more times in 2006 to
receive subcommittee updates, steer activities, and set timetables and agendas.

The commission gathered input from its own membership as well as from a range of
outside experts who helped inform its deliberations. Among those invited to address the
Commission were top marketing and corporate site selection consultants, as well as
senior defense industry and economic development strategy officials from Washington
D.C., Boston, Rhode Island and Connecticut (see Appendix #2).

The commission issued an Interim Report in March 2005 that proposed 11
recommendations with statewide or regional applicability deemed relatively easy to
implement, important and high leverage. Most are complete or in progress. A copy of
this report with a status update on its recommendations is included for reference (see
Appendices #3 and #4).



                                                                                            3
SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS

Jobs: A Regional Conundrum

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Connecticut’s net new job
growth since 1990 has been tepid, up only 1.3 percent in 16 years. But job creation in
New London County is the state’s good news story, up 19.2 percent (113,500 in January
1990 to 135,300 as of October 2006). Not coincidentally, the Foxwoods Resort and
Mohegan Sun casinos, neither of which existed in 1990, now account for an estimated
23,000 jobs in the regional economy. And both casinos recently announced future
expansion plans:

 Mohegan Sun’s new Project Horizon expansion is expected to add 1,500 permanent
  jobs in Southeastern Connecticut.
 Foxwoods plans to complete a new, $700 million MGM Grand hotel and casino by
  2008 with 825 rooms and convention space, plus a 5,000-seat theater.

This is particularly important as the region’s job growth has slowed of late. Over the past
five years, the region has grown just 800 jobs (or 0.6 percent), after seeing a 7.3 percent
net growth in jobs between 1996 and 2001. And BLS data show that the county is down
almost 1,000 jobs over the past year, as manufacturing jobs continued to shed and casino
employment flattened. Adding to the region’s economic uncertainty:

 Pfizer plans to close its Groton manufacturing plant in 2007 and has been downsizing
  its research and development operations in Groton and New London. Most recently,
  the company announced a reduction in its global sales force and foreshadowed other
  staff reductions as part of a ―broad streamlining of operations‖ to include ―billions of
  dollars of expense reductions.‖1
 As its contract work with the U.S. Navy slows, Electric Boat, which designs, builds
  and maintains the nation’s submarine fleet, has announced plans to lay off workers
  at its Groton shipyard and at its facility in nearby Quonset Point, R.I..
 A major project that was to redevelop the long-dormant Norwich Hospital site in
  Norwich and Preston has recently been shelved, which opens the door to other
  developers, but means reuse of the site may still be years off.
 The threat of another Pentagon effort to close Submarine Base New London requires
  that the state and region stay riveted on how to strengthen the case for the base prior
  to another BRAC round, which could start within five years.

Real-Time and Looming Workforce Issues

For some time, New London County’s 3.5 percent rate of unemployment has been below
Connecticut’s, which stood at 3.8 percent in October 2006. While this means people in
the region are largely employed, the indicator masks significant and worsening problems
of underemployment, stagnant or declining income growth, and a steady outmigration of
1
    The Day of New London, news report by Anthony Cronin, published Dec. 3, 2006.


                                                                                          4
the region’s skilled, native population. It is further tempered by the fact that a small
available labor pool means many area employers have difficulty finding qualified help or
must pay a premium to recruit and hire those they need, which can hinder business
development. Specifically:

 Eroding job quality: High-wage manufacturing and other skilled professions are
  being replaced by jobs that are paying significantly less, on average. This has led to a
  precipitous loss of the region’s educated and technically advanced population. It
  further means the region faces the very real prospect of flat or declining real wages
  and median household income.2
 Housing increasingly out of reach: Flat income growth worsens already acute
  problems with area workers finding affordable housing.3
 Job skills mismatch: Foreign immigrants and native residents with less educational
  achievement are taking jobs in the burgeoning casino, leisure and hospitality trades,
  while displaced, aging workers with high-level skills are left with few viable options
  in an economy with a shrinking manufacturing base.
 Demographic projections: By 2020, proportionately fewer adults in the area will hold
  college degrees than today.4 This cannot sustain a globally competitive knowledge
  economy, which depends so mightily on higher-level thinking and innovation.

PRIMARY FINDINGS

The Defense and Homeland Security Subcommittee proposes ways to help keep Naval
Submarine Base New London off of future U.S. Department of Defense base closure lists
and build on the area’s defense- and homeland security-related industries, considered by
many as constituting a National Center of Excellence. Infrastructure improvements at the
base are paramount, as it scored especially low in this area in previous BRAC rounds.

The explicit goal of the subcommittee’s base-related recommendations is to make the
base ―the crown jewel‖ of the Navy – as suggested by its former commander – so that it
becomes clearly disadvantageous to the Pentagon to close it.

Among the subcommittee’s recommended improvements are to increase the base’s
military and strategic value by:

     modernizing the base, especially its piers, through use of a creative financing
      mechanism to ease taxpayer impacts; and
     enhancing training options at the base.


2
  Source: Benchmarking Connecticut 2006: Determinants of Economic Growth, Connecticut Economic Resource
Center Inc. (November 2006)
3
  From 2000 to 2005, wages in the region increased 18.5 percent, while housing prices jumped 63.6 percent. In its most
recent report, HOMEConnecticut, a state-level advocacy organization, included every New London County community
on its list of ―unaffordable‖ towns, using the assumption of a median-household income qualifying to purchase a
median sales priced home with 10 percent down on a 30 year mortgage at 4.5%, with the goal of keeping payments
within the recommended 30 percent of gross income guideline.
4
  Source: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Policy Alert, November 2005.


                                                                                                                    5
The subcommittee aims to expand the region’s overall defense and homeland security
industry sector by shifting from reactive to proactive actions, including proposals to:

      Create a state-level Permanent Commission to promote and coordinate statewide
       activities that enhance the quality of life of all branches of military personnel and
       their families with the overarching goal of preserving and expanding the defense
       and homeland security presence in Connecticut.

      Convene a process, perhaps through the establishment of a new state-level
       Industry Cluster, whereby the interests and concerns of the defense and homeland
       security firms in Connecticut are regularly and persuasively conveyed to key
       decision-makers in Hartford.

      Create and seed a ―Connecticut Military Value Enhancement Fund,‖ then partner
       with federal departments to invest in major defense/homeland security
       infrastructure projects. Recapture and revolve the state finances while providing
       appropriate incentives for the preservation and expansion of military installations
       in the state.

The Infrastructure and Utilities Subcommittee identified the expansion of wastewater
facilities and fresh water supplies as pivotal to encouraging and sustaining large-scale
regional economic development projects. This grew from the fact that the region could
face a water-supply deficit by 2010 and that all water issues must be addressed in terms
of the entire water life cycle, from the earth to use to treatment and back to the earth.

The subcommittee also underscored the need to move forward with a range of highway
improvements already in the pipeline, as well as to enhance mass transit options in the
region to ease congestion on roads already clogged at times with tourist and commuter
traffic, including a master plan for the intermodal transportation center in New London.
It also recommends evaluating underutilized state-owned properties and potential
industrial parks for future development potential.

The subcommittee’s recommendations were based on the axiom that a region’s economy
is built from the ground up. A good transportation system; access to electric, water,
wastewater and natural gas services; and development-ready sites are some of the most
important factors driving economic development location decisions today.

The Workforce Development and Housing Subcommittee, which focused on affordable
housing in its Interim Report recommendations, centered its final recommendations on
how to increase the quality and competitiveness of the region’s labor force to drive
economic diversification efforts.

The subcommittee’s primary goal is to create lifelong career pathways. Its
recommendations provide both short- and long-term strategies to stir interest in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education and occupations; help small
businesses cultivate increasingly capable employees; and engage the region’s many


                                                                                            6
quality institutions of higher education in economic diversification and workforce
development efforts.

The Marketing and Advocacy Subcommittee recommends the development of a
comprehensive marketing plan based on a regional branding study conducted as a result
of its Interim Report recommendation. This plan would promote the region’s many merits
as a business location nationwide and globally to industry sectors most likely to respond.
(See the region’s CEDS analysis for most likely marketing targets.)

The subcommittee also suggests a new level of regional cooperation that would promote
wise, effective advocacy for initiatives and be seen as a new attribute that could prove
appealing to prospective businesses.

SUMMARY THEMES

 The challenges facing Southeastern Connecticut compel action. All levels of
  government need to partner and take a cooperative, collaborative, proactive approach
  to issues facing the submarine base, its contractors, other regional business interests
  and its rapidly changing citizenry to ensure positive outcomes.

 As the diversification commission dissolves, there is a critical need to institute
  permanent structures (or strengthen existing entities) to ensure future short- and long-
  term communication channels and leadership.

 Demographic trends are slow to develop and difficult to mitigate. The state and
  region must recognize the potential impact of certain negative trends and take
  concerted action to minimize their long-term effects.

 Future entry-level jobs must transform so that none are perceived as ―dead end.‖
  Human talent must not be allowed to lie fallow in an age of unprecedented lifelong
  learning imperatives.

 Market economies are not bound by political jurisdictions. Southeastern Connecticut
  leaders need to be cognizant of and open to working with:
      o Neighboring Rhode Island, which shares and supplies Southeastern
          Connecticut’s workforce, culture and lifestyle, already evidenced by efforts to
          file a joint federal Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development
          (WIRED) grant application in spring 2006; the interstate Pawcatuck
          Borderlands project now underway; and some joint tourism promotions;
      o Entities in Southeastern New England, especially in federal lobbying and
          industry matters related to transportation, national defense, homeland security
          and maritime trades;
      o Other New England states and sub-regions, in their efforts to mass market
          together even as they niche market separately, particularly as Southeastern
          Connecticut looks to better define and market its unique business development
          value proposition;



                                                                                           7
       o The Tri-State Area (Connecticut, New York, New Jersey), where highway,
         rail and other transit issues critical to the Connecticut shoreline’s current and
         future transportation needs are weighed and debated;
       o Voluntary interstate efforts, such as the Hartford-Springfield Economic
         Partnership; outgrowths such as ―InternHere.com,‖ a bi-state (Connecticut and
         Massachusetts) effort to attract and retain college talent; and the new Fairfield
         County/Westchester County economic collaboration.

 The region’s water supplies and wastewater facilities require significant investment, a
  situation that will otherwise threaten the region’s future job and population growth.

 Pending highway transportation enhancements remain critical and must be joined by
  transit options, such as a proposed regional transportation center, to ease growing
  congestion and preserve the area’s quality of place.

 The region has many assets that position it well to take on the challenges ahead,
  including resilient, resourceful residents; strong regional planning, economic
  development and tourism organizations; and numerous attributes appealing to
  prospective businesses. Among recent positive developments:
      o Electric Boat will pair $20 million in state loans and incentives with its own
         $45 million investment to restore two graving docks for ship repairs.
      o Mystic Seaport, using a $4 million state grant to be matched by private
         donors, will construct a new lift dock and upgrade other shipyard services to
         support wooden ship restoration and training for a new generation of local
         shipbuilders.
      o New London’s Foreign Trade Zone now benefits Pfizer in Groton, allowing
         the company to take advantage of low import duties for the production of its
         specialized veterinary products.
      o Maritime tourism in the region will get a boost from Holland America Lines,
         which announced that its Maasdam cruise ship will make New London a port
         of call twice during 2007 and beyond.
      o Sites on both sides of the Thames River will soon be connected by water taxi,
         walking trails and interpretive signage to create Thames Heritage Park, a joint
         project of New London, Groton, the state and the U.S. Navy.


CONCLUSION

Members of this commission stand ready to work with the governor, federal and state
lawmakers, municipal officials, business leaders and others to discuss and help
implement the ideas detailed here. State, regional and municipal leadership also must
collaborate to identify sources of financial support for these initiatives, as many will
likely require a combination of public and private sources, financial or in-kind.




                                                                                           8
A report of this kind is a snapshot in time, containing long-term proposals that must be
revisited, clarified and revised to remain current and meaningful. Regular updates to the
Southeastern Connecticut CEDS should help keep the area’s top priorities in focus.

The commission fully recognizes that public and private investment dollars are scarce
and must be carefully allocated among many competing needs. As such, the commission
also acknowledges that proposals of this scope and number will not be implemented in a
single year, but must be addressed as part of a multi-year plan, requiring legislative
approval and the involvement of many parties.

But while it did not shy away from costly initiatives, the commission by design sought to
identify only top-level priorities with an explicit rationale. The commission therefore
urges decision-makers to carefully consider the unique challenges facing Southeastern
Connecticut, challenges that make the region worthy of special investment at this
important juncture.




                                          ****




ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Commission expresses its sincere appreciation to all the people and organizations
that supported its work, especially:

   Northeast Utilities, for providing leadership and abundant resources
   Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., the town of Groton and the Southeastern
    Connecticut Council of Governments, for hosting Full Commission and Executive
    Committee meetings
   Noreen S. Kirk, for editing and writing services




                                                                                            9
Governor's Commission for the Economic Diversification
of Southeastern Connecticut

Summary: Major Final Report Recommendations
National Defense and Homeland Security
   1     Replace Pier 31 at SUBASE New London
   2     Replace Pier 32 at SUBASE New London
   3     Replace Pier 33 at SUBASE New London
   4     SUBASE Expansion on Crystal Lake Road
   5     Replace Sub Operations Center Building
   6     Renovate Graving Docks at Electric Boat
   7     Relocate U.S. Coast Guard R&D Center
   8     Regional Force Protection Training facility
   9     NSSF Public/Private Maintenance Complex
   10    Redundant Electrical Supply to SUBASE and Southeastern Connecticut
   11    Waterfront Operations / Small Craft Maintenance Facility
   12    Replace Pier 10 at SUBASE New London
   13    Replace Pier 12 at SUBASE New London
   14    New Submarine Electronics Operations Command and Naval Training Facility
   15    Defense / Homeland Security / Maritime Business Incubator


Infrastructure and Utilities
   1     SE Conn. Regional Wastewater Infrastructure & New Water Source Implementation Study
   2     Develop New Surface Water Supplies
   3     Norwich Public Utilities Wastewater System Facilities Plan
   4     Sustain the Regional Intermodal Transportation Center at Union Station, New London
   5     Implement Two-Year Pilot Demonstration of Tourist Transit System
   6     State Property Reuse Study
   7     Submarine Base Gateway Project – Relocation of Non-Military Facilities (Groton)
   8     Business Park Utilities Infrastructure Improvement Project (Groton)


Workforce and Affordable Housing
   1     STEM Experts in Schools Project
   2     Small Employer Incumbent Worker Training Model
   3     SE Connecticut Higher Education Consortium to Promote Economic Diversification


Marketing and Advocacy
   1     Develop and Implement a SE Connecticut Economic Development Marketing Plan
   2     Develop a Plan to Strengthen Regional Cooperation in Southeastern Connecticut




                                                                                           10
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
        AND
  RECOMMENDATIONS




                       11
               Defense/Homeland Security Subcommittee
                        Final Report Overview
The importance of Naval Submarine Base New London (SUBASE) to Southeastern
Connecticut’s economy, as well as the 30,000 jobs it supports statewide, is well
documented. Therefore, keeping this vital military installation open was a major focus of
this subcommittee’s efforts.

Many of the subcommittee’s recommendations call for infrastructure improvements at the
SUBASE. There is a high degree of urgency associated with the need to make these
improvements. Another round of BRAC could begin in as few as five years. It is the
subcommittee’s consensus that if a number of these improvements are complete or under
way by that time, the SUBASE could earn scores high enough to incline the U.S.
Department of Defense to keep it open. The SUBASE only barely escaped closure in
2005. Without significant improvements in key areas, its infrastructure will continue to
deteriorate, and the base’s prospects for surviving another BRAC round will be dim.

The following recommendations represent practical steps toward keeping the SUBASE
off of future BRAC closure lists and for strengthening the defense and homeland security
industry that has clustered around it. Achieving these goals is critical to enhancing the
vitality of both the state and regional economies and to sustaining a high quality of life in
Southeastern Connecticut.

The subcommittee chose these 15 recommendations in a highly analytical manner,
focusing on actions that would have the greatest impact on improving the SUBASE’s
military value and therefore reducing the risk of its future closure. The strategy is to make
the base so valuable to the military – and so competitive with other bases nationwide –
that it would be disadvantageous to the U.S. Department of Defense to close it.

The recommendations emphasize infrastructure improvements because previous BRAC
rounds have seen the SUBASE score especially low in this area. The infrastructure
improvements would modernize the facility, reduce its perceived limitations, enhance its
training options and improve its strategic value. Other recommendations are intended to
foster the expansion of the region’s overall defense and homeland security sector.

While the subcommittee fully recognizes and supports the need to diversify the region’s
economy, it believes that the region must, first and foremost, retain the assets it already
has so that there is a strong foundation on which to build.

The Broader Perspective

Beyond these recommendations, an overarching priority that emerged from the
subcommittee’s discussions and analysis is the need for enhanced, ongoing dialogue
among state government; the military; and private, defense-industry leaders in
Southeastern Connecticut and statewide. Such communication is critical to ensuring that
public leaders are aware of the military’s concerns and plans and cognizant of the


                                                                                           12
challenges facing private industry. Only by establishing mechanisms that ensure ongoing
dialogue will the state be able to stay abreast of key issues and formulate appropriate
policies to keep military installations open and private industry flourishing in
Connecticut.

Regular dialogue would also give Connecticut an added advantage in the nationwide
competition for military installations. This approach is a way of life in other states, where
governors routinely meet with the commanding officers of their states’ military bases.

In addition, two recommendations the subcommittee proposed in the Interim Report
would facilitate ongoing sharing of ideas among government, the military and business.

    The creation of a new state Commission on the Status of Military Members and
     Their Families would bolster the Department of Defense’s perception of the
     SUBASE by making Southeastern Connecticut so hospitable and responsive to
     military personnel that it becomes the preferred duty station. It would also create a
     forum for regular meetings and dialogue between key state officials and ranking
     officers (i.e., commanding officers and flag officers) throughout Connecticut.

    The creation of a state-level Defense/Homeland Security Industry Cluster would
     allow businesses and government to meet regularly to communicate on issues and
     collaborate on creating an environment conducive to the growth of this important
     industry in the state and in Southern New England.

Going Forward

One of the recommendations included in the Interim Report was to hold a conference to
identify the lessons learned from the 2005 BRAC process. That conference was held on
Aug. 24, 2006, and resulted in a report prepared by The Battelle Institute that was
published in October 2006 (see Appendix #5). The report outlines how lessons learned in
the past should shape future action and enumerates specific steps that should be taken
immediately to retain Naval Submarine Base New London.

This subcommittee supports the recommendations outlined in the BRAC Lessons
Learned report. They include immediate investment in infrastructure, ongoing
information gathering, regional collaboration, economic diversification, increasing
awareness of the SUBASE’s importance and building on its presence to foster co-location
of additional military assets.




                                                                                          13
Defense/Homeland Security Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #1

Replace Pier 31 at U.S. Naval Submarine Base New London
Summary Description

Improve the Operational Infrastructure and enhance the Military Value of the U.S. Naval
Submarine Base (SUBASE) New London by demolishing the old, deteriorated Pier 31
and replacing it with a new, modern, general-purpose ship-berthing pier that is
constructed to current U.S. Navy specifications and standards.

Background/Context

Since 1993, the weakest category in the Department of the Navy calculation of the
Military Value of SUBASE New London has consistently been Operational
Infrastructure. Within their standard 100-point scoring system, Operational Infrastructure
received the largest percentage of points (between 39 percent and 49 percent), with
SUBASE New London being credited, on average, with only 31 percent of the points
available.

              CATEGORY            BRAC 1993 BRAC 1995 BRAC 2005
              Points Available       48             47             39
              Points Received        13             17             12
              Percentage Received    27             36             31
              POINT DEFICIT          35             30             27
         Table 1. SUBASE New London Operational Infrastructure Point Scores


As further highlighted in the above table, during three rounds of Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) spanning 13 years, SUBASE New London lost between 27 and 35
points (the equivalent of 27 percent to 35 percent) in the highest-valued category,
Operational Infrastructure.

The components of Operational Infrastructure include facilities that support Ship
Berthing (Piers), Ship Maintenance and Repair, Ammunition Storage and Staff. In each
round of BRAC, the Department of the Navy utilized questions to evaluate a facility’s
infrastructure in general categories and determined a corresponding point score. Where
SUBASE New London was awarded less than 50 percent of the available points, a point
deficit is considered to have occurred, and an opportunity exists to significantly enhance
Military Value. Accordingly, Table 2 presents information used to support closure of
SUBASE New London in BRAC 2005.




                                                                                         14
                                             Table 2

BRAC 2005 – OPERATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE
       MILITARY VALUE POINT DEFICIT (≥ 50 percent)

     QUESTION
                      CATEGORY INFRASTRUCTURE ITEM                            POINT DEFICIT
     NUMBER
     SEA – 1                          Multiple Combatant Piers                2.92
     SEA - 2                          Cold Iron CVN Piers                     4.15
     SEA – 3                          SSBN Homeport piers (plus weapons) 4.15
                      Ship Berthing
     SEA – 4                          Adequate Piers                          3.52
     SEA – 5                          Modern Piers                            1.50
     SEA – 6                          Internet Capable Piers                  1.28
     SEA – 7                          IMA Capacity                            1.56
                      Ship
     SEA – 8                          Drydocks                                1.58
                      Maintenance
     SEA – 12                         Pier-Side Cranes                        1.08
                      Munitions
     SEA – 17                          Magazine Capacity                      0.40
                      Storage
     SEA – 18         Staff Facilities Building Capacity                      0.29

                               TOTAL DEFICIT                          22.43
                               CVN PIER ADJUSTMENT                    -4.15
                               ADJUSTED DEFICIT                       18.28


As tabulated above, SUBASE New London failed to receive more than 22 points (22
percent of the total Military Value Points available) that were allocated for Piers, Ship
Maintenance, Munitions Storage and Staff support. Even after adjusting for the 4.15
points for CVN (nuclear powered aircraft carrier) berthing that are considered
unachievable in New London Harbor, more than 18 points remain available, with the
large majority (more than 13 points) directly associated with Piers. If SUBASE New
London had received only half of these points (Adequate Piers, Modern Piers, and
Internet Capable Piers) during BRAC 2005, its Military Value Ranking would have been
9th versus 12th. With 2.3 additional points, SUBASE New London would have tied
SUBASE San Diego in 7th place.

Rationale

As presented above, enhancing the Operational Infrastructure at SUBASE New London
will provide the most significant improvement in Military Value as calculated by the
Department of the Navy in three rounds of BRAC. Based upon projected Force
Structure and pending redeployment from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, seven new
piers (including the new Pier 6 that is under construction) are required. Each new pier


                                                                                       15
must conform to current Department of the Navy specifications. This involves complete
demolition of the existing structure and construction of a state-of-the-art 67-foot-wide by
500-foot-long general-purpose berthing pier, including complete replacement of pier
utility systems. Such a structure should also be configured to accommodate combatants
other than fast attack nuclear submarines (SSNs). From a planning and scheduling
perspective, Pier 31 is proposed as the next in a series of waterfront infrastructure
improvements to SUBASE New London.

Resources Required

   1. Funding: Approximately $32 million
   2. Funding Sources: Department of Defense Military Construction (MILCON) is
       the normal source of pier construction financing. Priorities within the Department
       of the Navy for Operational Infrastructure investments at other locations result in
       Pier MILCON for SUBASE New London being slipped well into the future. The
       state of Connecticut should consider creating an infrastructure financing
       partnership with the Department of the Navy containing the following
       characteristics:
           a. Establish the Connecticut Military Value Enhancement Fund specifically
                      for infrastructure improvements that will increase the Military Value
                      of SUBASE New London.
           b. For a period of three to five years, deposit into the fund sufficient monies
                      for the construction of at least one new pier at SUBASE New
                      London.
           c. Negotiate with the Department of the Navy a 15-year lease for each new
                      pier built and funded by the Connecticut Military Value
                      Enhancement Fund, including the following terms and conditions:
                     (1) Annual payments to recover all construction costs within 15
                          years.
                     (2) Pier ownership to transfer to the Department of the Navy at the
                          end of the lease.
                     (3) Full recovery of all pier construction costs should the
                          Department of the Navy cease operations at the pier prior to the
                          end of the lease.
           d. Recapitalize and self sustain the Connecticut Military Value Enhancement
                      Fund with all lease revenues as a revolving lease fund and apply
                      these monies to additional Military Value enhancements at
                      SUBASE New London per the above terms and conditions, then
                      return the balance to the General Fund.
   3. In-Kind Contributions: N/A
   4. Other:
Permits: Pier demolition and construction will involve compliance with applicable
environmental rules and regulations, and may require some dredging. Expedited
processing by appropriate state and federal agencies is desirable.




                                                                                         16
Expected Outcomes

The BRAC 2005 Military Value Point Deficit for Operational Infrastructure in the
category of Piers is between 13 and 14 points. With seven piers the current operational
goal, each new pier adds, on average, about two points to the Military Value score of
SUBASE New London. Therefore the expected outcome of replacing Pier 31 is moving
SUBASE New London from 12th to 11th position on the BRAC 2005 rankings.




                                                                                      17
Defense/Homeland Security Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #2

Replace Pier 32 at U.S. Naval Submarine Base New London
Summary Description

Improve the Operational Infrastructure and enhance the Military Value of the U.S. Naval
Submarine Base (SUBASE) New London by demolishing the old, deteriorated Pier 32
and replacing it with a new, modern, general-purpose ship-berthing pier that is
constructed to current U.S. Navy specifications and standards.

Background/Context

Since 1993, the weakest category in the Department of the Navy calculation of the
Military Value of SUBASE New London has consistently been Operational
Infrastructure. Within their standard 100-point scoring system, Operational Infrastructure
received the largest percentage of points (between 39 percent and 49 percent), with
SUBASE New London being credited, on average, with only 31 percent of the points
available.

               CATEGORY            BRAC 1993 BRAC 1995 BRAC 2005
               Points Available       48        47        39
               Points Received        13        17        12
               Percentage Received    27        36        31
               POINT DEFICIT          35        30        27

     Table 1. SUBASE New London Operational Infrastructure Point Scores


As further highlighted in the above table, during three rounds of Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) spanning 13 years, SUBASE New London lost between 27 and 35
points (the equivalent of 27 percent to 35 percent) in the highest-valued category,
Operational Infrastructure.

The components of Operational Infrastructure include facilities that support Ship
Berthing (Piers), Ship Maintenance and Repair, Ammunition Storage and Staff. In each
round of BRAC, the Department of the Navy utilized questions to evaluate a facility’s
infrastructure in general categories and determined a corresponding point score. Where
SUBASE New London was awarded less than 50 percent of the available points, a point
deficit is considered to have occurred, and an opportunity exists to significantly enhance
Military Value. Accordingly, Table 2 presents information used to support closure of
SUBASE New London in BRAC 2005.




                                                                                         18
                                             Table 2

                BRAC 2005 – OPERATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE
                   MILITARY VALUE POINT DEFICIT (≥ 50 percent)

     QUESTION
                      CATEGORY INFRASTRUCTURE ITEM                            POINT DEFICIT
     NUMBER
     SEA – 1                          Multiple Combatant Piers                2.92
     SEA - 2                          Cold Iron CVN Piers                     4.15
     SEA – 3                          SSBN Homeport piers (plus weapons) 4.15
                      Ship Berthing
     SEA – 4                          Adequate Piers                          3.52
     SEA – 5                          Modern Piers                            1.50
     SEA – 6                          Internet Capable Piers                  1.28
     SEA – 7                          IMA Capacity                            1.56
                      Ship
     SEA – 8                          Drydocks                                1.58
                      Maintenance
     SEA – 12                         Pier-Side Cranes                        1.08
                      Munitions
     SEA – 17                          Magazine Capacity                      0.40
                      Storage
     SEA – 18         Staff Facilities Building Capacity                      0.29

                               TOTAL DEFICIT                          22.43
                               CVN PIER ADJUSTMENT                    -4.15
                               ADJUSTED DEFICIT                       18.28

As tabulated above, SUBASE New London failed to receive more than 22 points (22
percent of the total Military Value Points available) that were allocated for Piers, Ship
Maintenance, Munitions Storage and Staff support. Even after adjusting for the 4.15
points for CVN (nuclear powered aircraft carrier) berthing that are considered
unachievable in New London Harbor, more than 18 points remain available, with the
large majority (more than 13 points) directly associated with Piers. If SUBASE New
London had received only half of these points (Adequate Piers, Modern Piers, and
Internet Capable Piers) during BRAC 2005, its Military Value Ranking would have been
9th versus 12th. With 2.3 additional points, SUBASE New London would have tied
SUBASE San Diego in 7th place.

Rationale

As presented above, enhancing the Operational Infrastructure at SUBASE New London
will provide the most significant improvement in Military Value as calculated by the
Department of the Navy in three rounds of BRAC. Based upon projected Force
Structure and pending redeployment from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, seven new
piers (including the new Pier 6 that is under construction) are required. Each new pier
must conform to current Department of


                                                                                       19
the Navy specifications. This involves complete demolition of the existing structure and
construction of a state-of-the-art 67-foot-wide by 500-foot-long general-purpose berthing
pier, including complete replacement of pier utility systems. Such a structure should also
be configured to accommodate combatants other than fast attack nuclear submarines
(SSNs). From a planning and scheduling perspective, Pier 32 is proposed as the third in a
series of waterfront infrastructure improvements to SUBASE New London.

Resources Required

   1. Funding: Approximately $32 million
   2. Funding Sources: Department of Defense Military Construction (MILCON) is
      the normal source of pier construction financing. Priorities within the Department
      of the Navy for Operational Infrastructure investments at other locations result in
      Pier MILCON for SUBASE New London being slipped well into the future. The
      state of Connecticut should consider creating an infrastructure financing
      partnership with the Department of the Navy with the following characteristics:
          a. Establish the Connecticut Military Value Enhancement Fund specifically
                    for infrastructure improvements that will increase the Military Value
                    of SUBASE New London.
          b. For a period of three to five years, deposit into the fund sufficient monies
                    for the construction of at least one new pier at SUBASE New
                    London.
          c. Negotiate with the Department of the Navy a 15-year lease for each new
                    pier built and funded by the Connecticut Military Value
                    Enhancement Fund, including the following terms and conditions:
                   (1) Annual payments to recover all construction costs within 15
                        years.
                   (2) Pier ownership to transfer to the Department of the Navy at the
                        end of the lease.
                   (3) Full recovery of all pier construction costs should the
                        Department of the Navy cease operations at the pier prior to the
                        end of the lease.
          d. Recapitalize and self-sustain the Connecticut Military Value Enhancement
                    Fund with all lease revenues as a revolving lease fund and apply
                    these monies to additional Military Value enhancements at
                    SUBASE New London per the above terms and conditions, then
                    return the balance to the General Fund.
   3. In-Kind Contributions: N/A
   4. Other: Permits: Pier demolition and construction will involve compliance with
      applicable environmental rules and regulations and may require some dredging.
      Expedited processing by appropriate state and federal agencies is desirable.




                                                                                       20
Expected Outcomes

The BRAC 2005 Military Value Point Deficit for Operational Infrastructure in the
category of Piers is between 13 and 14 points. With seven piers the current operational
goal, each new pier adds, on average, about two points to the Military Value score of
SUBASE New London. Therefore the expected outcome of replacing Pier 32 (in
addition to Piers 6 and 31) is moving SUBASE New London from 12th to 9th position on
the BRAC 2005 rankings.




                                                                                      21
Defense/Homeland Security Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #3

Replace Pier 33 at U.S. Naval Submarine Base New London
Summary Description

Improve the Operational Infrastructure and enhance the Military Value of the U.S. Naval
Submarine Base (SUBASE) New London by demolishing the old, deteriorated Pier 33
and replacing it with a new, modern, general-purpose ship-berthing pier that is
constructed to current U.S. Navy specifications and standards.

Background/Context

Since 1993, the weakest category in the Department of the Navy calculation of the
Military Value of SUBASE New London has consistently been Operational
Infrastructure. Within their standard 100-point scoring system, Operational Infrastructure
received the largest percentage of points (between 39 percent and 49 percent), with
SUBASE New London being credited, on average, with only 31 percent of the points
available.

               CATEGORY            BRAC 1993 BRAC 1995 BRAC 2005
               Points Available       48        47        39
               Points Received        13        17        12
               Percentage Received    27        36        31
               POINT DEFICIT          35        30        27

     Table 1. SUBASE New London Operational Infrastructure Point Scores


As further highlighted in the above table, during three rounds of Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) spanning 13 years, SUBASE New London lost between 27 and 35
points (the equivalent of 27 percent to 35 percent) in the highest-valued category,
Operational Infrastructure.

The components of Operational Infrastructure include facilities that support Ship
Berthing (Piers), Ship Maintenance and Repair, Ammunition Storage and Staff. In each
round of BRAC, the Department of the Navy utilized questions to evaluate a facility’s
infrastructure in general categories and determined a corresponding point score. Where
SUBASE New London was awarded less than 50 percent of the available points, a point
deficit is considered to have occurred, and an opportunity exists to significantly enhance
Military Value. Accordingly, Table 2 presents information used to support closure of
SUBASE New London in BRAC 2005.




                                                                                         22
                                            Table 2

BRAC 2005 – OPERATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE
       MILITARY VALUE POINT DEFICIT (≥ 50 percent)

     QUESTION
                      CATEGORY INFRASTRUCTURE ITEM                            POINT DEFICIT
     NUMBER
     SEA – 1                          Multiple Combatant Piers                2.92
     SEA - 2                          Cold Iron CVN Piers                     4.15
     SEA – 3                          SSBN Homeport piers (plus weapons) 4.15
                      Ship Berthing
     SEA – 4                          Adequate Piers                          3.52
     SEA – 5                          Modern Piers                            1.50
     SEA – 6                          Internet Capable Piers                  1.28
     SEA – 7                          IMA Capacity                            1.56
                      Ship
     SEA – 8                          Drydocks                                1.58
                      Maintenance
     SEA – 12                         Pier-Side Cranes                        1.08
                      Munitions
     SEA – 17                          Magazine Capacity                      0.40
                      Storage
     SEA – 18         Staff Facilities Building Capacity                      0.29

                               TOTAL DEFICIT                          22.43
                               CVN PIER ADJUSTMENT                    -4.15
                               ADJUSTED DEFICIT                       18.28

As tabulated above, SUBASE New London failed to receive more than 22 points (22
percent of the total Military Value Points available) that were allocated for Piers, Ship
Maintenance, Munitions Storage and Staff support. Even after adjusting for the 4.15
points for CVN (nuclear powered aircraft carrier) berthing that are considered
unachievable in New London Harbor, more than 18 points remain available, with the
large majority (more than 13 points) directly associated with Piers. If SUBASE New
London had received only half of these points (Adequate Piers, Modern Piers, and
Internet Capable Piers) during BRAC 2005, its Military Value Ranking would have been
9th versus 12th. With 2.3 additional points, SUBASE New London would have tied
SUBASE San Diego in 7th place.

Rationale

As presented above, enhancing the Operational Infrastructure at SUBASE New London
will provide the most significant improvement in Military Value as calculated by the
Department of the Navy in three rounds of BRAC. Based upon projected Force
Structure and pending redeployment from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, seven new
piers (including the new Pier 6 that is under construction) are required. Each new pier
must conform to current Department of the Navy specifications. This involves complete


                                                                                       23
demolition of the existing structure and construction of a state-of-the-art 67-foot-wide by
500-foot-long general-purpose berthing pier, including complete replacement of pier
utility systems. Such a structure should also be configured to accommodate combatants
other than fast attack nuclear submarines (SSNs). From a planning and scheduling
perspective, Pier 33 is proposed as the fourth in a series of waterfront infrastructure
improvements to SUBASE New London.


Resources Required

   1. Funding: Approximately $32 Million
   2. Funding Sources: Department of Defense Military Construction (MILCON) is
      the normal source of pier construction financing. Priorities within the Department
      of the Navy for Operational Infrastructure investments at other locations result in
      Pier MILCON for SUBASE New London being slipped well into the future. The
      state of Connecticut should consider creating an infrastructure financing
      partnership with the Department of the Navy with the following characteristics:
          a. Establish the Connecticut Military Value Enhancement Fund specifically
              for infrastructure improvements that will increase the Military Value of
              SUBASE New London.
          b. For a period of three to five years, deposit into the fund sufficient monies
              for the construction of at least one new pier at SUBASE New London.
          c. Negotiate with the Department of the Navy a 15-year lease for each new
              pier built and funded by the Connecticut Military Value Enhancement
              Fund, including the following terms and conditions:
                   i. Annual payments to recover all construction costs within 15 years
                  ii. Pier ownership to transfer to the Department of the Navy at the end
                      of the lease
                 iii. Full recovery of all pier construction costs should the Department
                      of the Navy cease operations at the pier prior to the end of the lease
          d. Recapitalize and self-sustain the Connecticut Military Value Enhancement
              Fund with all lease revenues as a revolving lease fund and apply these
              monies to additional Military Value enhancements at SUBASE New
              London per the above terms and conditions then return the balance to the
              General Fund.
   3. In-Kind Contributions: N/A
   4. Other: Permits: Pier demolition and construction will involve compliance with
      applicable environmental rules and regulations, and may require some dredging.
      Expedited processing by appropriate state and federal agencies is desirable.




                                                                                         24
Expected Outcomes

The BRAC 2005 Military Value Point Deficit for Operational Infrastructure in the
category of Piers is between 13 and 14 points. With seven piers the current operational
goal, each new pier adds, on average, about two points to the Military Value score of
SUBASE New London. Therefore the expected outcome of replacing Pier 33 (in
addition to Piers 6, 31 and 32) is moving SUBASE New London from 12th to 8th position
on the BRAC 2005 rankings.




                                                                                     25
Defense/Homeland Security Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #4

Sub Base Expansion on Crystal Lake Road
Summary Description

Improve the Operational Infrastructure and Enhance the Military Value of the U.S. Naval
Submarine Base (SUBASE) New London by acquiring up to eight privately owned
parcels south of Crystal Lake Road and west of Route 12, consisting of approximately 48
acres. Acquisition of one or more of these parcels will provide off-base sites for the
relocation of non-high-security facilities and thereby provide on-base capacity for
expansion of mission-essential facilities. In addition, acquisition of these parcels would
allow for future enhancements to Crystal Lake Road, which serves as the main entry to
the SUBASE; allow for the relocation of the northern end of Military Highway, thereby
making available additional land for the Submarine Force Museum facility; and make
available additional land for needed pedestrian access improvements along Route 12 and
Crystal Lake Road.

Background/Context

Since 1993, one of the weakest categories in the Department of the Navy calculation of
the Military Value of SUBASE New London has consistently been Environment and
Encroachment. Within their standard 100-point scoring system, Environment and
Encroachment received the second-highest percentage of points (between 19 percent and
28 percent), with SUBASE New London being credited, on average, with only 27 percent
of the points available.

              CATEGORY            BRAC 1993 BRAC 1995 BRAC 2005
              Points Available       28        21        19
              Points Received         7         5         6
              Percentage Received    25        24        32
              POINT DEFICIT          21        16        13

       Table 1. SUBASE New London Environment and Encroachment Point Scores

As further highlighted in the above table, during three rounds of Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) spanning 13 years, SUBASE New London lost between 13 and 21
points (the equivalent of 13 percent to 21 percent) in the second-highest-valued category,
Environment and Encroachment.




                                                                                        26
The components of Environment and Encroachment include facilities that support waste
disposal and air quality, dredging and land constraints. In each round of BRAC, the
Department of the Navy utilized questions to evaluate a facility’s Environment and
Encroachment in general categories and determined a corresponding point score. Where
SUBASE New London was awarded less than 50 percent of the available points, a point
deficit is considered to have occurred, and an opportunity exists to significantly enhance
Military Value. Accordingly, Table 2 presents information used to support closure of
SUBASE New London in BRAC 2005.

       Table 2. BRAC 2005 Environment/Encroachment Military Value Point Deficit (≥
       50 percent)

           QUESTION                          INFRASTRUCTURE
                             CATEGORY                                    POINT DEFICIT
           NUMBER                            ITEM
                             Harbor
           ENV – 1                           Dredging                    0.57
                             Characteristics
           ENV -- 2          Property        Land Constraints            1.51
           ENV – 5           Facilities      Waste Disposal              0.40
                       Emission
           ENV – 8                           Air Quality                 0.54
                       Control
           TOTAL DEFICIT                                                 3.02

As tabulated above, of the more than three points available, the majority (1.51 points) are
associated with property or land constraints. If SUBASE New London had received all of
the points associated with Land Constraints or only half of the Total Deficit points
available in this category during BRAC 2005, its Military Value Ranking would have
been 11th versus 12th, ahead of Naval Station Everett.

Acquisition of properties south of Crystal Lake Road could add up to 48 acres of land to
the base for non-high-security facilities. It is anticipated that Crystal Lake Road will
continue to serve as the main access point to the base and that acquisition of these
properties would not fall within the Sub Base security fence line. Acquisition of one or
more of these properties would allow for the relocation of non-high-security facilities
from the Sub Base, thereby freeing up secure locations for other needs and missions. The
possibility of relocating the Exchange/Commissary has been discussed. Most recently, it
has been learned that an upgrade to the Exchange/Commissary is scheduled for 2009,
with an anticipated budget of $15 million to $16 million. Relocation of this facility off
the base would free up valuable property at the southern end of the base. In addition, the
possibility of relocating on-base recreational and entertainment facilities, along with
attracting, possibly through a private-public venture, other recreational and entertainment
facilities, has been supported by the last two base commanders.




                                                                                         27
In addition to making land area available for non-high-security facilities, acquisition of
these parcels would allow for the future expansion/improvement to Crystal Lake Road.
Crystal Lake Road is currently a four-lane road that is in need of reconstruction and does
not provide for proper geometric conditions with respect to lane width, stacking
capability at the intersection of Route 12 and Crystal Lake Road, and alignment and
stacking needs at the main gate. In addition, enhanced pedestrian improvements are
sorely needed along Crystal Lake Road and the northern end of Route 12.

Finally, the acquisition of these parcels would allow for the potential realignment of
Military Highway and Crystal Lake Road so as to facilitate better traffic flow
approaching the main gate. These improvements would greatly enhance the safety
associated with this intersection. In addition, the reconstruction of this intersection would
provide an additional benefit with respect to setting aside additional acreage that could be
used to support the mission of the U.S. Submarine Force Museum.

Attachment 1 is the table that identifies the eight parcels totaling 48.18 acres, which are
located south of Crystal Lake Road and west of Route 12. These parcels range in size
from .47 acres to 18.75 acres. Six of the parcels have direct frontage on Crystal Lake
Road and would provide the most amount of utility to the sub base. The other two
parcels, although desirable, are less essential. At a minimum, it is recommended that the
Fusconi, Waukela, Up Periscope, Crystal Lakes LLC and WWR Crystal Lake LLC
parcels be acquired. As depicted on Attachment 2 entitled Crystal Lake Road Properties,
the topography of this area is quite challenging. It is estimated that of the 48.18 acres of
land, approximately one-third of the land is readily suitable for development, with
another third requiring moderate to significant site work. Due to the steep grades, a
portion of these parcels would provide appropriate buffer area to the surrounding
residential area known as Bailey Hill.

Rationale

Enhancing the opportunity for relocation of non-high-security facilities off of the Sub
Base would greatly enhance the probability of the base maintaining and attracting
essential facilities and operations. During the last three BRAC rounds, the base received
low scores with respect to its ability to undertake additional missions and support existing
missions as a result of enhanced non-encroachment criteria. Acquisition of some or all of
the parcels south of Crystal Lake Road would greatly enhance the base’s ability to
relocate non-high-security facilities, thereby freeing up valuable space within the sub
base property. In addition, acquisition of these properties would allow for needed road
and pedestrian enhancements, and would provide the potential for additional expansion of
the U.S. Submarine Museum facility. Acquisition of these properties presents the only
opportunity for the logical expansion of the Sub Base footprint, since it is surrounded by
Route 12 to the east, the Thames River to the west and a residential area to the north.
Over time, if not acquired to support the mission of the Sub Base, it is anticipated that
these parcels would be developed for private purposes, including commercial and
residential uses. Development of these parcels for private use would in all likelihood




                                                                                          28
raise potential security concerns and compromise access to the base as a result of
conflicting traffic patterns.


Resources Required

   1. Groton is in the process of undertaking a revaluation as of Oct. 1, 2006. The
      10/1/05 100 percent assessed value of these eight parcels is $2,787,230. The
      potential acquisition costs of these eight parcels is estimated to be $4.5 million to
      $5 million.
   2. Funding Sources: It is proposed that acquisition of one or more of these parcels be
      undertaken as a result of state funding being made available to further enhance
      Sub Base Groton. Improvements to the parcels would be undertaken as a result of
      Department of Defense military construction (MILCON) and/or other sources.
      As noted above, recent discussions indicate that renovation/reconstruction of the
      existing Exchange/Commissary facility is tentatively scheduled for FYE 2009.
      The estimated budget for that project is $15 million to $16 million.
   3. In-Kind Contributions: The possibility of acquiring one or more of these
      properties as a result of total and/or partial donations needs to be explored. The
      Department of Economic and Community Development has provided funding for
      the remediation activities associated with the Fusconi site. In addition, significant
      state and Connecticut Housing Finance Authority funding has been provided to
      the Up Periscope Limited Partnership for the purposes of constructing residential
      development of approximately 80 units. The status of both of these investments
      will need to be explored further.

Expected Outcomes

Acquisition of one or more of these properties would greatly enhance the Military Value
of the U.S. Submarine Base by providing alternative locations for non-high-security
facilities and activities. The possibility of relocating the Exchange/Commissary, the
Small Arms Firearms facility and a multitude of recreational and entertainment facilities
to this area would greatly enhance the opportunities for additional missions/security
facilities on the Submarine Base proper.




                                                                                        29
30
Defense/Homeland Security Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #5

Replace Submarine Operations Center Building
Summary Description

Improve the Operational Infrastructure and enhance the Military Value of the U.S. Naval
Submarine Base (SUBASE) New London by demolishing old, deteriorated Building 439
and replacing it with a new, modern Submarine Operations Center.

Background/Context

Since 1993, the weakest category in the Department of the Navy calculation of the
Military Value of SUBASE New London has consistently been Operational
Infrastructure. Within their standard 100-point scoring system, Operational Infrastructure
received the largest percentage of points (between 39 percent and 49 percent), with
SUBASE New London being credited, on average, with only 31 percent of the points
available.

               CATEGORY            BRAC 1993 BRAC 1995 BRAC 2005
               Points Available       48        47        39
               Points Received        13        17        12
               Percentage Received    27        36        31
               POINT DEFICIT          35        30        27

     Table 1. SUBASE New London Operational Infrastructure Point Scores


As further highlighted in the above table, during three rounds of Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) spanning 13 years, SUBASE New London lost between 27 and 35
points (the equivalent of 27 percent to 35 percent) in the highest-valued category,
Operational Infrastructure.

The components of Operational Infrastructure include facilities that support Ship
Berthing (Piers), Ship Maintenance and Repair, Ammunition Storage and Staff. In each
round of BRAC, the Department of the Navy utilized questions to evaluate a facility’s
infrastructure in general categories and determined a corresponding point score. Where
SUBASE New London was awarded less than 50 percent of the available points, a point
deficit is considered to have occurred, and an opportunity exists to significantly enhance
Military Value. Accordingly, Table 2 presents information used to support closure of
SUBASE New London in BRAC 2005.




                                                                                         31
                                              Table 2

BRAC 2005 – OPERATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE
       MILITARY VALUE POINT DEFICIT (≥ 50 percent)

     QUESTION
                       CATEGORY INFRASTRUCTURE ITEM                             POINT DEFICIT
     NUMBER
     SEA – 1                           Multiple Combatant Piers                 2.92
     SEA - 2                           Cold Iron CVN Piers                      4.15
     SEA – 3                           SSBN Homeport piers (plus weapons) 4.15
                       Ship Berthing
     SEA – 4                           Adequate Piers                           3.52
     SEA – 5                           Modern Piers                             1.50
     SEA – 6                           Internet Capable Piers                   1.28
     SEA – 7                           IMA Capacity                             1.56
                       Ship
     SEA – 8                           Drydocks                                 1.58
                       Maintenance
     SEA – 12                          Pier-Side Cranes                         1.08
                       Munitions
     SEA – 17                           Magazine Capacity                       0.40
                       Storage
     SEA – 18          Staff Facilities Building Capacity                       0.29

                                TOTAL DEFICIT                           22.43
                                CVN PIER ADJUSTMENT                     -4.15
                                ADJUSTED DEFICIT                        18.28


As tabulated above, SUBASE New London failed to receive more than 22 points (22
percent of the total Military Value Points available) that were allocated for Piers, Ship
Maintenance, Munitions Storage and Staff support. Even after adjusting for the 4.15
points for CVN (nuclear powered aircraft carrier) berthing that are considered
unachievable in New London Harbor, more than 18 points remain available, with the
0.29 points associated with Operational Staff Facilities (Total points Available: 0.48). If
SUBASE New London had received all of these Staff Facilities points during BRAC
2005, its Military Value Ranking would have been 11th versus 12th, overtaking Naval
Station Everett in the rankings.

Rationale

As presented above, enhancing the Operational Infrastructure at SUBASE New London
will provide the most significant improvement in Military Value as calculated by the
Department of the Navy in three rounds of BRAC. Building 439 is an aging, outmoded
structure that is the regional command and control headquarters for naval operations of
all assigned fast attack nuclear submarines and other vessels. Replacing it with a modern,




                                                                                         32
state-of-the-art facility will not only significantly enhance Operational Infrastructure, but
will create a command and control facility that is unique in the Navy Northeast Region.

Resources Required

   1. Funding: Estimated at $10 million to $15 million
   2. Funding Sources: Construction:
           Department of Defense: This project is a current SUBASE MILCON
             request list.
           Department of Homeland Security: Since the new facility would also
             continue to support command and control activities in Navy Region
             Northeast, collocation of a Regional Homeland Security Regional
             Headquarters may be a possibility, though no funds are known to be
             currently available.
           State of Connecticut: Pending co-location support from the Department of
             Homeland Security, the Connecticut Department of Emergency
             Management and Homeland Security is considered another candidate
             tenant.
   3. In-Kind Contributions: N/A
   4. Other: Building demolition and construction will involve compliance with
      applicable environmental rules and regulations. Some permitting may be
      required. Expedited processing by appropriate state and federal agencies is
      desirable.

Expected Outcomes

The BRAC 2005 Military Value Point Deficit for Staff Facilities-Building Capacity was
0.29 points. With an updated and more efficient facility, it is expected that this deficit
would be eliminated, moving the SUBASE up in the Military Value ranking of
operational Naval Facilities.




                                                                                           33
Defense/Homeland Security Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #6

Renovate Graving Docks 1 and 2 at Electric Boat’s Groton
Shipyard
Summary Description

Upgrading and modernizing Electric Boat’s (EB’s) graving docks on the Thames River in
Groton is an investment in the future of the submarine infrastructure in Southeastern
Connecticut. The graving docks are a critical asset in the construction, overhaul and
maintenance of nuclear submarines. This upgrade will extend their useful lives up to 50
years and will help ensure that this type of work is performed in Connecticut. Moreover,
this state-of- the-art facility will help reduce cost in the construction, maintenance and
overhaul of submarines.

Background/Context

Since 1993, the weakest category in the Department of the Navy calculation of the
Military Value of SUBASE New London has consistently been Operational
Infrastructure. Within their standard 100-point scoring system, Operational Infrastructure
received the largest percentage of points (between 39 percent and 49 percent), with
SUBASE New London being credited, on average, with only 31 percent of the points
available.

               CATEGORY            BRAC 1993 BRAC 1995 BRAC 2005
               Points Available       48        47        39
               Points Received        13        17        12
               Percentage Received    27        36        31
               POINT DEFICIT          35        30        27

     Table 1. SUBASE New London Operational Infrastructure Point Scores

As further highlighted in the above table, during three rounds of Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) spanning 13 years, SUBASE New London lost between 27 and 35
points (the equivalent of 27 percent to 35 percent) in the highest-valued category,
Operational Infrastructure.

The components of Operational Infrastructure include facilities that support Ship
Berthing (Piers), Ship Maintenance and Repair, Ammunition Storage and Staff. In each
round of BRAC, the Department of the Navy utilized questions to evaluate a facility’s
infrastructure in general categories and determined a corresponding point score. Where
SUBASE New London was awarded less than 50 percent of the available points, a point
deficit is considered to have occurred, and an opportunity exists to significantly enhance



                                                                                         34
Military Value. Accordingly, Table 2 presents information used to support closure of
SUBASE New London in BRAC 2005.
                                            Table 2

       BRAC 2005 – OPERATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE
               MILITARY VALUE POINT DEFICIT (≥ 50 percent)


                                                                                  POINT
QUESTION NUMBER CATEGORY                     INFRASTRUCTURE ITEM
                                                                                  DEFICIT
SEA – 1                                     Multiple Combatant Piers              2.92
SEA - 2                                     Cold Iron CVN Piers                   4.15
                                            SSBN Homeport piers (plus
SEA – 3                                                                           4.15
                          Ship Berthing     weapons)
SEA – 4                                     Adequate Piers                        3.52
SEA – 5                                     Modern Piers                          1.50
SEA – 6                                     Internet Capable Piers                1.28
SEA – 7                                     IMA Capacity                          1.56
SEA – 8                   Ship Maintenance Drydocks                               1.58
SEA – 12                                    Pier-Side Cranes                      1.08
SEA – 17                  Munitions Storage Magazine Capacity                     0.40
SEA – 18                  Staff Facilities  Building Capacity                     0.29
                                             TOTAL DEFICIT                       22.43
                                             CVN PIER ADJUSTMENT                 -4.15
                                             ADJUSTED DEFICIT                    18.28


As tabulated above, SUBASE New London failed to receive more than 22 points (22
percent of the total Military Value Points available) that were allocated for Piers, Ship
Maintenance, Munitions Storage and Staff support. Even after adjusting for the 4.15
points for CVN (nuclear powered aircraft carrier) berthing that are considered
unachievable in New London Harbor, more than 18 points remain available, with 1.58
points associated with drydocks (primarily graving docks). If SUBASE New London had
received full credit for all graving docks during BRAC 2005, its Military Value Ranking
would have been 11th versus 12th, overtaking Naval Station Everett in the rankings.

Additionally, other scenarios considered by the Navy during its BRAC 2005 analysis
showed the USS Shippingport (floating dry dock at SUBBASE NLON) being towed to
Norfolk. Investment in permanent dry docks in Connecticut may lower that risk.




                                                                                         35
Rationale

By enhancing Southeastern Connecticut’s submarine Operational Infrastructure,
SUBASE NLON will score higher in the next round of BRAC. With the improvements
to Graving Docks 1 and 2, SUBASE NLON will have ample facilities available to
perform maintenance and modernization on submarines home ported at SUBASE New
London. This arrangement will enhance Strategic Operations by:

   Providing the Navy with the ability to conduct emergent, short-term, repair work in a
    responsive manner
   Increasing deployment flexibility, while minimizing operational days lost
   Enhancing the sailors’ quality of life by performing repair work locally and
    maximizing time with their families

Resources Required

    1. Funding: Approximately $65 million
    2. Funding Sources: $20 million has been committed by the state of Connecticut, as
       follows:
           a. $10 million in loans from the state Department of Economic and
              Community Development,
           b. up to $4 million in sales and use-tax exemptions from the Connecticut
              Development Authority,
           c. $6 million in enterprise zone benefits.
       The balance of the project funding will be split between the U.S. Navy and
       General Dynamics Corp.
    3. In-Kind Contributions: N/A
    4. Other: Permits: Graving dock demolition and construction will involve
       compliance with applicable environmental rules and regulations. Expedited
       processing by appropriate state and federal agencies is desirable.

Expected Outcomes

The reconstruction of Graving Docks 1 and 2 (expected to be completed in two years)
will augment other EB investments in its waterfront. This will make Groton more
valuable both as a submarine homeport and as a maintenance shipyard for the Navy.
These improvements enhance the synergy between Electric Boat and SUBASE New
London and further exhibit the submarine basing, design, construction and maintenance
capabilities that constitute a center of excellence for the Navy in this region. It also
bolsters EB’s position in the competitive submarine overhaul and repair business,
protecting jobs in that line of work.

Lastly, it helps lower the construction cost of each ship. The U.S. Navy’s chief of naval
operation, Admiral Michael Mullen, has stated that in order to get to a procurement rate
of two submarines per year, the cost per ship must be reduced to $2 billion (in 2005




                                                                                        36
dollars). A lower cost results in a higher submarine procurement rate, which directly
correlates to jobs in Southeastern Connecticut.




                                                                                        37
Defense/Homeland Security Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #7

Relocate USCG Research and Development Center to New
London
Summary Description

The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) R&D Center is planning to move to a building at Fort
Trumbull formerly occupied by the Naval Undersea Warfare Center. Movement to a
permanent location in New London will guarantee the retention of this activity within
Connecticut and provide the R&D Center with an improved facility near the USCG
Station New London, the new USCG Museum and waterfront facilities for the barque
Eagle.

Background/Context

The USCG R&D Center is currently located in a building built during World War II and
leased from the University of Connecticut. The university plans to eventually demolish
the building and build dormitories. The R&D Center is currently planning a lease
arrangement with the General Services Administration at the New London
Redevelopment Commission’s Fort Trumbull development area. The benefits of this
relocation are: closer location and interaction with the USCG Academy, co-location with
an operational USCG unit, and the ability to maintain the research relationship with the
University of Connecticut at Avery Point.

As a key activity within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), having the R&D
Center in Southeastern Connecticut is an important federal asset that should enhance the
area’s defense and homeland security capabilities and future Operational Infrastructure
consideration for SUBASE New London. The R&D Center currently maintains a
relationship with several activities at the SUBASE, including the Navy Submarine
Research Center and liaison offices of the Naval Underwater Warfare Center and Naval
Research Laboratory. Coast Guard personnel also use the Commissary, Navy Exchange
and other MWR facilities.

              CATEGORY            BRAC 1993 BRAC 1995 BRAC 2005
              Points Available       48        47        39
              Points Received        13        17        12
              Percentage Received    27        36        31
              POINT DEFICIT          35        30        27

    Table 1. SUBASE New London Operational Infrastructure Point Scores

As highlighted in the above table, during three rounds of Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) spanning 13 years, SUBASE New London lost between 27 and 35 points (the


                                                                                        38
equivalent of 27 percent to 35 percent) in the highest-valued category, Operational
Infrastructure.

The USCG R&D Center is the primary maritime technology development activity within
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It has several important projects under
way in the areas of port and harbor security and anti-terrorism prevention and response in
cooperation with the Navy and other agencies. This activity represents an important part
of the defense and homeland security infrastructure in the New London area.

It is conceivable that future BRACs will consider regional homeland
security/industrial/operational infrastructure as a component of the evaluation. The
components of Operational Infrastructure include facilities that support defense and
homeland security. In each round of BRAC, the Department of the Navy utilized
questions to evaluate a facility’s infrastructure in general categories and determined a
corresponding point score. Where SUBASE New London was awarded less than 50
percent of the available points, a point deficit is considered to have occurred, and an
opportunity exists to significantly enhance Military Value. Accordingly, Table 2 presents
information used to support closure of SUBASE New London in BRAC 2005.

                                           Table 2

BRAC 2005 – OPERATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE
       MILITARY VALUE POINT DEFICIT (≥ 50 percent)

     QUESTION
                      CATEGORY INFRASTRUCTURE ITEM                            POINT DEFICIT
     NUMBER
     SEA – 1                          Multiple Combatant Piers                2.92
     SEA - 2                          Cold Iron CVN Piers                     4.15
     SEA – 3                          SSBN Homeport piers (plus weapons) 4.15
                      Ship Berthing
     SEA – 4                          Adequate Piers                          3.52
     SEA – 5                          Modern Piers                            1.50
     SEA – 6                          Internet Capable Piers                  1.28
     SEA – 7                          IMA Capacity                            1.56
                      Ship
     SEA – 8                          Drydocks                                1.58
                      Maintenance
     SEA – 12                         Pier-Side Cranes                        1.08
                      Munitions
     SEA – 17                          Magazine Capacity                      0.40
                      Storage
     SEA – 18         Staff Facilities Building Capacity                      0.29

                                TOTAL DEFICIT                         22.43
                                CVN PIER ADJUSTMENT                   -4.15
                                ADJUSTED DEFICIT                      18.28




                                                                                       39
As tabulated above, SUBASE New London failed to receive more than 22 points (22
percent of the total Military Value Points available) that were allocated for Piers, Ship
Maintenance, Munitions Storage and Staff support.

Rationale

As presented above, enhancing the Operational Infrastructure of the New London area by
retaining the R&D Center will provide significant improvement in Military Value as
calculated by the Department of the Navy in three rounds of BRAC.

Resources Required

   1. Funding: Approximately $17.8 million FY06 DHS appropriated funds
   2. Funding Sources: The Department of Homeland Security will provide funding
      for lease on a continuing basis. The state of Connecticut should consider creating
      an infrastructure financing partnership with the DHS, not unlike recent
      arrangements with private corporations to retain/create skilled employment.
   3. In-Kind Contributions: The Connecticut Department of Economic Development
      is actively involved in the negotiations for relocation.
   4. Other: Permits: Building renovation/construction will involve compliance with
      applicable environmental rules and regulations. Expedited processing by
      appropriate state and federal agencies is desirable.




                                                                                            40
Defense/Homeland Security Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #8

Regional Force Protection Training Facility
Summary Description

Construct a 25-lane indoor firing range facility to include training space, seven simulated
marksmanship training simulators, office and other support spaces.

Background/Context

The SUBASE currently has an outdoor firing range that is outdated and insufficient to
keep up with the volume of training requirements for security and military personnel in a
post-9/11 environment. A replacement range for 15 lanes has been requested for Military
Construction (MILCON) in fiscal year 2013. Local law enforcement agencies also have
an increased training requirement, with limited facilities to permit adequate training and
qualification of personnel. A possible location for the training facility has been identified
on base near the ―hospital gate‖ (Gate 5) off Route 12. The Southeastern Connecticut
Council of Governments has already endorsed this concept.

Rationale

Since 1993, one of the weaker categories in the Department of the Navy calculation of
the Military Value of SUBASE New London has consistently been Operational Training.
Within their standard 100-point scoring system, Operational Training received among the
larger percentages of points (between 10 percent and 25 percent), with SUBASE New
London being credited, on average, with only 56 percent of the points available.

               CATEGORY            BRAC 1993 BRAC 1995 BRAC 2005
               Points Available       10        19        25
               Points Received         3        12        17
               Percentage Received    30        71        68
               POINT DEFICIT           7         7         8

      Table 1. SUBASE New London Operational Training Point Scores


As further highlighted in the above table, during three rounds of Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) spanning 13 years, SUBASE New London lost between 7 and 8 points
(the equivalent of 7 percent to 8 percent) in one of the highest-valued categories,
Operational Training.




                                                                                          41
The components of Operational Training include facilities that support various types of
classroom and training device instruction (damage control, shipboard firefighting, ship
handling and ―pipeline‖ training), as well as operational exercises (training ranges and
operating areas). For the first time in BRAC 2005, the Department of the Navy utilized a
question to evaluate a facility’s ability to support small-arm training. Less than a full
point was assigned to this question, and SUBASE New London received full credit. It is
noted, however, that newer, indoor and state-of-the-art facilities have been or are being
constructed at other bases and stations. To maintain its current Military Value in this
critical category, SUBASE New London must construct and operate a similar facility.

In addition, the increased firearm training and qualification requirements for both military
and civilian security and law enforcement personnel have made existing local indoor and
outdoor firing ranges inadequate to keep up with the volume of personnel that must be
trained. A joint military-civilian training facility would benefit both the military and the
local law enforcement community. Location of the range near an existing gate at the
SUBASE would ease the establishment of necessary security to permit both military and
civilian use of the facility.

Resources Required

   1. Funding: Less than $10 million
   2. Funding Sources:
      a. Construction:
      Department of Defense: This project is listed on a current SUBASE MILCON
      request list for FY 2013, and a potential building site near the edge of SUBASE
      New London property has been proposed.
      State of Connecticut: Funding for 10 additional non-Navy lanes is estimated to be
      less than $4 million (assuming federal funding and property is available as noted
      above).
      b. Operations:
      Department of Defense/Municipalities: Cost-sharing agreement in proportion to
      lane assignments (initially, Navy 15 Lanes or 60 percent and municipalities 10
      lanes or 40 percent, proportionally shared based upon individual municipality
      projected/actual usage).
   3. In-Kind Contributions: N/A
   4. Other: Some local permitting may be required for construction.


Expected Outcomes

Small Arm Training Military Value score would be maintained at SUBASE New London
and regional police force and Department of Defense security force training would be
enhanced.




                                                                                         42
Defense/Homeland Security Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #9

Submarine Support Facility Public/Private Repair and
Maintenance Complex
Summary Description

Improve the Operational Infrastructure and enhance the Military Value of the U.S. Naval
Submarine Base (SUBASE) New London by demolishing old, deteriorated Naval
Submarine Support Facility (NSSF) buildings and replacing them with new, modern
submarine repair shops that are located outside the Explosive Safety Quantity Distance
(ESQD) arc and constructed in a public/private partnership with the NSSF prime
contractor.

Background/Context

Since 1993, the weakest category in the Department of the Navy calculation of the
Military Value of SUBASE New London has consistently been Operational
Infrastructure. Within their standard 100-point scoring system, Operational Infrastructure
received the largest percentage of points (between 39 percent and 49 percent), with
SUBASE New London being credited, on average, with only 31 percent of the points
available.

               CATEGORY            BRAC 1993 BRAC 1995 BRAC 2005
               Points Available       48        47        39
               Points Received        13        17        12
               Percentage Received    27        36        31
               POINT DEFICIT          35        30        27

     Table 1. SUBASE New London Operational Infrastructure Point Scores


As further highlighted in the above table, during three rounds of Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) spanning 13 years, SUBASE New London lost between 27 and 35
points (the equivalent of 27 percent to 35 percent) in the highest-valued category,
Operational Infrastructure.

The components of Operational Infrastructure include facilities that support Ship
Berthing (Piers), Ship Maintenance and Repair, Ammunition Storage and Staff. In each
round of BRAC, the Department of the Navy utilized questions to evaluate a facility’s
infrastructure in general categories and determined a corresponding point score. Where
SUBASE New London was awarded less than 50 percent of the available points, a point
deficit is considered to have occurred, and an opportunity exists to significantly enhance



                                                                                         43
Military Value. Accordingly, Table 2 presents information used to support closure of
SUBASE New London in BRAC 2005.
                                          Table 2

BRAC 2005 – OPERATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE
       MILITARY VALUE POINT DEFICIT (≥ 50 percent)

     QUESTION
                       CATEGORY INFRASTRUCTURE ITEM                             POINT DEFICIT
     NUMBER
     SEA – 1                           Multiple Combatant Piers                 2.92
     SEA - 2                           Cold Iron CVN Piers                      4.15
     SEA – 3                           SSBN Homeport piers (plus weapons) 4.15
                       Ship Berthing
     SEA – 4                           Adequate Piers                           3.52
     SEA – 5                           Modern Piers                             1.50
     SEA – 6                           Internet Capable Piers                   1.28
     SEA – 7                           IMA Capacity                             1.56
                       Ship
     SEA – 8                           Drydocks                                 1.58
                       Maintenance
     SEA – 12                          Pier-Side Cranes                         1.08
                       Munitions
     SEA – 17                           Magazine Capacity                       0.40
                       Storage
     SEA – 18          Staff Facilities Building Capacity                       0.29

                                TOTAL DEFICIT                           22.43
                                CVN PIER ADJUSTMENT                     -4.15
                                ADJUSTED DEFICIT                        18.28


As tabulated above, SUBASE New London failed to receive more than 22 points (22
percent of the total Military Value Points available) that were allocated for Piers, Ship
Maintenance, Munitions Storage and Staff support. Even after adjusting for the 4.15
points for CVN (nuclear powered aircraft carrier) berthing that are considered
unachievable in New London Harbor, more than 18 points remain available, with the
1.56 points associated with IMA (Intermediate Maintenance Activity) Capacity at the
NSSF. If SUBASE New London had received only half of these IMA points during
BRAC 2005, its Military Value Ranking would have been 11th versus 12th, overtaking
Naval Station Everett in the rankings.

It is further noted that a mostly private-contractor civilian component directed by a cadre
of military, government civil service, and private-contractor civilian managers currently
performs submarine waterfront maintenance at NSSF. Due to current building
constraints, the maintenance is scattered throughout the SUBASE’s lower base complex.
Consolidation in a central location, preferably outside the ESQD arc, would increase
efficiency and productivity.


                                                                                            44
Rationale

As presented above, enhancing the Operational Infrastructure at SUBASE New London
will provide the most significant improvement in Military Value as calculated by the
Department of the Navy in three rounds of BRAC. Consolidating the NSSF workforce
and the various shops would improve submarine maintenance productivity and make for
more efficient submarine Intermediate Maintenance Activity availabilities. A new facility
would provide for the introduction of the latest maintenance practices and bring the
building up to the latest Occupational and Safety Administration (OSHA) and
environmental requirements. Demolition of the old, out-of-date buildings would
eliminate any noncompliant buildings and provide space for any emerging waterfront
requirements

Resources Required

   1. Funding: Estimate $20 million to $25 million
   2. Funding Sources: Due to the nature of federal and private employment, this
      project could be a combined federal, state, and private-contractor-funded project.
      Nature of this funding would have to be agreed to by negotiations among the
      state, the Department of Navy and the private contractor. Federal and sate
      legislation may be required to bring this project to fruition as a combined funded
      project. In the past, projects of this type on the Submarine Base have been funded
      solely by the federal government’s Facilities Construction (MILCON) funds. As
      the priority of these projects rises on the SUBASE MILCON request list, they are
      likely to be funded again via MILCON. Because the NSSF project is more than
      $20 million, it is a ―heavy lift‖ and will compete with piers. Since private
      contractors and military use these facilitie, it is logical that private-sector
      contractors may be willing to partner in the funding.
   3. In-Kind Contributions: N/A
   4. Other: Building demolition and construction will involve compliance with
      applicable environmental rules and regulations. Some permitting may be
      required. Expedited processing by appropriate state and federal agencies is
      desirable.

Expected Outcomes

The BRAC 2005 Military Value Point Deficit for Ship Maintenance IMA Capacity was
1.56 points. With an updated and more efficient facility, it is expected that this deficit
would be eliminated, moving the SUBASE up in the Military Value ranking of
operational naval facilities.




                                                                                         45
Defense/Homeland Security Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #10

Provide Redundant and Reliable Electrical Energy to the
Naval Submarine Base New London and Southeastern
Connecticut
Summary Description

This proposal will provide the submarine base with a redundant electrical energy supply
through the use of 20 MW of backup generators constructed by Groton Utilities and sited
on the submarine base and the construction by Connecticut Light & Power of 11 miles of
115-kV transmission line extension. Additional infrastructure will be constructed as
appropriate to interface with the current base electrical system.

Background/Context

Since 1993, the weakest category in the Department of the Navy calculation of the
Military Value of SUBASE New London has consistently been Operational
Infrastructure. The submarine base has a single transmission line supplying power to the
base along with an aging backup generation system. Although the system currently has a
high reliability factor, the potential vulnerability to either natural disaster or terrorist
activity makes it prudent to provide multiple sources of power similar to other defense
installations. This is particularly important in an elevated Homeland Security threat
posture on a base that supports 17 nuclear submarines that depend upon receiving
electrical shore power while in port and shut down for maintenance. It should be further
noted that among the questions considered and evaluated by the Department of the Navy
during BRAC 2005 was SEA-41, ―Is the installation supported by an electric or water
utility (government or commercial) that is a single point source (no redundant
capability)?‖

Rationale

The process of providing more robust and secure electrical power to the base puts in
place distributed generation with the potential for providing power during peak loads that
would be available at lower costs to area ratepayers when not in use for backup power to
the base. The transmission line will provide alternate power to the base and be available
for future expansion of the economy of the surrounding region. Phase One of the
transmission solution is envisioned as an advance portion of a long-term phased plan to
support one of the fastest-growing economic regions in the state. This availability of
reliable power from both sources would support the regional economic diversification
necessary if the submarine base were to be subject to closure in a future BRAC round.
However, the primary goal is to make the base less likely to be subject to closure and the
new on-base generation and the modern transmission redundancy would mitigate the
argument that was raised in the 2005 BRAC process that the base has an aging



                                                                                          46
infrastructure. This investment will also assist in preserving the associated Military
Value points credited to SUBASE New London in BRAC 2005.

Resources Required

Backup Generation
In order to provide a redundant and independent power supply to the submarine base, the
immediate solution is the installation of multiple quick-start generation units. The most
cost- effective installation consists of multiple, dual-fuel, combustion turbines. The total
installed generation package will be capable of delivering approximately 20MW during a
100 degree Fahrenheit day.
1. Funding: Approximately $16 million
2. Funding Sources: Groton Utilities intends to secure all required funding. It is
anticipated that available funding from ISO programs and existing state energy
independence act will be utilized. No MILCON money is envisioned to accomplish the
generation solution for redundant power for the base.
3. In-Kind Contributions: N/A
4. Other: The paramount need is to secure in a timely manner a lease agreement with the
U.S. Navy for the property where the multiple quick-start generation units will be
installed.

Transmission
To provide redundancy in the transmission component of the solution, a two-phase
upgrade is proposed. Phase One consists of construction of a new 115 kV line to the base
with associated necessary breakers, switchgear, transformers and connections. Phase Two
consists of additional upgraded voltage lines, upgraded transformers, relaying packages
and substation improvements at the Montville and Buddington substations.
1. Funding: Phase One—Approximately $20 million
              Phase Two—Approximately $40 million
2. Funding Sources: CL&P will follow the currently established funding process for the
transmission lines. As with all transmission projects, Connecticut customers would pay
for Connecticut benefits, while New England customers would pay for the regional
benefits. No state bonding funding or MILCON money is envisioned to accomplish the
transmission solution for redundant power for the base.
3. In-Kind Contributions: N/A
4. Other: Both phases would need to go through the currently established ISO-NE review
process, engineering, siting approval, final design and then construction. The first phase,
including reviews and approvals, would take approximately four years, with construction
of the final, more robust phase being accomplished within a 10-year horizon. The
Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut will continue to devote coordination
resources to this project in order to facilitate planning and execution in a timely manner.




                                                                                          47
Expected Outcomes

The backup distributed generation, with Navy approval to site on base, could be built and
placed in service in 12 to 24 months, and Phase One of a robust improvement to backup
power for the base, with appropriate siting approvals, can be in service in approximately
48 months. An additional expected outcome is the preservation of the Military Value
points (0.7 points) credited to SUBASE New London with Question SEA-41 in BRAC
2005.




                                                                                       48
Defense/Homeland Security Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #11

Waterfront Operations and Maintenance Complex
Summary Description

Consolidate waterfront operations, renovate Building 105 and demolish five deteriorating
facilities.

Background/Context

A mostly civilian workforce directed by a cadre of military, government civil servants,
and private-sector managers currently performs submarine maintenance and provides port
operations at various temporary facilities on the waterfront. Due to current building
constraints, the maintenance is scattered throughout the SUBASE’s lower base complex.
Port operations quarters are temporary, overcrowded and outdated. Current facilities
(trailers) result in an unnecessary number of people operating within the weapons arc and
contribute to traffic on the lower base.

Since 1993, the weakest category in the Department of the Navy calculation of the
Military Value of SUBASE New London has consistently been Operational
Infrastructure. Within their standard 100-point scoring system, Operational Infrastructure
received the largest percentage of points (between 39 percent and 49 percent), with
SUBASE New London being credited, on average, with only 31 percent of the points
available.

              CATEGORY            BRAC 1993 BRAC 1995 BRAC 2005
              Points Available       48        47        39
              Points Received        13        17        12
              Percentage Received    27        36        31
              POINT DEFICIT          35        30        27

     Table 1. SUBASE New London Operational Infrastructure Point Scores

As further highlighted in the above table, during three rounds of Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) spanning 13 years, SUBASE New London lost between 27 and 35
points (the equivalent of 27 percent to 35 percent) in the highest-valued category,
Operational Infrastructure.




                                                                                         49
The components of Operational Infrastructure include facilities that support Ship
Berthing (Piers), Ship Maintenance and Repair, Ammunition Storage and Staff. In each
round of BRAC, the Department of the Navy utilized questions to evaluate a facility’s
infrastructure in general categories and determined a corresponding point score. Where
SUBASE New London was awarded less than 50 percent of the available points, a point
deficit is considered to have occurred, and an opportunity exists to significantly enhance
Military Value. Accordingly, Table 2 presents information used to support closure of
SUBASE New London in BRAC 2005.

                                              Table 2

BRAC 2005 – OPERATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE
       MILITARY VALUE POINT DEFICIT (≥ 50 percent)

     QUESTION
                       CATEGORY INFRASTRUCTURE ITEM                              POINT DEFICIT
     NUMBER
     SEA – 1                           Multiple Combatant Piers                  2.92
     SEA - 2                           Cold Iron CVN Piers                       4.15
     SEA – 3                           SSBN Homeport piers (plus weapons) 4.15
                       Ship Berthing
     SEA – 4                           Adequate Piers                            3.52
     SEA – 5                           Modern Piers                              1.50
     SEA – 6                           Internet Capable Piers                    1.28
     SEA – 7                           IMA Capacity                              1.56
                       Ship
     SEA – 8                           Drydocks                                  1.58
                       Maintenance
     SEA – 12                          Pier-Side Cranes                          1.08
                       Munitions
     SEA – 17                           Magazine Capacity                        0.40
                       Storage
     SEA – 18          Staff Facilities Building Capacity                        0.29
                                 TOTAL DEFICIT                           22.43
                                 CVN PIER ADJUSTMENT                     -4.15
                                 ADJUSTED DEFICIT                        18.28

As tabulated above, SUBASE New London failed to receive more than 22 points (22
percent of the total Military Value Points available) that were allocated for Piers, Ship
Maintenance, Munitions Storage and Staff support. Even after adjusting for the 4.15
points for CVN (nuclear powered aircraft carrier) berthing that are considered
unachievable in New London Harbor, more than 18 points remain available, with the
0.29 points associated with Operational staff Facilities (Total points Available: 0.48). If
SUBASE New London had received all of these Staff Facilities points during BRAC
2005, its Military Value Ranking would have been 11th versus 12th, overtaking Naval
Station Everett in the rankings.


                                                                                          50
Rationale

Consolidating the workforce and the various shops would improve submarine
maintenance and make for more efficient submarine Intermediate Maintenance Activity
availabilities. New facilities would provide for the introduction of the latest maintenance
practices and bring the building up the latest OSHA and environmental requirements.
Demolition of the old, out-of-date buildings would eliminate any noncompliant buildings
and provide space for any emerging waterfront requirements. Conversion of the aged
warehouse to offices and shops for port operations would provide modern permanent
facilities for contractors, reduce the number of people within the weapons arc and reduce
traffic on the lower base.

Resources Required

   1. Funding: Waterfront Operations and Small Craft Maintenance Facility, less than
      $10 million
   2. Funding Sources: In the past, projects of this type on the Submarine Base have
      been funded solely by the federal government Facilities Construction (MILCON)
      funds. As the priority of these projects rises on the SUBASE MILCON request
      list, they are likely to be funded again via MILCON. The House version of the
      FY 07 defense budget includes funding for the Waterfront Operations and Small
      Craft Facility. The Conference Committee Report is not yet available. As these
      facilities are used by private contractors and military alike, it is logical that
      private-sector contractors may be willing to partner in the funding.
   3. In-Kind Contributions: N/A
   4. Other: Building demolition and construction will involve compliance with
      applicable environmental rules and regulations. Some permitting may be
      required. Expedited processing by appropriate state and federal agencies is
      desirable.

Expected Outcomes

The BRAC 2005 Military Value Point Deficit for Staff Facilities-Building Capacity was
0.29 points. With an updated and more efficient facility, it is expected that this deficit
would be eliminated, moving the SUBASE up in the Military Value ranking of
operational Naval Facilities.




                                                                                         51
Defense/Homeland Security Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #12

Replace Pier 10 at U.S. Naval Submarine Base New London
Summary Description

Improve the Operational Infrastructure and enhance the Military Value of the U.S. Naval
Submarine Base (SUBASE) New London by demolishing the old, deteriorated Pier 10
and replacing it with a new, modern, general-purpose ship-berthing pier that is
constructed to current U.S. Navy specifications and standards.

Background/Context

Since 1993, the weakest category in the Department of the Navy calculation of the
Military Value of SUBASE New London has consistently been Operational
Infrastructure. Within their standard 100-point scoring system, Operational Infrastructure
received the largest percentage of points (between 39 percent and 49 percent), with
SUBASE New London being credited, on average, with only 31 percent of the points
available.

               CATEGORY            BRAC 1993 BRAC 1995 BRAC 2005
               Points Available       48        47        39
               Points Received        13        17        12
               Percentage Received    27        36        31
               POINT DEFICIT          35        30        27

     Table 1. SUBASE New London Operational Infrastructure Point Scores

As further highlighted in the above table, during three rounds of Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) spanning 13 years, SUBASE New London lost between 27 and 35
points (the equivalent of 27 percent to 35 percent) in the highest-valued category,
Operational Infrastructure.

The components of Operational Infrastructure include facilities that support Ship
Berthing (Piers), Ship Maintenance and Repair, Ammunition Storage and Staff. In each
round of BRAC, the Department of the Navy utilized questions to evaluate a facility’s
infrastructure in general categories and determined a corresponding point score. Where
SUBASE New London was awarded less than 50 percent of the available points, a point
deficit is considered to have occurred, and an opportunity exists to significantly enhance
Military Value. Accordingly, Table 2 presents information used to support closure of
SUBASE New London in BRAC 2005.




                                                                                         52
                                           Table 2

BRAC 2005 – OPERATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE
       MILITARY VALUE POINT DEFICIT (≥ 50 percent)

     QUESTION
                      CATEGORY INFRASTRUCTURE ITEM                            POINT DEFICIT
     NUMBER
     SEA – 1                          Multiple Combatant Piers                2.92
     SEA - 2                          Cold Iron CVN Piers                     4.15
     SEA – 3                          SSBN Homeport piers (plus weapons) 4.15
                      Ship Berthing
     SEA – 4                          Adequate Piers                          3.52
     SEA – 5                          Modern Piers                            1.50
     SEA – 6                          Internet Capable Piers                  1.28
     SEA – 7                          IMA Capacity                            1.56
                      Ship
     SEA – 8                          Drydocks                                1.58
                      Maintenance
     SEA – 12                         Pier-Side Cranes                        1.08
                      Munitions
     SEA – 17                          Magazine Capacity                      0.40
                      Storage
     SEA – 18         Staff Facilities Building Capacity                      0.29

                               TOTAL DEFICIT                          22.43
                               CVN PIER ADJUSTMENT                    -4.15
                               ADJUSTED DEFICIT                       18.28



As tabulated above, SUBASE New London failed to receive more than 22 points (22
percent of the total Military Value Points available) that were allocated for Piers, Ship
Maintenance, Munitions Storage and Staff support. Even after adjusting for the 4.15
points for CVN (nuclear powered aircraft carrier) berthing that are considered
unachievable in New London Harbor, more than 18 points remain available, with the
large majority (more than 13 points) directly associated with Piers. If SUBASE New
London had received only half of these points (Adequate Piers, Modern Piers, and
Internet Capable Piers) during BRAC 2005, its Military Value Ranking would have been
9th versus 12th. With 2.3 additional points, SUBASE New London would have tied
SUBASE San Diego in 7th place.

Rationale

As presented above, enhancing the Operational Infrastructure at SUBASE New London
will provide the most significant improvement in Military Value as calculated by the
Department of the Navy in three rounds of BRAC. Based upon projected Force
Structure and pending redeployment from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, seven new


                                                                                       53
piers (including the new Pier 6 that is under construction) are required. Each new pier
must conform to current Department of the Navy specifications. This involves complete
demolition of the existing structure and construction of a state-of-the-art, 67-foot-wide by
500-foot-long general-purpose berthing pier, including complete replacement of pier
utility systems. Such a structure should also be configured to accommodate combatants
other than fast attack nuclear submarines (SSNs). From a planning and scheduling
perspective, Pier 10 is proposed as the fifth in a series of waterfront infrastructure
improvements to SUBASE New London.

Resources Required

   1. Funding: Approximately $32 million
   2. Funding Sources: Department of Defense Military Construction (MILCON) is
      the normal source of pier construction financing. Priorities within the Department
      of the Navy for Operational Infrastructure investments at other locations result in
      pier MILCON for SUBASE New London being slipped well into the future. The
      state of Connecticut should consider creating an infrastructure financing
      partnership with the Department of the Navy with the following characteristics:
          a. Establish the Connecticut Military Value Enhancement Fund specifically
              for infrastructure improvements that will increase the Military Value of
              SUBASE New London.
          b. For a period of three to five years, deposit into the fund sufficient monies
              for the construction of at least one new pier at SUBASE New London.
          c. Negotiate with the Department of the Navy a 15-year lease for each new
              pier built and funded by the Connecticut Military Value Enhancement
              Fund, including the following terms and conditions:
                   i. Annual payments to recover all construction costs within 15 years.
                  ii. Pier ownership to transfer to the Department of the Navy at the end
                      of the lease.
                 iii. Full recovery of all pier construction costs should the Department
                      of the Navy cease operations at the pier prior to the end of the
                      lease.
          d. Recapitalize and self-sustain the Connecticut Military Value Enhancement
              Fund with all lease revenues as a revolving lease fund and apply these
              monies to additional Military Value enhancements at SUBASE New
              London per the above terms and conditions then return the balance to the
              General Fund.
   3. In-Kind Contributions: N/A
   4. Other: Permits: Pier demolition and construction will involve compliance with
      applicable environmental rules and regulations, and may require some dredging.
      Expedited processing by appropriate state and federal agencies is desirable.




                                                                                         54
Expected Outcomes

The BRAC 2005 Military Value Point Deficit for Operational Infrastructure in the
category of Piers is between 13 and 14 points. With seven piers the current operational
goal, each new pier adds, on average about two points to the Military Value score of
SUBASE New London. Therefore the expected outcome of replacing Pier 10 (in
addition to Piers 6, 31, 32 and 33) is moving SUBASE New London from 12th to 7th
position on the BRAC 2005 rankings.




                                                                                          55
Defense/Homeland Security Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #13

Replace Pier 12 at U.S. Naval Submarine Base New London
Summary Description

Improve the Operational Infrastructure and enhance the Military Value of the U.S. Naval
Submarine Base (SUBASE) New London by demolishing the old, deteriorated Pier 10
and replacing it with a new, modern, general-purpose ship-berthing pier that is
constructed to current U.S. Navy specifications and standards.

Background/Context

Since 1993, the weakest category in the Department of the Navy calculation of the
Military Value of SUBASE New London has consistently been Operational
Infrastructure. Within their standard 100-point scoring system, Operational Infrastructure
received the largest percentage of points (between 39 percent and 49 percent), with
SUBASE New London being credited, on average, with only 31 percent of the points
available.

               CATEGORY            BRAC 1993 BRAC 1995 BRAC 2005
               Points Available       48        47        39
               Points Received        13        17        12
               Percentage Received    27        36        31
               POINT DEFICIT          35        30        27

     Table 1. SUBASE New London Operational Infrastructure Point Scores

As further highlighted in the above table, during three rounds of Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) spanning 13 years, SUBASE New London lost between 27 and 35
points (the equivalent of 27 percent to 35 percent) in the highest-valued category,
Operational Infrastructure.

The components of Operational Infrastructure include facilities that support Ship
Berthing (Piers), Ship Maintenance and Repair, Ammunition Storage and Staff. In each
round of BRAC, the Department of the Navy utilized questions to evaluate a facility’s
infrastructure in general categories and determined a corresponding point score. Where
SUBASE New London was awarded less than 50 percent of the available points, a point
deficit is considered to have occurred, and an opportunity exists to significantly enhance
Military Value. Accordingly, Table 2 presents information used to support closure of
SUBASE New London in BRAC 2005.




                                                                                         56
                                             Table 2

BRAC 2005 – OPERATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE
       MILITARY VALUE POINT DEFICIT (≥ 50 percent)

     QUESTION
                      CATEGORY INFRASTRUCTURE ITEM                            POINT DEFICIT
     NUMBER
     SEA – 1                          Multiple Combatant Piers                2.92
     SEA - 2                          Cold Iron CVN Piers                     4.15
     SEA – 3                          SSBN Homeport piers (plus weapons) 4.15
                      Ship Berthing
     SEA – 4                          Adequate Piers                          3.52
     SEA – 5                          Modern Piers                            1.50
     SEA – 6                          Internet Capable Piers                  1.28
     SEA – 7                          IMA Capacity                            1.56
                      Ship
     SEA – 8                          Drydocks                                1.58
                      Maintenance
     SEA – 12                         Pier-Side Cranes                        1.08
                      Munitions
     SEA – 17                          Magazine Capacity                      0.40
                      Storage
     SEA – 18         Staff Facilities Building Capacity                      0.29

                               TOTAL DEFICIT                          22.43
                               CVN PIER ADJUSTMENT                    -4.15
                               ADJUSTED DEFICIT                       18.28


As tabulated above, SUBASE New London failed to receive more than 22 points (22
percent of the total Military Value Points available) that were allocated for Piers, Ship
Maintenance, Munitions Storage and Staff support. Even after adjusting for the 4.15
points for CVN (nuclear powered aircraft carrier) berthing that are considered
unachievable in New London Harbor, more than 18 points remain available, with the
large majority (more than 13 points) directly associated with Piers. If SUBASE New
London had received only half of these points (Adequate Piers, Modern Piers, and
Internet Capable Piers) during BRAC 2005, its Military Value Ranking would have been
9th versus 12th. With 2.3 additional points, SUBASE New London would have tied
SUBASE San Diego in 7th place.

Rationale

As presented above, enhancing the Operational Infrastructure at SUBASE New London
will provide the most significant improvement in Military Value as calculated by the
Department of the Navy in three rounds of BRAC. Based upon projected Force
Structure and pending redeployment from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, seven new
piers (including the new Pier 6 that is under construction) are required. Each new pier


                                                                                       57
must conform to current Department of the Navy specifications. This involves complete
demolition of the existing structure and construction of a state-of-the-art 67 foot wide by
500 foot long general-purpose berthing pier, including complete replacement of pier
utility systems. Such a structure should also be configured to accommodate combatants
other than fast attack nuclear submarines (SSNs). From a planning and scheduling
perspective, Pier 12 is proposed as the sixth in a series of waterfront infrastructure
improvements to SUBASE New London.

Resources Required

   1. Funding: Approximately $32 million
   2. Funding Sources: Department of Defense Military Construction (MILCON) is
      the normal source of pier construction financing. Priorities within the Department
      of the Navy for Operational Infrastructure investments at other locations result in
      pier MILCON for SUBASE New London being slipped well into the future. The
      state of Connecticut should consider creating an infrastructure financing
      partnership with the Department of the Navy with the following characteristics:
          a. Establish the Connecticut Military Value Enhancement Fund specifically
              for infrastructure improvements that will increase the Military Value of
              SUBASE New London.
          b. For a period of three to five years, deposit into the fund sufficient monies
              for the construction of at least one new pier at SUBASE New London.
          c. Negotiate with the Department of the Navy a 15-year lease for each new
              pier built and funded by the Connecticut Military Value Enhancement
              Fund, including the following terms and conditions:
                   i. Annual payments to recover all construction costs within 15 years.
                  ii. Pier ownership to transfer to the Department of the Navy at the end
                      of the lease.
                 iii. Full recovery of all pier construction costs should the Department
                      of the Navy cease operations at the pier prior to the end of the
                      lease.
          d. Recapitalize and self-sustain the Connecticut Military Value Enhancement
              Fund with all lease revenues as a revolving lease fund and apply these
              monies to additional Military Value enhancements at SUBASE New
              London per the above terms and conditions then return the balance to the
              General Fund.
   3. In-Kind Contributions: N/A
   4. Other: Permits: Pier demolition and construction will involve compliance with
      applicable environmental rules and regulations, and may require some dredging.
      Expedited processing by appropriate state and federal agencies is desirable.




                                                                                         58
Expected Outcomes

The BRAC 2005 Military Value Point Deficit for Operational Infrastructure in the
category of Piers is between 13 and 14 points. With seven piers the current operational
goal, each new pier adds, on average, about two points to the Military Value score of
SUBASE New London. Therefore the expected outcome of replacing Pier 12 (in
addition to Piers 6, 31, 32, 33 and 10) is moving SUBASE New London from 12th to 6th
position on the BRAC 2005 rankings.




                                                                                      59
Defense/Homeland Security Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #14

Construct New Submarine Electronics Integrated Operation,
Navigation and Communications Training Facility
Summary Description

Replace two deteriorating buildings and construct a new, state-of-the-art instructional
facility that fully integrates submarine electronics operation, navigation, and
communications training and new training device instruction.

Background/Context

The largest tenant command at the SUBASE is the Naval Submarine School. At its
campus-like complex, the Submarine School provides entry-level, mid-grade-level,
senior-level and/or operational/refresher training to every officer and enlisted person in
Submarine Force. The unique educational and instructional curriculum provided by this
command spans the entire spectrum of materials, from classroom through the most
sophisticated training device instruction. Co-location of Submarine School with the
majority of the Atlantic Fleet Fast Attack Nuclear Submarines (SSNs) enhances the
Operational Military Value of the entire complex. In order to preserve synergy, periodic
modernization is required to replace and upgrade equipment and capability. There is
therefore a current requirement to replace aging facilities that support submarine
electronics operation, navigation and communications training facilities.

Rationale

Since 1993, one of the weaker categories in the Department of the Navy calculation of
the Military Value of SUBASE New London has consistently been Operational Training.
Within their standard 100-point scoring system, Operational Training received among the
larger percentages of points (between 10 percent and 25 percent), with SUBASE New
London being credited, on average, with only 56 percent of the points available.

               CATEGORY            BRAC 1993 BRAC 1995 BRAC 2005
               Points Available       10        19        25
               Points Received         3        12        17
               Percentage Received    30        71        68
               POINT DEFICIT           7         7         8

      Table 1. SUBASE New London Operational Training Point Scores




                                                                                          60
As further highlighted in the above table, during three rounds of Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) spanning 13 years, SUBASE New London lost between seven and eight
points (the equivalent of 7 percent to 8 percent) in one of the highest-valued categories,
Operational Training.

The components of Operational Training include facilities that support various types of
classroom and training device instruction (damage control, shipboard firefighting, ship
handling and ―pipeline‖ training), as well as operational exercises (training ranges and
operating areas). It should be noted that in BRAC 2005, the Department of the Navy
(DON) utilized a specific question to evaluate an activity’s ―unique operational training
facilities.‖ After data had been submitted in response to the applicable ―Data Calls,‖ the
DON Data Analysis Group decided to delete the question. Thus, the exact point value of
this question cannot be ascertained. It is noted that in the last two rounds of BRAC, the
DON has assigned the same consistently high point value (65 percent of the points
available) to the combined value of Operational Infrastructure and Operational Training.
Therefore, infrastructure investments that enhance the capability and synergy between
these two categories are considered extremely cost effective.

Resources Required

   1. Funding: Less than $20 million to 25million
   2. Funding Sources: Construction:
             Department of Defense: This project is a current SUBASE MILCON
             request.
             State of Connecticut: Partial funding support as part of an assistance
             agreement with standard retention and claw-back provisions should be
             considered as an option.
   3. In-Kind Contributions: N/A
   4. Other: Building demolition and construction will involve compliance with
      applicable environmental rules and regulations. Some permitting may be
      required. Expedited processing by appropriate state and federal agencies is
      desirable.

Expected Outcomes

Operational Training Military Value score for ―unique operational training facilities‖ at
SUBASE New London would be preserved and enhanced.




                                                                                            61
Defense/Homeland Security Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #15

Homeland Security/Defense/Maritime Business Incubator
Summary Description

Establish a business incubator in Southeastern Connecticut for small and startup
businesses with expertise and product lines that supply or complement the homeland
security, defense or maritime industries.

Background/Context

Two business incubators currently are operational in Southeastern Connecticut. One is
located at the headquarters of the SouthEastern Connecticut Enterprise Region (seCTer)
in New London, and the second is located at the University of Connecticut (UCONN)
Avery Point Campus in Groton. As the UCONN Avery Point campus has been
redeveloped, space available for this has been reduced, but there is space available for
two additional incubating companies. Due to construction planning at the campus,
current leases are for one year only. Proximity to the Coast Guard R&D facility, the
Maritime Sciences program at Avery Point and Subase–EB R&D has provided a
substantial advantage for these companies. The USCG R&D Center has recently
relinquished one of its laboratories for incubator use and it has already been leased out.

Rationale

There is a critical mass of expertise in Southeastern Connecticut in the defense/homeland
security/maritime industries that stems from our aggregation of defense, academic and
industrial institutions focused in these areas. While Connecticut has attracted
subcontractors and suppliers for these entities, the potential exists to host more businesses
that would build on the regional expertise. We should be facilitating their success and the
retention of the highly skilled workforce generated here.

Resources Required

   1. Funding: Between $5 million and $10 million
   2. Funding Sources: The University of Connecticut has submitted its annual federal
      earmark requests to the congressional delegation. It has asked for $5 million per
      year for five years for construction and support of incubator facilities for the
      university. The document specifically requests the first $5 million be used to
      build incubator space at Avery Point. It is not specific to any industries, but it
      could be.
   3. In-Kind Contributions: None
   4. Other: None




                                                                                          62
Funding Sources

The federal government is a possible (but uncertain) partner for this facility via the
earmark process. State support for this project could take the form of extension of
various tax credits and programs currently aimed at other industries such as biotech and
nanotechnology. State funding via PA 06-83 is available for pre-seed and seed funding
for maritime technology start-up companies. Additional tax credit and other incentive
programs currently used by the biotech cluster are available or can be amended by the
legislature to be used for maritime/homeland security/defense startup companies.

Expected Outcomes

Higher employment levels, local tax revenues and states tax revenues would result from
business development in these fields. This would contribute to the region’s reputation as
a center of excellence.




                                                                                        63
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Defense/Homeland Security/Maritime Business
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             NSSF Public/Private Maintenance Complex
                                                                                          SUBASE Expansion on Crystal Lake Road




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Regional Force Protection Training Facility




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Waterfront Ops/Small Craft Maintenance
                                                                                                                                        Replace Sub Operations Center Building




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         New Sub Electronics Ops Comm & Nav
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Redundant Electrical Energy Supply to
                                                                                                                                                                                      Renovate Graving Docks at EB

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Relocate USCG R&D Center




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             SUBASE and SECT
Project Proposed




                                   Replace Pier 31

                                                      Replace Pier 32

                                                                        Replace Pier 33




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Replace Pier 10
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Replace Pier 12
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Training Facility


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Incubator
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Facility
Evaluation Criteria
Military Value
Enhance Infrastructure                           29             29                  29                                            12                                             24                                  30                              19                                                 16                                             26                                           20                           24                  29                 29                                                         21                                                   2
Enhance Operational Training                     21             21                  21                                            12                                             24                                  13                              18                                                 24                                             19                                           11                           21                  21                 21                                                         27                                                   6
Enhance Strategic Operations                     24             24                  24                                            11                                             23                                  17                              24                                                 23                                             12                                           13                           13                  24                 24                                                         18                                                   6
Mitigates Limitations                            21             21                  21                                            21                                              8                                  22                              12                                                 10                                             14                                           16                           17                  21                 21                                                          9                                                   5
Enhance Personnel Support                        17             15                  17                                            21                                             13                                  14                              14                                                  9                                             18                                           13                           15                  17                 17                                                         14                                                  12
Other Considerations
Community Impact                                 17             17                  17                                            18                                             19                                  19                              24                                                 25                                             16                                           24                           11                  17                 17                                                         15                                                  22
Implementation Sched                             28             27                  25                                            20                                             19                                  25                              22                                                 25                                             19                                           22                           21                  23                 21                                                         18                                                  21
Affordability                                    17             16                  15                                            19                                             18                                   9                              19                                                 27                                             14                                           16                           23                  15                 15                                                         13                                                  23
Funding Potential                                21             21                  21                                            17                                             17                                  22                              17                                                 20                                             18                                           16                           17                  22                 22                                                         14                                                  14
Economic Development Impact
Direct Job/Revenue Enhancement           16 16 16                                                                                  18                                    11 21                                                               20                                             13                                              19                                                19                       15                            16                 16                                                13                                                  21
Indirect Job/Revenue Enhancement         16 16 17                                                                                  17                                     9 23                                                               20                                              8                                              17                                                20                       13                            17                 17                                                11                                                  24
Total                                   227 223 222                                                                               185                                   184 215                                                             207                                            199                                             193                                               190                      189                            ##                 ##                                               173                                                 157
Ranking                                   1   2   3                                                                                12                                    13   6                                                               7                                              8                                               9                                                10                       11                             4                  5                                                14                                                  15
Voted Ranking                             1   2   3                                                                                 4                                     5   6                                                               7                                              8                                               9                                                10                       11                            12                 13                                                14                                                  15
RED=LOW (0-10)
YELLOW=MEDIUM (11-20)
GREEN=HIGH (21-30)


FINAL DEFENSE/HOMELAND SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE
PROJECT RANKINGS




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   64
               Infrastructure and Utilities Subcommittee
                        Final Report Overview

The Infrastructure and Utilities Subcommittee conducted its work based on a well-
founded economic development axiom: A region’s economy is built from the ground up.
A good transportation system; access to electric, water, wastewater and natural gas
services; and development-ready sites are some of the most important factors driving
economic development location decisions today.

In short, a region can be considered for a region-transforming economic development
project only if it has the infrastructure in the ground to support it.

The subcommittee researched the region’s existing infrastructure, including utilities. It
took into consideration current investment plans and the areas that would need
investment over the next few years to make the area attractive to the kind of economic
development projects that would help diversify the region’s economy. The research was
done within the context of the State Plan of Conservation and Development (State Plan).

The subcommittee found that Southeastern Connecticut needs strategic infrastructure and
utility investments for it to take on region-transforming projects. These needs center on
transportation, water and wastewater infrastructure, and site development that could
accommodate major corporate investments.

The subcommittee’s recommendations do not directly address certain high-profile
projects, such as planned improvements to the region’s interstate and state highways.
However, the subcommittee strongly supports these initiatives and urges that they go
forward. In addition, the subcommittee urges the state to better maintain and staff the
Groton-New London Airport. A high-quality regional airport helps support efforts to
retain existing businesses and recruit new companies critical to economic diversification.

Water and Wastewater Investments

The subcommittee began its investigation of the region’s land assets within the context of
the State Plan and the region’s recently updated Comprehensive Economic Development
Strategy. Our purpose was to determine if the region has sites that could be developed
quickly, are large enough to accommodate a significant economic development project
and have the requisite utilities. Our determination was that the region has, at best, two
sites that meet those three requirements. Other potential sites lack one or all of those
characteristics.

The most obvious problem is that the region lacks water and wastewater service. Further,
one of its wastewater treatment plants needs major investments to allow it to take on
significant new loads. In addition, the Southeastern Connecticut Water Authority, in a
2003 study, showed that Southeastern Connecticut would begin running a water supply



                                                                                        65
deficit by 2010. That study looked only at the water supply and did not consider the
region’s wastewater collection systems and treatment assets.

So, looking at the complete life cycle of water—from the ground to its use, treatment and
return to the earth—the region needs investments in its water supply and distribution and
in its wastewater collection and treatment systems. Without these investments, it is
unlikely to support economic development projects of a scale that would substantially
help diversify the region’s economy.

That being the case, the subcommittee recommends these investments to enable the
region’s water and wastewater systems to support major economic development projects:

o A region-wide wastewater study to complement the 2003 water supply study. Taken
  together, the two studies would give the region a comprehensive look at the life cycle
  of its water systems.
o Developing three new wells that have been studied and are ready to be built. These
  would ensure the region has ample water supply for the foreseeable future.
o Upgrade Norwich’s wastewater treatment plant to bring it into compliance with state
  regulations and increase its capacity to add new loads.

Transportation

The subcommittee welcomes the state’s pending investments in the long-awaited Route
11 connection to Interstate 95 and the Routes 2/2A/32 corridor improvement. Another
project, the planned widening of I-95 to the Rhode Island border, will help ensure the
ability of the region’s interstate highway system to handle increasing traffic flows for the
foreseeable future. Once complete, these investments should significantly enhance
Southeastern Connecticut’s transportation network.

The subcommittee recommends other transportation investments to support the tourism
and gaming industries. Currently, most tourist travel is by automobile. The
subcommittee believes mass transit could play a significant role in transporting visitors
within the region. Two opportunities in particular, if funded properly, would create
viable mass transit options and take cars off the roads:

    Investing in New London’s unique location and transportation assets could make
     mass transit a more viable option for tourists and an attraction to business. The
     subcommittee therefore recommends improving the links among the operations of
     the various transportation providers in the vicinity of Union Station, including
     AMTRAK, Greyhound, SEAT, Fishers Island Ferry, Cross Sound Ferry and taxis.

    The subcommittee wishes to restate its interest in a multi-town tourist bus loop to
     service the region’s top tourist attractions, as advocated in the commission’s Interim
     Report. Using a state Transportation Strategy Board grant, the region has studied
     the concept; it now needs to test it through a two-year demonstration project. The




                                                                                            66
     loop planned would use New London’s Union Station as its hub, so the two
     investments would be complementary.

Sites Made Ready for Development

The subcommittee believes Southeastern Connecticut needs an inventory of pre-
approved, shovel-ready sites. Southeastern Connecticut is sorely lacking in these sites
and in marketing to support them. This contrasts with national trends in which programs
of this type are increasing in their number and sophistication. These are the kinds of
programs against which Southeastern Connecticut and the state as a whole are now
competing. State-of-the-art approaches elsewhere feature sites with:

o ready transportation and utility infrastructure,
o access to complete electronic maps detailing zoning and topography, pre-approval of
  certain uses, and
o complete Phase I and Phase II environmental studies, among other enhancements.

Further, the state and respective municipalities need to evaluate large, apparently
underutilized state-owned properties in the region, such as Mystic Educational Center,
Norwich Hospital, Seaside, and Uncas-on-Thames Hospital. These valuable properties
could potentially accommodate significant economic development projects.

To give the region another competitive asset, the subcommittee recommends investment
in the industrial park located in Groton. This would help make more properties available
for near-term economic development investment.

Finally, the subcommittee recommends upgrades to the area leading up to Submarine
Base New London to further enhance its military value.

Conclusion

These investments would help ensure that the infrastructure that forms the foundation of
Southeastern Connecticut’s economy can support significant new growth. The
subcommittee believes these recommendations would help the region expand its
economic base and attract new business and jobs.




                                                                                         67
Infrastructure and Utilities Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #1

Southeastern Connecticut Regional Wastewater Infrastructure
and New Water Source Implementation Study
Summary Description

The project will conduct the first-ever region-wide study of Southeastern Connecticut’s
wastewater infrastructure in order to develop a comprehensive Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plan. The project will address an issue with far-reaching consequences for
Southeastern Connecticut’s economic vitality: the region’s projected inability to meet
demands for wastewater treatment capabilities. In addition, this plan will be coordinated
with the Southeastern Connecticut Water Authority’s (SCWA) implementation plan for
developing new water sources, the state’s Plan of Conservation and Development and the
Southeastern Connecticut Council of Government’s (SCCOG) and Southeast Connecticut
Enterprise Region’s (seCTer) Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS).

Background/Context

In order to support economic growth and diversification, the towns in the Southeastern
Connecticut wastewater planning area need to implement a regional, coordinated
wastewater supply plan—one that will enable the region to meet its growing treatment
demands for decades to come. Developing this plan requires a region-wide study of
wastewater infrastructure. No such study has ever been conducted.

The region will be facing shortfalls in water supplies within 20 years, according to a
study by the Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC), which assessed water
needs and potential supplies for 25 municipalities. New sources will need to be developed
to meet future demands, but in the shorter term, some water purveyors have more supply
than needed to meet their demands. Interconnections between utilities can help to
distribute water to meet near-term shortfalls.

SCWA was tasked, through Public Act 02-76, with developing a regional water supply
plan to coordinate the plans of 18 municipalities and literally hundreds of public water
supply systems in the region. One of the mandates in the act was for the authority to ―…
plan, operate, and maintain a water supply system and, where necessary, construct water
supply systems for the Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region.‖ Part of the planning
included preparation of a regional water supply plan. This document was updated in
2003.




                                                                                         68
However, addressing water supply alone will not foster future economic development or
help diversify the region’s economy. Water is a continuous cycle. Issues of supply and
treatment are inseparable. The entire water cycle—from supply source to user to
treatment and return—must be addressed in order to plan for the future. Therefore, a
comprehensive wastewater treatment plan should be completed to augment the existing
Southeastern Connecticut water supply plan.


Scope of Study – The new plan would focus on addressing projected wastewater
treatment facility deficits now and in the future. A cohesive plan detailing existing
treatment facilities, capacities, and environmental impacts would be developed.

The new plan would build from information and plans developed from current facilities
and the ongoing source water protection planning processes for the Southeastern region
of Connecticut.

The study scope would include the following major steps:

   Obtain input from municipal governments and planners to better understand future
    service areas
   Review treatment plans on file at the Connecticut Department of Public Health.
   Discuss needs and issues with the major utilities in the region
   Meet with key state agencies, including the Department of Public Health, Department
    of Environmental Protection, Office of Policy and Management and Department of
    Public Utility Control
   Meet with Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments and hold regional
    meetings
   Analyze current and anticipated treatment needs

A Technical Advisory Committee would be created to foster broad participation in the
planning process. The committee would be made up of regional stakeholders such as
representatives of the selected utilities and selected municipal governments.

An important element of the project would be to look at the region as a whole and
initially strip away political boundaries to determine which improvement projects would
make the most sense for the region. Municipal boundaries would be subsequently added
to the solutions to make the plan reality based.

Rationale

This project directly supports diversification and growth of Southeastern Connecticut’s
economy. Because of the significant development opportunities it would create, it also
paves the way for developments with the potential to benefit the entire Connecticut
economy.



                                                                                          69
One of the most important factors in attracting new and growing businesses is the
availability of ―shovel-ready‖ sites—parcels that have already met all permitting and
regulatory requirements and can be developed rapidly. Water and wastewater services are
required to make parcels shovel-ready. The proposed Regional Wastewater Infrastructure
Study will provide the region with the information necessary to develop and implement a
plan for managing the water and wastewater infrastructure required to pre-permit sites
and make them shovel-ready.

Resources Required

It is estimated that $400,000 will be needed to fund the Southeast Connecticut Regional
Wastewater Infrastructure and New Water Source Implementation Study. These funds
could be aggregated from several sources, including the governor’s proposed low-interest
loan pool, federal funds and municipalities themselves.

Expected Outcomes

The project will have a significant, positive effect on Southeastern Connecticut’s
economy and the state as a whole. The infrastructure study will result in a plan that will
create development opportunities in key locations in the region—places ripe for
important, new developments with the potential to transform Southeastern Connecticut’s
economy.




                                                                                        70
Infrastructure and Utilities Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #2

Develop New Surface Water Supplies
Summary

This project would support economic development in Southeastern Connecticut by
developing water supplies necessary to meet the region’s projected needs well into this
century. It calls for developing three wells—in Preston/Ledyard, Groton and Yantic—that
will enable the region to avoid a water deficit predicted for 2010 and instead achieve a
water surplus for the foreseeable future.

Background

Southeastern Connecticut will have a water supply deficit by 2010, according to a two-
year study the Southeast Connecticut Water Authority (SCWA) completed in 2003. The
study was part of a directive to Southeastern Connecticut to develop a drinking water
quality management plan. This deficit would present a major obstacle to economic
development in the region. To eliminate the deficit, SCWA identified multiple new
sources of water supply (Table 7-2) on both sides of the Thames River. Those sources
east of the Thames River could more easily be diverted into the existing infrastructure, as
the sources west of the Thames would require a new interconnection pipe underground to
connect to the existing system.

Shewville Brook, Preston/Ledyard—Develop the Shewville Brook diversion into the
Groton Utilities reservoir system. The development of this diversion is identified in the
SCWA Regional Water Supply Plan as a priority project. Water from Shewville Brook
would be directed to the Groton Utilities reservoir and on to the existing treatment and
distribution system. This diversion would provide an estimated 4.1 millions gallons per
day (MGD).

Haley’s Brook, Groton—Develop the Haley’s Brook diversion into the Groton Utilities
reservoir system. The development of this diversion is identified in the SCWA Regional
Water Supply Plan as a priority project. Water from Haley’s Brook diversion would be
directed to the Groton Utilities reservoir and on to the existing treatment and distribution
system. This diversion would provide an estimated 3.4 million gallons per day (MGD).

Yantic River Valley Aquifer, Yantic—Development of this aquifer would meet an
immediate need for water and support the expected development of the Franklin Business
Park and potential development in the Norwich Business Park. This water source has a
reported safe yield of 2.5 million gallons per day (MGD).




                                                                                          71
Rationale

An ample water supply is fundamental to economic development. Southeastern
Connecticut will be able to attract new businesses and expand existing ones only if the
region has the water resources to support them. An assured supply of water over the long
term is especially critical if the region is to attract large projects with the potential to
create entirely new industries in the region. Projects of that scale would also help drive
the Connecticut economy as a whole.

In addition to fostering diversification of the region’s economy, creating a regional
approach to ensuring adequate water supplies would contribute to the continued viability
of Naval Submarine Base New London.

Resources Required

Shewville Brook project
Estimated costs for acquisition, design, permitting and construction are approximately $8
million in today’s dollars. This estimate includes dam and site work, pumping station
and intake, transmission main, property acquisition and an inflation adjustment.

Haley’s Brook project
Estimated costs for acquisition, design, permitting and construction are approximately
$11 million in today’s dollars. This estimate also includes dam and site work, pumping
station and intake, transmission main, property acquisition and an inflation adjustment.

Yantic River Valley Aquifer project:
Estimated costs for land acquisition, design work, permitting and construction are
approximately $1.8 million in today’s dollars.

Funds for implementing these projects could come from a variety of sources, including
the governor’s proposed low-interest loan fund for Southeastern Connecticut, the federal
Environmental Protection Agency and local funding sources.

Expected Outcomes

Implementing this three-part project to increase Southeastern Connecticut’s water supply
will ensure the region has enough water to serve existing businesses, as well as new
businesses and entirely new industry sectors. The water supply is the first layer of the
foundation of the water and wastewater system that will make it possible to build an
inventory of shovel-ready sites, which hold great appeal for prospective businesses.
Preparing and promoting shovel-ready sites will enable the region to compete with other
locations nationwide, which are increasingly using this as a business recruiting tool.




                                                                                          72
Infrastructure and Utilities Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #3

Norwich Public Utilities Wastewater System Facilities Plan
Summary Description

This project supports economic diversification and growth in the region by updating and
enhancing the Norwich Public Utilities Wastewater Treatment Facility.

Background

Norwich Public Utilities (NPU) is the municipally owned provider of electricity, natural
gas, water and wastewater services for Norwich and some of the surrounding towns.
NPU currently operates and maintains an 8.5 million gallon per day wastewater treatment
facility. The wastewater collection system consists of 27 pump stations and 120 miles of
sewer mains ranging in size from 4-inch diameter to 42-inch diameter. The collection
system includes 11 miles of force mains and 15 combined sewer overflows.

The wastewater system serves the city of Norwich and parts of other outlying areas,
including the towns of Franklin, Lisbon, Sprague and Preston. The original wastewater
treatment facility was constructed in 1936, replaced in 1957 and expanded in the 1970s to
include secondary treatment. More stringent environmental regulations, aging
equipment, and projected population growth mandate that additional upgrades now be
made. The wastewater facilities have reached their long-term capacity and, as such, need
to be updated and expanded.

To address the above needs, NPU has completed a comprehensive Wastewater System
Facilities Plan. The plan takes into account environmental and regulatory requirements,
as well as anticipated economic development and population growth. With minimal
modification, it can readily support the wastewater infrastructure needs of the region.

Norwich Public Utilities receives and treats more than 2 million gallons of septage and
leachate on a yearly basis. It currently serves the towns of Preston, Montville and
Norwich. Annually, the town of Preston also delivers 1 million gallons of septage, while
the town of Montville sends 140,000 gallons of leachate. Another million gallons of
septage comes directly from the city of Norwich.




                                                                                      73
The city of Norwich is an old mill community whose combined sewers (storm and
sanitary) discharge into the three rivers that dissect the town. The three rivers are the
Yantic on the east, the Shetucket on the west and the Thames to the south. Over the
years, NPU has made great strides in eliminating these combined flows by installing new
sanitary sewers and storm drains where appropriate. Most recently the Connecticut DEP
issued an Administrative Order instructing NPU to develop a Long Term Control Plan
(LTCP) to eliminate a combined sewer overflow into the local receiving waters.

Rationale

As contiguous communities, Franklin and Norwich began discussions around a joint
business park proposal in which water, wastewater and transportation infrastructure
upgrades could occur for each other’s mutual benefit. Both communities’ leaders
recognize that the availability of wastewater treatment is critical to evaluating potential
land use and environmental impact. SeCTer itself acknowledged that our ―region has a
significant amount of appropriately zoned commercial and industrial land available for
development, [but that] this land lacks the necessary infrastructure to support
development.‖ (seCTer CEDS, 2005, p.13) Expanding and updating the Norwich
wastewater facilities would facilitate growth in Franklin, Lisbon, Sprague, Preston and
Bozrah. Key points to consider include:

   A centrally located waste treatment facility with capacity to serve the region will
    facilitate regional development initiatives. The continued health of Southeastern
    Connecticut depends on its ability to diversify from defense-related jobs.
    Opportunities for diversification and job retention are found in Franklin, Lisbon and
    Bozrah Business Parks; in Sprague, with Amgraph and Cascade Paper; in Preston at
    the Norwich Hospital site; and in vacant facilities all along Interstate 395.

   The project creates the potential for new businesses to promote stability in the
    tax base of host communities. Connecticut’s cities and towns rely heavily upon
    property taxes to fund their communities. Attracting new business and growing
    existing businesses creates an economic climate where a balanced and stable tax base
    offsets the communities’ need to rely on residential taxes for funding infrastructure
    projects critical for commerce.

   The region will benefit from economies of scale and cost savings associated with
    using existing plants and infrastructure. The attached map, Map 1, illustrates the
    location of existing NPU wastewater collection infrastructure. In most cases, NPU
    infrastructure already penetrates contiguous communities, supporting existing and
    future regional development. Expanding the collection system requires the extension
    of the existing infrastructure into nearby communities, such as Ledyard, that are ripe
    for growth. Adding additional capacity to address regional economic development
    will have minimal impact on the personnel and operation requirements of the NPU
    Wastewater Treatment Facilities.




                                                                                              74
   The prime industrial land available within this region offers ready access to
    transportation systems needed to move goods to markets. Interstate 395 connects
    the shoreline communities to the south and then reaches northeast to the Rhode Island
    and Massachusetts borders. The location of this region within Southeastern
    Connecticut provides easy access to both the New York and Boston markets, as well
    as two of the world’s largest casinos. The area is also served by freight lines located
    conveniently for the shipment of materials and manufactured goods.

   An opportunity exists to provide other beneficial and necessary wastewater
    services that are now nonexistent in the region. The importance of establishing a
    regional fats, oils and grease (FOG) disposal facility for Northern New London
    County cannot be overstated. A thriving business community is vital to Norwich and
    its neighborhoods. A healthy economy benefits every resident in Southeastern
    Connecticut. But when businesses discharge grease into the sewers, it can cause
    sanitary sewer overflows and interfere with a city’s sewage treatment operations. It
    also violates Connecticut DEP/DOH regulations, carries monetary penalties, and can
    result in the shutdown of vital local businesses. While FOG disposal requirements
    primarily affect restaurants, the existence of food service establishments is an
    important indicator of a region’s economic diversity and health. This is especially
    true in a region that is supported by entertainment and tourism. Providing cost-
    effective FOG disposal through a community-oriented FOG treatment facility is
    important to sustaining and growing the economy in New London County.

   Collaboration among the region’s leaders has begun and will be an outcome of
    the project. The successful implementation of a centrally located treatment facility
    will require collaboration among the leaders of neighboring cities and towns. Letters
    of support from leaders of surrounding communities have been included as
    Addendum A with this packet.

Resources Required

Implementing the CSO/Long Term Control Plan (LTCP)
The imminent LTCP to be issued by the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection through an Administrative Order will instruct NPU to develop an LTCP to
eliminate a combined sewer overflow into the local receiving waters. Cost to develop a
LTCP in two phases is estimated to be between $1.5 million and $1.75 million dollars.
By separating the rain flows from the sanitary system flows, additional average daily
flow capacity will be realized. Currently the average daily flow with storm events is
approximately 20 MGD, a dry-weather-day average daily flow would be approximately
5.11 MGD.

Implementing Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) Treatment
The existing wastewater treatment plant has the adequate space to provide the required
tanks and odor control units to support a regional FOG program. Project costs associated
with this are estimated at $400,000, even with some funding provided by the Connecticut
Clean Water Fund.


                                                                                        75
Upgrading the Wastewater Treatment Facility
In the summary of preliminary total project costs, NPU’s consultant estimated total
project costs for its existing proposal at $50 million. Eighty percent of this amount is
required in the initial five years of the project.

Immediate Upgrades to Wastewater Treatment Plant
(Identified in Comprehensive Facility Plan)

Nitrogen removal facilities and secondary
treatment upgrades                                    $12,122,100

Equipment systems capital improvements                $6,425,000

Electrical system upgrades                            $2,835,000

Digester improvements                                 ($4,410,000) (Currently Funded)

SCADA system                                          $1,090,000

Electronic O&M Manual                                 $500,000

Control building                                      $2,100,000




                                                                                           76
Source of Funding***                      WWTP            CSO               TOTAL                Notes
Estimated Project Cost                    50,000,000      $50,000,000       $100,000,000
Long Island Restoration fund              $               $ (1,500,000)     $ (1,500,000)        Grant
Residential and Small Commercial          $
                                                          $                 $ (5,000,000)
Sewer Capital Connection Fee              (5,000,000)
Anticipated Developer Participation       $               $ (2,500,000)     $ (2,500,000)
Large Industrial Discharge Capital        $
                                                                            $ (16,250,000)
Connection Fee                            (16,250,000)
Balance after Funding Sources             $
                                                          $ 46,000,000      $ 74,750,000
                                          28,750,000
Connecticut Clean Water Fund (20%         $                                                      WWTP - 20% Grant;
                                                          $ (23,000,000)    $ (28,750,000)
Grant WWTP 50% Grant CSO)                 (5,750,000)                                            CSO - 50% Grant
Connecticut Clean Water Fund (10%
                                          $ (500,000)     $                 $ (500,000)
Nitrogen Removal Grant)
Connecticut Clean Water Fund Loan                                                                Assume Available
(20 years @ 2%)                           $                                                      Debt Service = to
                                                          $ (10,628,432)    $ (21,256,863)
                                          (10,628,432)                                           Depreciation ($1.3M
                                                                                                 per year)
Shortfall                                 $
                                                          $ 12,371,568      $ 24,243,137
                                          11,871,568

Total Requested through Governor's Diversification Fund                      $ 24,243,137

             Total                                                $25,072,000

             Total Funding Requirements and Options
             In total, the combined costs for the project components that include 1) upgrading the
             wastewater treatment facilities, 2) studying the long-term CSO project, and 3) becoming
             a FOG treatment facility total just over $27 million. Determining the overall portion of
             this plan that can be attributed to each community cannot be completed until individual
             community capacity needs are determined.

             *** Funding source descriptions and limitations:
              Connecticut Clean Water Fund – CWF gives local municipalities grants and loans
                for upgrades at their treatment facilities. The typical grant portion is 20 percent for
                upgrades with an 80 percent loan at 2 percent over 20 years and an additional 10
                percent grant for related nitrogen removal processes that the facilities may need.
                Although these funds are available, they are also limited and in great demand.
              Long Island Sound Restoration Act – This act uses federal money to assist those
                ―distressed communities‖ that contribute nitrogen to the Long Island Sound via
                treated wastewater effluent. There are currently 25 communities in the state that
                qualify for these funds, and Norwich is one of these communities. This program
                offers funds at 100 percent grant to those communities for preliminary studies for


                                                                                                      77
    nitrogen removal and direct elimination. Again, funds are limited, and a typical study
    costs approximately $1 million to $1.5 million, depending on the size of the
    community.
   Sewer Capital Connection Fee – In October 2005, the Sewer Authority adopted and
    approved a Capital Connection Fee to assist NPU in funding capital projects that will
    enhance the sewer collection system and wastewater treatment facilities. The fee is
    ―use‖-based, with one equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) equal to $2,500.
   Developer Participation – Approximately 2,000 building permits have been issued
    since 2004. Most of them have been for multi-family, residential housing units. New
    development has necessitated the installation of sewer line extensions that have
    expanded the service territory and continue to bring wastewater treatment services
    closer to outlying areas. The cost of these extensions has been covered by the
    developers and not the community.
   Governor’s Economic Diversification Fund – This fund was created to support
    projects with high value in terms of enhancing business growth, improving the area’s
    quality of life and promoting the economic diversification of the region. The
    proposed wastewater treatment facility project clearly meets this criterion.

Expected Outcomes

This wastewater project will encourage collaboration among cities and towns in the
region. When combined with NPU’s Water Supply Development Proposal and the
Franklin/Norwich Industrial Plan Expansion proposal, northern New London County will
have the infrastructure necessary to support economic diversification. In order to
successfully implement the project, inter-municipal agreements surrounding topics such
as capacity requirements and future development plans must be signed. These will
contribute to the long-term health and economic stability of the region. While the
Norwich project plan spans a 20-year period, the most significant pieces of that plan are
scheduled for completion within the first five years. Specific timelines and
implementation steps can be modified to support anticipated development. In those
cases, for the communities that will benefit from this project, it will really be the right
project at the right time.




                                                                                        78
Infrastructure and Utilities Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #4

Sustain and Enhance a Regional Intermodal Transportation
Center in New London
Summary Description

Investing in New London’s unique location and transportation assets would make mass
transit a more viable option for tourists and commuters alike. This initiative proposes
preparation of a feasibility/preliminary design study (or master plan) to look at ways to
improve links among the operations of various transportation providers, including Union
Station, AMTRAK, Shoreline East, Greyhound, Southeast Area Transit (SEAT), Fishers
Island Ferry, Cross Sound Ferry and taxis. The subcommittee suggests that this project be
overseen by the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments (SCCOG), serving as
the region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).

Background/Context

Designed by famous American architect Henry Hobson Richardson, Union Station was
completed in 1888, three years after Richardson’s death. In the 1970s, a plan to raze the
structure was abandoned, thanks to the efforts of preservationists who fought to save this
historical landmark. It has been privately owned since 1975. Currently AMTRAK and
Greyhound are the only tenants in the building, occupying 4,500 of the total 27,000
square feet. Additionally, SEAT buses stop and pick up passengers just up the street from
the station.

The front of the station has been used as a taxi stand for years. Cross Sound Ferry, with
ferries to both Block Island and Orient Point, Long Island, is located just north of Union
Station, and the Fishers Island passenger ferry terminal is located to the south. A city of
New London parking garage containing 940 parking spaces is located directly across
Water Street from Union Station. Because it is where all these transportation providers
converge, Union Station is at the confluence of and has long been advertised as the
region’s multi-modal transportation center.

Union Station in New London is privately owned and operated. Recently, the owners
informed SCCOG that operational concerns and the cost of maintaining the building as a
transportation center have caused them to contemplate a change of use to a more
conventional commercial building, possibly excluding the current transportation tenants
of AMTRAK and Greyhound Bus. Rent is the only source of income available to the
building owners, as there is no governmental subsidy provided for having the building
serve as a rail/bus station. The owners have now turned to the city of New London, the
Council of Governments, and the state of Connecticut for assistance in preserving the
station as part of the regional transportation system.




                                                                                          79
A previously planned pedestrian overpass that would provide access across Water Street
and the railroad tracks has been rejected by the New London City Council for financial
reasons. The Connecticut Department of Transportation is exploring options for future
management of a transportation center at this location, including future access among the
various transportation modes. A number of entities that are stakeholders in the provision
of transportation services in New London recently were convened at a forum hosted by
The Day newspaper. It was the consensus of those present that a master plan of the area
in which the transportation providers operate was critical if an intermodal transportation
center were to be sustained in this area of New London.

Rationale

The economy of Southeastern Connecticut is inextricably linked to the region’s
transportation system. New London’s location at the mouth of the Thames River
provided it advantages as a center of commerce recognized by this area’s earliest settlers.
If the transportation function were to be removed from Union Station, it is probable that
transportation services would still emanate from New London, but certainly not in a
location that could provide the efficiencies and coordination possibilities that Union
Station and the surrounding transportation services provide.

SCCOG has facilitated discussions among the owners of Union Station, the city of New
London, and the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CONNDOT). Although not
directly involved in any negotiations between the involved parties, the Council of
Governments, serving as the region’s MPO, is interested in seeing the transportation
function of Union Station preserved. Because there is no incentive for the peripherally
located transportation providers to contribute to the cost of operating Union Station, it
appears that some type of governmental subsidy will be required. A number of potential
actions have been discussed, ranging from CONNDOT’s purchasing the station to setting
up some type of transportation authority that could manage and operate the station for
either a private owner or for a public entity. Because of the lack of off-street parking
directly associated with Union Station, it is likely that the city of New London parking
garage across the street will have to be packaged with any future use of the station. If
CONNDOT does not purchase the station outright, one solution might be for the state to
enter into a long-term lease with the owners of the building for the use of the first floor of
the structure as a transportation center, subletting space to AMTRAK, Greyhound, and
possibly other transportation providers. The owners of the building could then lease the
remainder of the building to office and retail tenants, after agreements are struck with the
city of New London Parking Authority.

Resources Required

The feasibility/preliminary design study or master plan is estimated to cost between
$500,000 and $750,000. One possible source of funds is Public Act 06-136, ―An Act
Concerning the Roadmap for Connecticut’s Economic Future.‖




                                                                                           80
Funding for this study/master plan would complement other sources of funding being
applied to improvements near Union Station. This includes $1.11 million in SAFETEA-
LU Enhancement Funds, applied for by SCCOG and the city of New London, for use in
conjunction with another $6 million in Urban Systems and Earmark funding being used
by the city of New London to improve traffic circulation around the area known as The
Parade. Other funds have been expended or committed toward improvements at Cross
Sound Ferry and toward the construction of the Fishers Island Ferry terminal.

Expected Outcome

The owners of Union Station recently began discussions with CONNDOT about potential
state involvement in the ownership and/or operation of the transportation center. It is
hoped that discussions among the owners, the state and the city will continue and a
positive solution will result so that Union Station remains at the heart of any future
Southeastern Connecticut intermodal transportation center.

The subcommittee wishes to emphasize the importance of the long-term viability of
Union Station to the region’s economy and urges the administration and the legislature to
assist in funding an agreed-upon alternative that will allow this to happen.




                                                                                       81
Infrastructure and Utilities Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #5

Implement Two-Year Pilot Demonstration of Tourist Transit
System
Summary Description

Action Item #3 in the Interim Report from the Governor’s Commission for the Economic
Diversification of Southeastern Connecticut recommended the convening of a panel of
public and private stakeholders to explore how to fund a two-year pilot of this system.
The system was first proposed in the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Government’s
(SSCOG) Intermodal Connections Study Southeast, a study commissioned by the state’s
Transportation Strategy Board. The study developed a business plan for a high-quality,
dependable, seamless, bus-based transportation center linking rail, ferry, and buses to the
region’s major tourist centers.

Background/Context

In 2003, the Transportation Strategy Board funded a $500,000 study to create a business
plan for a bus transit system that would link the region’s other modes of intra-regional
travel and the tourist attractions and gaming casinos in Southeastern Connecticut. A
market analysis performed during the study effort, including a visitor survey, concluded
that enough people would use the proposed service to make an investment in the system
pay off. It was determined that such a transit system would boost tourism because it
would result in more visitors to the region. These visitors would spend more time in the
region and visit more attractions because they would be better linked together. Added
visitors would lead to more money spent at restaurants, hotels, shops, casinos, and tourist
attractions, and would generate additional tax revenue and casino slot revenue for the
state.

Rationale

SCCOG undertook the study because it recognized that the regional economy has shifted
substantially to tourism, which is dependent on rubber-tired transportation. Traffic
congestion is a very real problem today in Southeastern Connecticut, and is expected to
get worse before solutions can be put in place. The study suggests that the casinos would
see the highest increase in revenue since gaming has become the biggest tourist draw in
the region. Anticipated additional casino resort revenue would include $55 million to $84
million from gaming and $36 million to $56 million in non-gaming revenue. It was
further estimated that area attractions, hotels, and restaurants would gain an additional
$36 million to $56 million annually if the system were in place. Finally, it would induce
additional passengers to take ferries to the region, creating an additional $3 million to $5
million for Cross Sound Ferry. The state of Connecticut would realize an additional $8



                                                                                         82
million to $14.7 million a year from casino slot revenue, and $0.5 million to $0.7 million
in hotel room taxes.

Although representatives of both Tribal Nations, casino executives, and representatives
from the region’s tourism industry and area attractions participated as members of the
steering committee that oversaw the preparation of the study, no one entity or business
has stepped up to commit to the funding of the system. Recognizing this could be an
issue, the study recommended a two-year pilot demonstration project that would prove
the system to be feasible and profitable to all involved parties. The Governor’s
Commission for the Economic Diversification of Southeastern Connecticut Interim
Report did recommend that meetings be held with stakeholders to determine how best to
pay for the two-year pilot program and to reach agreement as to how long-term private
funding would be applied if the demonstration was successful. To date, a meeting has
been held with the then-commissioner of the Department of Transportation to discuss
how to bring all involved parties to the table. It is anticipated that a meeting of the
involved parties will be held in the near future.

Resources Required

The project involved in this recommendation is the funding of the two-year pilot
demonstration at a cost of $12 million (in 2003 dollars; inflation factor may need to be
applied). The funding would be used to retain a contractor who would supply 22 buses,
and it would include the cost of a transit coordinator and ongoing marketing of the
system. The pilot service would operate seven days a week, 15 to 17 hours per day, at
frequencies of at least 30 minutes. The cost is based on a fleet of diesel buses It is
anticipated that alternative-fuel buses would require additional funding.

Expected Outcome

The state funding of this pilot would enable the system to be tested so that ridership and
induced visitation benefits can be measured, after which time private-sector partners and
federal capital grants would be sought to pay for the system. At the outset of the
demonstration, a commitment would be sought from the potential major stakeholders to
proceed with full implementation should certain metrics of success be achieved.




                                                                                           83
Infrastructure and Utilities Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #6

State Property Reuse Study
Summary Description

Southeastern Connecticut offers a limited number of prime development sites. This
recommendation calls for the state to study potential reuse of several underutilized sites
with high potential, to include comprehensive environmental assessments. Examples of
these sites are the Mystic Education Center (aka the Oral School, which sits on 100 acres
just north of I-95 but occupies only a minor portion of the land area); Uncas on the
Thames; Seaside Property in Waterford; and/or other underutilized state-owned
properties in the region.

Collectively, these sites represent a unique opportunity to plan for significant, adaptive
reuse development. These sites’ proximity and natural beauty increase their value. This
creates the imperative for careful planning to maximize this value while preserving their
unique features and attributes.

Background/Context

The recent proposal to close the Submarine Base was a reminder that we need to foster
sites for future development in order to diversify the region’s economy.

Rationale

This study and the potential reuse of the state-owned underutilized sites would help
diversify the region’s economy by offering available business sites.

Resources Required

Estimated cost for the reuse study is $100,000 to $150,000, which could be supported by
a combination of town and/or state funds and federal Economic Development
Administration funds. An additional $200,000 should be included to assess
environmental and historic assessments. Sites may be subject to potential impacts from
fuel oil storage, asbestos, lead based paint, waste burial, residual solvents and possible
coal ash dating from the historic uses of the site. A total funding appropriation of some
$400,000 should be considered.

Expected Outcome

Within the first two years, a study effort would be completed. Within five years,
underutilized portions of at least one of the sites would be renovated and put to use.




                                                                                         84
Infrastructure and Utilities Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #7

Submarine Base Gateway Project – Relocation of Non-Military
Facilities (Groton)
Summary Description

The U. S. Navy has recently completed reconstruction of the two main gates to the
Submarine Base, and the BRAC process has run its course. The town’s Plan of
Conservation and Development identifies this area as a significant development node in
the town. This proposed project is intended to provide needed attention to Crystal Lake
Road and its intersection with Military Highway and Route 12 through the design and
construction of geometric improvements, road resurfacing, multi-modal links between the
base and Navy housing areas (bikeway), other gateway improvements into the base, and
identification of land acquisition opportunities along Crystal Lake Road, to support the
needs of the base population and operations. This project could also include the future
relocation of non-military facilities—such as the commissary, exchange and other retail
outlets—from the base to nearby locations to provide more space on base for facilities
with military value.

Background/Context

See Appendix #13, Groton Economic Development Strategic Plan, for background
information on these projects, all of which are described in detail.

Rationale

This project would provide needed upgrades to the area leading up to the base and
provide the opportunity to move facilities of a non-military nature off the base, thereby
providing more space on base for facilities to enhance its military value.

Resources Required

Initial funding of $50,000 has been appropriated by the town in its Capital Improvement
budget to cover the cost of preliminary concept design of roadway and access
improvements at Military Highway and Crystal Lake Road, identification of necessary
land acquisitions and the scoping of the full extent of the project.

The next phase of requested funding would be needed for appraisals and purchase of land
to relocate facilities off base, environmental audits and technical consultant support.
Funding sources proposed and anticipated would be through DECD. This component has
been estimated at $1.3 million.




                                                                                            85
The final phase of the project includes construction of the full range of Crystal Lake
Road/Military Highway improvements leading to and including the base’s main gate.
These improvements include widening and overlay of Crystal Lake Road, bikeway
construction along Crystal Lake Road, realignment of Military Highway at Crystal Lake
Road, and minor and major intersection improvements at Route 12. The estimated cost of
magnitude for the project costs, including utility relocations, is $10 million.

Expected Outcome

Within two to five years, a new gateway to the base would be created. Within five to10
years, more non-military uses would be off-base, and more military value would be
added through the military’s reuse of properties on base.




                                                                                     86
Infrastructure and Utilities Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #8

Business Park Utilities Infrastructure Improvement Project
(Groton)
Summary Description

A town-sponsored study is under way to determine the best and most cost-effective way
to extend utility service to the Flanders Road and IP-zoned areas to enhance developable
properties. A key goal is to choose a route that provides the most efficient utility service
to other developable lands within this area. Based on the conclusions of the study, the
town will determine how to move forward with the utility extension.

Background/Context

See Groton Economic Development Strategic Plan regarding lack of inventory of fully
serviced developable business sites.

Rationale

This utility extension project would enhance a considerable number of acres of land that
are not currently served by sewer and water. This would increase the inventory of
developable sites in the region and assist with diversification efforts.

Resources Required

Town funding in the amount of $100,000 has been committed for the initial study. As a
final route has not been determined as of this time, no estimate is available for the actual
cost to expand the utilities. Capital costs may be funded by town funds, town bonding,
federal EDA funds, and/or DECD funds. The entire cost of bringing water and sewer
utilities to the northern edge of the industrial area could range as high as $18 million to
$20 million.

A more modest approach to extending utilities into this area, one that would extend
infrastructure to developable lands along Flanders Road and the portion of the industrial
area south of I-95, is estimated at $4 million to $6 million.

Expected Outcome

Within the next year, a route for the utility improvements should be determined.
Construction of the utilities would then take approximately five years, at which time
improved sites would be available.




                                                                                          87
Shovel Ready Sites – Town of Groton

Mystic Executive Park Lot 5, 110 Poheganut Drive. This executive park is located on
Route 117, off of Exit 88 of Interstate 95. Local land use approval has been received for
a 50,000-square-foot, four-story office building for medical and professional offices on
3.3 acres. (See attached listing from CERC SiteFinder.)

Mystic Executive Park – A 110,000-square-foot Class ―A‖ office building had been
previously approved at the Mystic Executive Park. The approval period for the site has
expired, but zoning in the area has remained the same, and re-approval of the site would
take a minimum amount of time. (See attached previous listing for the building by CB
Richard Ellis).

Airport Business Park, Tower Avenue – This business park includes up to 20 available
acres on multiple sized lots of industrially zoned land off of Tower Avenue, which is near
the Groton-New London Airport. Water and sewer are available, and the property is
located in the Groton Enterprise Zone.

Potential Regional Industrial/Business Park Sites in Groton

Downes-Patterson Property, Route 117 – This 150-acre site, identified as Phase II on the
attached aerial photograph, is located ¼ mile north of Exit 88 off of I-95. It is zoned
IP80-A, which allows a wide variety of uses, including office/light manufacturing, large-
scale destination-oriented retail (100,000 square feet or greater), and large-scale
conference facilities. Utilities are located in Route 117 and include water and sewer.

327-449 Hazelnut LLC Properties – This 200 +/- acre parcel is located on Hazelnut Hill
Road, off of Route 117, south of I-95. Utilities are located in Route 117 and include
water and sewer. The property is zoned IP-80B, which allows a variety of businesses
uses. Attached is a map of the site and conceptual plan from 1999.




                                                                                       88
       Workforce Development and Housing Subcommittee
                    Final Report Overview

This subcommittee explored the development of strategies that would transform Eastern
Connecticut’s economic growth—the addition of several thousand lower-wage workers—
into long-term economic diversification, that is, the transformation of entry-level workers
into skilled, productive members of a labor force able to replace retiring workers and
sustain economic competitiveness. Its specific focus was how to increase the quality and
competitiveness of the region’s labor force to drive economic diversification efforts and
increase affordable housing options for the area’s workers and their families, especially
those just starting out.

The subcommittee addressed affordable housing issues in its Interim Report
recommendation (Exhibit C, Action Item #1). This recommendation called for
implementing affordable-housing solutions that had been developed by the regional Blue
Ribbon Housing Initiative Panel. A chief component was the establishment of a nonprofit
regional affordable-housing organization. That has been accomplished, and a full-time
affordable-housing professional has been engaged to carry out the organization’s work.

Recommendations in this final report focus on developing a high-quality labor force and
developing lifelong career pathways. These recommendations were developed with the
understanding that workforce development strategies must reflect fundamental changes in
how we prepare workers, support our small employers, and measure success. Leading
economic growth in service/tourism alone will not create success. (Information on factors
that influenced the subcommittee’s decisions is contained in Addendum A immediately
following these recommendations.)

Economic diversification refers to the act or process of creating variety. The region must
be prepared to change its thinking to produce the workforce skill sets that support this
variety. These proposed recommendations build on the existing public and private
investments in the region’s workforce development and education systems, target the
areas that will produce the most significant return on investment, and use approaches that
can be replicated statewide and ultimately benefit employers and workers long term.

Three Recommendations for Transforming Economic Growth into Economic
Diversification

The final three recommendations being submitted by the Workforce and Housing
Subcommittee focus on three critical elements related to career pathway development
that are currently undervalued and underfunded. These strategies support short- and
long-term economic diversification.

      The long-term approach targets increasing employer involvement in high school
       education for the express purpose of promoting careers in science, technology,



                                                                                        89
    engineering and math. (See the recommendation for the Science, Technology,
    Engineering and Math (STEM) ―Experts in Schools‖ Project.)
   The short-term approach targets training incumbent workers of small employers
    to maintain the competitiveness of the workforce, promote career path
    advancement and support economic development in high-wage occupations. (See
    the recommendation for the Small Employer Incumbent Worker Training Model.)
   A combination of both short- and long-term benefits will be achieved by our
    focus on coordinating regional colleges and universities. (See the
    recommendation for the Southeastern Connecticut Higher Education Consortium
    to Promote Economic Diversification.) This recommendation promotes
    collaboration around economic diversification and workforce development. A
    short-term benefit will be retaining more knowledge workers (graduates) in our
    region. Longer-term benefits will include more robust economic development
    and training partnerships in industries related to science, technology, engineering
    and math.




                                                                                    90
Workforce Development and Housing Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #1

The Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM)
“Experts in Schools” Project
Summary Description

The Experts in Schools - STEM Pathway Project will create a statewide, Web-based
interface to a) facilitate the linkage of scientists, engineers, and other technical
professionals with K-12 teachers in Connecticut looking for curriculum resources and
guest lecturers; b) establish a STEM Council to engage employer and institutional
partners that can stimulate participation of STEM experts; and c) track student internship
opportunities and summer youth jobs across employers and STEM content areas. A
common statewide interface and employment engagement model will improve STEM
expert participation, employer participation, and results-based accountability and will
enhance STEM curriculum components offered in schools.

Background/Context

Eastern Connecticut is in the midst of a dramatic shift that is driving down the wages of
its workforce. From 1990 to 2002, Southeastern Connecticut alone lost 10,000
manufacturing jobs with an annual average wage of $67,000 and gained 20,000 casino
jobs with an annual average wage of $33,000. Recently announced Electric Boat layoffs
and a large-scale casino expansion plan promise to continue this trend toward low-skill,
low-wage service jobs and exacerbate growing income disparities. To create new, high-
wage jobs, we must invest in the emerging technologies with the greatest potential to
shape tomorrow’s economy. The rule-breaking nature of science and technology makes
them the most promising focus of our workforce investments.

Technological and scientific innovations made by scientists and engineers represent an
important engine for economic development in Connecticut. With advancements in new
areas such as nanotechnology, the possibilities verge on science fiction. If we can
imagine fireproof buildings that can withstand Category 5 hurricanes, the Library of
Congress condensed to the size of a sugar cube, or a single-visit diagnosis and treatment
of cancer that eliminates the need for chemotherapy and surgery, we can begin to
understand some of the possibilities offered by nanotechnology. 5 Given the broad
economic and societal impact that arises from these possibilities, many predict that
nanotechnology will soon spark ―the next industrial revolution.‖ The Connecticut Office
for Workforce Competitiveness has estimated that 31,000 Connecticut jobs will be
changed by nanotechnology over the coming decade. Clearly, significant economic

5 Particles at the nanolevel (one nanometer is one billionth of a meter) occupy a realm between the world of everyday objects
described by Newton's laws of motion and that of an atom or a simple molecule, particles ruled by quantum mechanics.
Unusual physics governs this in-between realm where the properties of a material change depending on its size. On the
nanoscale, two particles made of pure gold, for example, exhibit markedly different behavior - different melting
temperature, electrical conductivity, and color - if one is larger than the other.



                                                                                                                         91
opportunities await companies that are able to incorporate these kinds of technologies
into marketable products.

Unfortunately, the looming shortage of scientists and engineers threatens this engine of
job creation. A key challenge for continued technology development is the education and
training of a new generation of skilled workers needed to support growth. The need for
trained personnel will further increase as the focus shifts from research and development
to actual manufacturing and integration of the new technologies into business. Training
enough workers to efficiently modify products and processes and skillfully manufacture
devices presents a significant workforce challenge. We must ensure that our workforce is
adequately trained and that our students are aware of career opportunities in STEM-
related fields and the educational paths to pursue those opportunities.

The proposed STEM career pathways project reinforces existing efforts to promote
education, occupational training, and economic diversification in Eastern Connecticut
and seeks to strengthen the link between industry and education to create opportunities
for curriculum enhancement and professional development for STEM teachers.

Rationale

The United States must provide the highest quality education to all of its students or risk
becoming a second-class economic power. Experts cite a variety of reasons for the U.S.'s
engineer shortage, including poor math and science curricula in public schools. There is
also a persistent image problem. A recent study of 2,800 Silicon Valley youths by
consultant A.T. Kearney found that 73 percent were familiar with high-tech careers but
only 32 percent wanted to pursue them. In describing tech careers, students in the study
used a variety of unflattering terms, including ―intimidating‖ and ―uninteresting.‖ Others
said they considered engineers to be ―socially awkward‖ or ―obsessed with work.‖ Some
female respondents linked computer engineering with work that is ―tedious‖ or
―antisocial.‖ Susan Hockfield, president of MIT, writes: ―To keep the pipeline of the
innovation economy flowing, American children need first-rate teaching in math and
science. And they need to get the message that these fields are valued and fun.‖

In the upcoming decades, education will play a pivotal role in the lives of individuals and
in the history of our nation. Eastern Connecticut is committed to creating a future
workforce that can compete and succeed in a global economy through initiatives that
unlock the potential of our region’s and state’s youth. We wish to establish stronger
program models that connect employers to schools and stimulate students’ interest in
STEM careers, leading them at the very least into our post-secondary system or into
ongoing occupational training. The proposed effort will allow the promotion of STEM
careers, stimulate employer and institutional partners in an effective way, and create
meaningful conversations with youth that reinforce in-school STEM curriculum
components.




                                                                                          92
We face the same problems as the rest of the nation in trying to attract our youth to
science and engineering.6 Most students in Connecticut, especially our urban youth, do
not encounter scientists in their daily lives. Yet, the very same youth rely heavily on
technology-related innovations, the most visible of which relate to telecommunications
(e.g., text messaging) and entertainment (e.g., ipods). Most students have never met a
scientist. Therefore, students fail to grasp or even encounter the enthusiasm and passion
of scientists or engineers who have helped create drugs and other product innovations.
Consequently, students do not see themselves fitting into a STEM pathway even though
they find great pleasure in the applications of STEM technology. Frequently, students
may feel that what they are learning is not actually used by scientists in the ―real world,‖
simply because they do not see the connections.

Currently, a number of Connecticut school districts offer enrichment programs that bring
scientists, engineers, and mathematicians into K-12 classrooms. Speakers deliver
lectures on their areas of expertise, usually in optional after-school settings. Varying
requirements exist across schools for lecture content and process evaluation. 7 Working
from a different perspective, our regional workforce investment partners work to cultivate
summer youth jobs and other opportunities for in- and out-of-school youth. Participating
employers in the summer youth jobs programs may be favorably disposed to engage in
the education system as guest speakers and/or to create student internships. The
connections between workforce development efforts and school districts are often uneven
and, in some instances, employers may be approached by multiple people from different
systems, thus leaving employer involvement far short of its full potential.

This program will allow Connecticut’s schools to tap into the huge amount of real-world
science, engineering, and technology expertise that exists throughout our region and state.
Many scientists and technologists are looking for ways to share their knowledge and
enthusiasm with young people. While it is probably unrealistic to expect these
professionals to give up their careers to become K-12 teachers, it is not unrealistic to
expect these professionals to give up a few days a year to teach K-12 students about a
subject they love. This initiative could be advanced even further through partnerships
with science-intensive organizations willing to open their labs or fieldwork to students
from participating schools. The state’s Workforce Investment Boards and their private-
sector partners can use their employer relationships to stimulate interest in the effort.
School districts can use their new and/or strengthened relationships to enhance their



6   According to the National Science Foundation, Connecticut ranked 39th (bottom quartile) in Bachelor's
    degrees conferred per 1,000 individuals, ages 18–24 years old, in natural sciences and engineering for 2003.
7   Sigma Xi has created a national database of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians willing to volunteer
    their time as guest lecturers in K-12 classes. The database contains information on the professionals’ areas
    of expertise, geographic location, lecture topics, and personal statements. Teachers who enroll in the
    program gain access to the national database and to a message board to talk with other teachers
    participating in the program and to the volunteer lecturers. The program does not appear to contain an
    online evaluation component, but the message board likely serves as a forum for teachers to advise one
    another about preferred lecturers.




                                                                                                            93
STEM curriculum. Youth will benefit from enhanced curriculum, personal connections
with STEM professionals and the chance to gain internship and/or summer work
experience in a related STEM field.

Eastern Connecticut will establish a STEM Council to engage employers and to identify
industry (STEM) professionals, representatives from higher education and the regional
education service center (LEARN), and a college student in a STEM field, as well as
other possible members of this ―Experts In Schools‖ community. The STEM Council
will create a peer-to-peer (employer/professional) recruitment mechanism and an ongoing
forum for other STEM-related efforts that need employer participation. A parallel
marketing campaign will be launched to make Connecticut schoolteachers aware of the
new program. The STEM Council will engage youth in a series of focus groups to
sharpen the program model prior to full development for the express purpose of
positioning the product/service in an effective way at true customer level. The STEM
Council will provide similar opportunities to gain the input of STEM professionals and
schoolteachers and administrators. The council may choose to pilot the initial efforts in
four or five area schools that will make a commitment to use the services. The
experiences of these initial schools will shape the outreach and marketing to additional
schools as well as model uses of the service.

The effort will be coordinated through an easy-to-use Web interface that links to a
database with search and matching capabilities. These professionals, who will serve as
guest lecturers and as off-line resources to teachers in areas such as curriculum
development, will provide various data, including a resume. Teachers will be able to
search this database to locate professionals with the desired expertise or knowledge.
Through the Web site, teachers will be able to seek advice, ask questions and make
arrangements for the professional to come to the classroom and give a guest lecture.

After any classroom visit, the students and their teacher will be asked to go to the Web
site to rate the speaker and provide feedback on the topic. As ratings accumulate, they
will be posted along with the professional’s information. Besides providing a quality
rating for the teachers to use when selecting their next guest lecturer, the professionals
themselves will use that feedback to improve their presentations for the next time.

The database will track, organize and/or link with existing databases that manage
relationships with employers interested in providing summer youth jobs. The Workforce
Investment Boards will follow up on leads created by enrollment of guest lecturers (and
their employers) and vice-versa. Relationship management with employers will be
streamlined, and the levels of employer involvement (and the corresponding benefits)
would be presented much more clearly to employers.




                                                                                             94
Resources Required

The proposed project would cost $125,000. A significant portion of the costs would be
used to design the employer database, survey tools, and reports and to interface this
database with existing software applications operated by the Workforce Investment
Boards and/or the Department of Education. A portion of the funds will be used to
establish the STEM Council, coordinate the design discussions (including youth focus
groups), and develop the initial marketing message and materials necessary to publicize
the approach. Workforce Investment Boards will embed this new program in their
employer product/service line and promote the effort through their existing employer
marketing and outreach efforts. Intensive outreach efforts will occur as Workforce
Investment Boards promote their summer youth jobs (and internship) campaigns.

Expected Outcome(s)

Full project implementation will occur within 12 months of funding. Progress can be
measured across any number of units of analysis: a) establishment of a STEM Council;
b) number of districts using the tool; c) number of Workforce Investment Boards using
the tool; d) number of guest lecturers registered; e) number of employers registered; f)
number of student internships; g) number of summer youth jobs; h) participant
satisfaction (student, employer); and i) students ultimately entering educational and/or
career pathways in STEM.




                                                                                       95
Workforce Development and Housing Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #2

Small Employer Incumbent Worker Training Model
Summary Description

Over the last two years, Connecticut’s five Workforce Investment Boards, in partnership
with the Connecticut Department of Labor, used $3.5 million of federal and state funding
to increase skills of more than 4,000 Connecticut workers employed at 128 Connecticut
businesses. Of these employers, 93.5 percent reported satisfaction with the program, and
80 percent reported the training exceeded their expectations. The proposed
recommendation seeks $3 million in funding to expand the impact of the successful
incumbent worker training program and to upgrade the service delivery model expressly
targeting small employers and thereby assisting our diversification goals.

Background/Context

Small business drives the Connecticut economy. During Small Business Week in
Connecticut (June 19 – 23, 2006) Governor Rell stated, ―With over 320,000 businesses in
Connecticut, small business is clearly big business in Connecticut…we are recognizing
the extensive economic contributions small business make on the local and state
economies.‖ In Eastern Connecticut more than nine out of 10 employers are classified as
small business. The Chambers of Commerce alone maintain a membership of over
12,000 small employers. Any efforts to diversify and/or support the regional economy
must include a strategy to target and assist small business. This concept does exactly that.

Slow population growth and the changing demographics of Connecticut’s workforce are
clear warning signs for the state’s economic future. Even with modest job growth, it will
be increasingly difficult to replace existing workers, especially those with the most
sought-after skills. Connecticut’s best chance of remaining competitive and growing jobs
is to increase our succession planning through the effective upgrading of our existing
workforce: incumbent workers.

Incumbent worker training is the solution for small employers who want to retain good
employees, grow their businesses and modernize to compete on a global scale.
Connecticut needs workers who are able to keep pace with the accelerating technological
demands of the 21st century workplace. The state has long been admired for its
abundance of educated workers, its highly skilled, high-value-added manufacturing
employees and the ability to innovate at all levels of the workforce. Connecticut’s ability
to sustain its competitive position will ultimately and absolutely depend on our ability to
continue to upgrade our existing workforce to meet new demands.




                                                                                         96
Rationale

The continuing cutbacks and increasing limitations on the use of federal funds require
Connecticut to develop a new strategy for the sustainability of incumbent worker
training, especially one that benefits small employers. The governor has recognized this
need by proposing $1.5 million to fund this critical training. However, the challenges of
a global marketplace require a greater investment to maximize opportunities for job
growth. Demand for incumbent worker training in the five Workforce Investment Areas
in Connecticut has far exceeded available resources. State and local workforce
professionals have estimated that $3 million would be necessary to begin to meet the
needs of Connecticut businesses.

Typical incumbent worker projects include collaborations targeted at professions with
severe worker shortages, such as nursing, patient care associates and allied health.
Manufacturers also are heavily reliant on employee skills upgrades to maintain
competitiveness. Many of Connecticut’s manufacturers are especially challenged to
upgrade their worker’s skills and production techniques to compete against 21st century
international players. Incumbent workers themselves also benefit through skills upgrades,
career advancement and increased earning potential. These efforts make great sense in
creating economies of scale. However, the successful approaches to incumbent worker
training must be repositioned to better support the small employers who fuel the local and
statewide economy.

The proposed model will offer better information and more direct benefits to small
employers, (i.e., employers with local employees numbering fewer than 250). In Eastern
Connecticut, for example, the Workforce Investment Board holds strategic alliances with
the Chambers of Commerce for business outreach and marketing functions associated
with the workforce development system. For these outreach functions to maintain
maximum traction, the information and process must be organized in a simple and
powerful way. The proposed project will produce a better incumbent worker interface
targeting small employers (and employees) and will increase the effectiveness and reach
of small business marketing and outreach efforts.

Another key component of the process in Eastern Connecticut is the role of the project’s
Regional Review Panel, which is made up of impartial representatives of the Connecticut
Department of Labor (DOL), Connecticut Department of Economic and Community
Development (DECD), the Southeast Connecticut Enterprise Region (seCTer) and the
Northeast Economic Alliance, and staffed by EWIB. This panel reviews a synopsis of
the proposed training to prevent duplication of resources, and any prior failure to meet
public loan commitments. The review panel has the flexibility to accept or reject any
proposal based on special circumstances that either advance or conflict with the economic
goals of the program. The replication of this regional review panel will be required for
eligibility for these funds.




                                                                                       97
A core set of common resources for small employers exist by Workforce Investment
Areas. Online directories and easy-to-update databases for these resources, including
basic services such as English as a Second Language and employer assessment tools,
vary by region. This effort will create a Web interface and user-friendly menus that link
to existing online resources (such as SkillsSoft or the compensation calculator offered by
EWIB), as well as custom resources available only within a specific region. With the
help of these types of business alliances, the full range of products and services available
to small employers can be more effectively marketed and matched to the needs of
incumbent workers affiliated with small employers.

The approach will facilitate proactive and responsive customer service transactions with
small employers who are seeking solutions to grow their businesses and will position the
workforce development system as a partner in the process. Small employers can make
informed decisions about training and skill development options available to their
workers. These may range from online courses to occupational training. The workers
themselves can use existing tools to better map their career goals within the industry.
Organizing the information will increase the region’s capacity to conduct short- and long-
range planning and to develop innovative solutions that target specific types of small
employers expressing similar skill-building needs.

Understanding the win-win nature of this initiative and its taxpayer return on investment
is fairly straightforward. Employers, particularly small businesses, actively leverage
every public dollar that goes into incumbent worker training through paid release time or
even capital investments. Employers help design the specific training and also provide a
dollar-for-dollar match to the initiative. For every dollar the public invests, two dollars or
more in training is purchased. With skills upgrades leading to promotions and pay raises,
the employees pay more taxes. The employer’s productivity and competitiveness gains
can also mean increased profitability, taxes paid and the retention of the company in
Connecticut. Workers trained to move up to better positions create entry-level
opportunities for the next-generation workers who are critical to Connecticut’s economic
future. Supporting small business makes good, long-term economic sense.

Finally, Incumbent Worker Training is an excellent use of important public institutions,
including Connecticut’s post-secondary schools and adult education resources.
Designing training approaches with employers and trade associations helps educators
better understand the latest needs in the business market. The process also makes full use
of the CTWorks One-Stop Career Centers and opens doors for future hiring. Supporting
the diverse and powerful contingent of small employers will strengthen the region’s and
the state’s economy in the short and long term.




                                                                                           98
Resources Required

The Committee recommends an investment of $3 million (not including federal match or
employer match) for incumbent worker training. Through structured regional delivery
partnerships with the DOL, the state’s Workforce Investment Boards will administer the
funds using established protocols with educational and training institutions.

A portion of these funds will be used to upgrade the electronic interfaces and marketing
materials that target small employers and workers affiliated with small employers. The
effort will organize the full menu of options available to small employers, ranging from
the no- to low-cost online training courses available through the Eastern Connecticut
Workforce Investment Board up to the traditional on-site, classroom-style delivery by the
employer-selected provider.

Expected Outcome(s)

The training funds will support skill development in more than 6,000 Connecticut
workers. Outcomes that will be tracked include: a) employer engagement and
satisfaction, b) industry and occupational data, c) type of training, d) skill development,
e) worker demographics, f) job retention, g) compensation changes and/or job upgrades,
and h) standard Workforce Investment Act process benchmarks. Additionally, the effort
will update and reposition resources available for small employers (and workers) and
increase the traction of existing marketing and outreach efforts to small employers.




                                                                                         99
Workforce Development and Housing Subcommittee
Final Recommendation #3

Southeastern Connecticut Higher Education Consortium to
Promote Economic Diversification
Summary Description

Seven institutions of higher education operate in Southeastern Connecticut. Each of
these institutions invests a significant amount of money to market their programs and the
quality of life in the Southeastern Connecticut region. Currently, these institutions
collaborate only informally around economic diversification and workforce development
challenges and opportunities. The proposed project requests $100,000 to formally
establish a Southeastern Connecticut Higher Education Consortium for the express
purpose of promoting collaboration on economic diversification and meeting the
changing workforce needs of area employers.

Background/Context

Studies document that earnings differ significantly by educational attainment. For
example, a person who does not graduate from high school can expect to earn
significantly less ($23,400) per year working full time as compared to a person who holds
an associate degree ($38,200), a bachelor’s degree ($52,200), a master’s degree
($62,300), a doctoral degree ($89,400) or a professional degree ($109,600). 8 Moreover,
this earnings gap between the less and more educated has accelerated over time. In 1975,
for example, workers with an advanced degree earned 1.8 times the earnings of high
school graduates. In 1999, the earnings differential between the less and more educated
workers had grown to 2.6. Viewed from a lifelong perspective, estimates of work-life
earnings show in a more compelling way how higher education makes a significant
difference. A 40-year earnings estimate yields $1.2 million for high school graduates
compared to $2.1 million for bachelor’s degree, $2.5 million for master’s degree, $3.4
million for doctoral degrees, and $4.4 million for professional degrees.9

The Southeastern Connecticut regional economy reflects shifts in the broader global
economy. Other countries compete aggressively for manufacturing jobs, especially jobs
in which production involves limited technology. Service industries such as health care
and tourism remain ―high growth‖ with lower salary ranges. Incumbent workers and
students who wish to remain competitive and/or increase their earning capacity increase
their chances of success through training and advanced education. Employers in our
region face challenges in recruiting and retaining highly skilled technical and knowledge-
based workers. Our economic development and diversification efforts depend largely on


8
  Source: US Census Bureau. (2002). The Big Payoff: Educational Attainment and Synthetic Estimates
of Work-Life Earnings.
9
  Note: Work-life earnings estimates were calculated by using the working population’s 1-year annual
earnings and summing their age-specific average earnings for people ages 25-64 years.



                                                                                                 100
the availability of a skilled and educated workforce. The higher education system plays a
pivotal role in any economic diversification and workforce development strategy.

A particularly relevant example of this type of continuing education for the already
employed focuses on higher education’s attempts to meet the needs of those employed in
regional small or midsize science/technology companies. Many new employees in this
industry are looking for courses and programs that are interdisciplinary or are focused on
skill sets that exist somewhere between science and technology program areas. Most
higher education institutions have programs that are focused on one or the other
discipline or skill set. Few are prepared to provide useful programs that bring both areas
together. A network composed of committed staff from both the industry and education
sides would create the kind of information transfer that would enable institutions of
higher education to work together to meet this workforce need.

Seven institutions of higher education operate in Southeastern Connecticut and at any
point in time serve more than 13,400 students across diverse educational experiences:

           The U.S. Coast Guard Academy reports a student enrollment of 1,005 (fall
            2005) and offers bachelor’s degrees to individuals who pursue careers as
            civilians or in the Coast Guard.
           Connecticut College reports an enrollment of 1,898 students (fall 2005) and
            offers a liberal arts education that place citizens in a global society.
           Eastern Connecticut State University reports an enrollment of 5,113 students
            (fall 2005) and offers associate’s, bachelor’s and master’s degrees.
           Mitchell College reports an enrollment of 727 students (fall 2005) and offers
            associate’s and bachelor’s degrees, as well as one-year certificates.
           Three Rivers Community College reports an enrollment of 3,660 students (fall
            2005) and offers associate’s degrees and certificates, as well as the
            opportunity to transfer to a four-year institution.
           The University of Connecticut at Avery Point reports an enrollment of 773
            students (fall 2005) and offers bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees with
            options to transfer after 54 credits to more than 90 majors at the Storrs
            campus.
           University of New Haven/Southeastern reports an enrollment of 192 students
            (fall 2006) and offers accelerated master’s degree programs in business,
            education, engineering management, industrial organizational psychology,
            and public administration. Most students work full time while taking three
            courses at a time.

Combined, these institutions annually produce more than 330 graduates across a variety
of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math-related degrees.10




10Source: 2004-2005 National Center for Education Statistics and 2006 UNH/Southeastern. Engineering
(141); the Physical Sciences (63); Computer and Information Sciences and Support Services (41); and
Biological and Biomedical Sciences (78).



                                                                                               101
These institutions of higher education are a tremendous asset to our region, especially as
we increase our efforts to diversify our economy and increase the competitiveness of our
workforce. Opportunities exist to increase the role and impact of these institutions.

Rationale

Just like an excellent economic development strategy, each of these institutions markets
the quality of life available in the Southeastern Connecticut region. Just like our largest
employers, each of these institutions markets itself as a ―destination‖ for students. Just
like our workforce development system, each of these institutions offers work placement
and/or career guidance services. In general, great opportunity exists to improve the
connections among the institutions of higher education and between the economic
development and workforce development systems.

Presently, a patchwork of collaborative efforts exists. For example:

           Eastern Connecticut State University, Three Rivers, Mitchell, and UConn
            played pivotal roles in the implementation of a national, award-winning
            training program funded by the U.S. Department of Labor in a grant to the
            Eastern Connecticut Workforce Investment Board.
           Representatives from institutions of higher education serve as board members
            and on planning efforts for seCTer and EWIB and on the Governor’s
            Commission for the Economic Diversification of Southeastern Connecticut.
           Three Rivers plays an active role in the delivery of the region’s Incumbent
            Worker Training Program, and Mitchell has coordinated to supply similar
            training to recently dislocated defense industry workers from Electric Boat.
           The community college system and four-year college system continue to work
            closely to promote articulation agreements, particularly in health-related
            fields.
           The University of Connecticut at Avery point has joined with the Sound
            School in New Haven and Gateway Community College in an application for
            funds from the governor’s economic cluster initiative to support a two-plus-
            two program in marine and maritime education leading to the bachelor’s
            degree. UConn Avery Point also played a role in completing the WIRED
            workforce development grant proposal to the Department of Labor. This
            proposal was not funded but has been used as the basis for further economic
            development planning in the region.

These success stories create a foundation to move the dialogue to a much different level,
namely to establish a more employer-friendly system devoted to the goal of creating a
one-stop contact whereby employment information can be more efficiently supplied to
the numerous partner agencies organized under the CTWorks-East umbrella. Such a
system would assist in transferring the benefits from institutions of higher education
directly to our region’s employers and to the region’s secondary schools.




                                                                                        102
The institutions have taken the initial step of convening a Consortium Planning Group.
They have also invited the Workforce Investment Board and SeCTer to describe potential
higher education action steps that would contribute to workforce and economic
development plans. Subsequently, the Workforce and Housing Subcommittee requests
$100,000 to support what would become a productive partnership between the higher
education consortium and the workforce investment board. Funds would be used to
facilitate the development of a specific action plan, fund a project coordinator and
support the early stages of action plan implementation.

The planning process would address the following:

   What is the current level of connection between and among institutions of higher
    education and workforce/economic development efforts? For example, how do
    career placement offices interface with the system? How do employers find qualified
    workers or training opportunities using these valuable resources? How can the
    consortium promote the emerging Experts in School program to stimulate interest in
    science, technology, engineering and math careers? Would it be possible to
    construct a network of potential employer staff members and staff members at higher
    education institutions that would ensure ongoing attention to workforce needs and
    evolving academic programs?
   What will the consortium adopt as its workforce development and economic
    diversification agenda? How will success be measured?
   What are the specific action steps to move a work plan forward? Who will be
    responsible? What would the timeline be?
   What program development plan would guide the consortium as it developed
    continuing education programs? How would the consortium manage its outreach
    staff’s relationship with its industrial/business partners?
   How can the consortium organize and market its new clearinghouse feature?
   How might the consortium use this grant to work with partners in business and
    industry to create a communication network that would bring key regional economic
    development groups into the program planning loop?

The planning process will uncover short-term actions steps that will be implemented
immediately. The consortium will meet regularly and review actual results as compared
to action plan goals and will discuss other emerging opportunities.

Advantages to Regional Economic Development
 Development of more targeted educational programs directed toward the needs of
   particular businesses/industries.
 Effective means of addressing the need to re-train traditional workers along with the
   linkage of educational institutions more directly with overall regional economic
   development benchmarks.
 More effectively address the new technology needs of regional companies.
 More effective strategies for combining traditional and new skill sets as they are
   needed by employers.




                                                                                     103
   Work with consortium members and business/industry partners to advance the
    Experts in the Schools program, which in turn will enable the consortium members to
    produce a larger number of science and math graduates.
   Create greater cooperation among consortium institutions within the economic
    development area.
   Create a more persuasive and influential regional economic development message.

Resources Required

$100,000

Expected Outcome(s)

Full project implementation will occur within 12 months of funding. An initial, intensive
planning phase will occur. Progress can be measured across any number of units of
analysis: a) establishment of a Southeastern Connecticut Higher Education Consortium
to promote economic diversification; b) the development of an action plan; c) the
appointment of a consortium director to coordinate activities and facilitate
implementation of the action plan; d) the level of participation in the Experts in Schools
Program by college students enrolled in science, technology, engineering and math fields;
e) the level of improvements in linking career placement offices to local workforce
opportunities; f) improvements in linkages to the region’s economic development and
small business outreach organizations such as SeCTer and the Chambers of Commerce;
and g) the number of graduates who secure jobs with local companies.




                                                                                      104
       Workforce Development and Housing Subcommittee
                        Final Report
                        Addendum A
This addendum provides additional background information and statistics that informed
the subcommittee’s formulation of its three recommendations.

Several premises formed the backdrop for the subcommittee’s Final Report deliberations:

    No simple solutions – No silver-bullet solutions exist for diversifying a regional
     economy, particularly in a ―flat world.‖ Workforce development solutions involve
     long-term investments and flexible approaches.
    Leading economic growth alone does not equal success – Southeastern
     Connecticut has led the state in economic growth of late. Yet we see lower-paying
     service jobs replacing higher-wage manufacturing jobs. Skilled workers face
     mismatches between skills and available jobs. Service workers struggle to pay the
     bills.
    An environment in which economic growth occurs proves fertile for economic
     diversification – Any active worker by nature builds his or her career/skill
     portfolio. We have engaged nearly every eligible worker, including spouses, welfare
     recipients, immigrants, seniors and persons with disabilities.
    Strategies must reflect reality – Workforce development strategies must reflect
     fundamental changes in how workers support employers and produce economic
     diversification, as well as how we measure success.
    A practical approach is required – Our recommendations needed to build on the
     existing public (and private) investments in our workforce development system,
     including higher education; target the areas that would produce the most significant
     return on investment; use approaches that can be replicated statewide; and
     ultimately benefit employers and workers long term.

Strategic Approach

We determined that the most effective strategy would be to focus our workforce
development approaches, tools, and skill/knowledge building investments to support
career path development. Focusing on career path development allows both a ―point-in-
time‖ and a long-term framework to develop, apply and match workers’ skills to
employers’ needs. The point-in-time aspect allows us to inventory existing skills, match
employer needs, and target investments in education/training for incumbent workers who
are advancing along or changing career paths in targeted high-wage, high growth
industries.




                                                                                     105
The Unintended Consequences of Economic Growth

Eastern Connecticut shouldered the state’s economic growth during the past decade, as
Figure I illustrates.

 Figure 1. A Decade of Eastern Connecticut Job Growth (1993 – 2003)

           25000


           20000


            15000


            10000


             5000


                 0
                       Danielson / New     All Other Areas
            -5000          London




The economic growth produced noteworthy changes in the structure of the economy and
the composition of our workforce. First, the structure of the regional economy shifted
toward tourism and services. As seen in Figure 2, lower-paying service jobs ($33,000)
replaced higher-paying manufacturing jobs ($67,000).

Figure 2. Service and Manufacturing: Shifts in Jobs and Wages

       30,000

                     SERVICES
       25,000
                     $33,000 Salary
       20,000

       15,000

        10,000
  # of Jobs
         5,000

             0

       -5,000

      -10,000

      -15,000

      -20,000
                                         MANUFACTURING
                                         $67,000 Salary
      -25,000




                                                                                    106
In fact, during a 10-year period, our regional economy added 20,000 service jobs and lost
10,000 manufacturing jobs.

Second, a significant proportion of our workforce development efforts focused on
workforce ―engagement‖ and workforce ―transitions or dislocations.‖ Rapid economic
growth in the service, tourism, and construction industries required a call to engage every
available worker, especially non-traditional populations such as non-working spouses,
welfare recipients, immigrants, seniors and persons with disabilities. Simultaneously, our
manufacturing plants were closing or reducing their workforce size and required us to
―transition‖ workers.

Our unemployment rates fell below national and statewide levels to the point where
employers could not fill job openings. And many of our talented workers found
themselves underemployed or working two jobs to keep pace with the rising cost of
living (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Widening Gap between Wages and Housing

                          Between 2000 and 2005, housing prices in Connecticut
                           increased by 63.6% while wages increased by 18.5%

                     70
                     60
  Percent Increase




                     50                Wages
                     40                Housing                                            The Gap is
                     30
                                                                                           Widening
                     20
                     10
                      0
                          2000     2001     2002          2003    2004         2005
                                                   Year
  Source: DataCore Partners and Partnership for Strong Communities econometric study, December 2005



During this same time, another set of our talented workers (baby boomers) began retiring.
With the next generation of the workforce comparatively smaller in size, this further
complicates the labor market dynamics.

All these circumstances caused our workforce development system to support economic
growth rather than long-term economic development. The Governor’s Commission for
the Economic Diversification of Southeastern Connecticut created an opportunity for the
region to review and agree upon strategies (and resources) that will tip the balance back
toward supporting economic development and, in turn, economic diversification of the
region.




                                                                                                       107
Our Region Stands Ready for a Transformation

Now more than ever, economic development, education, and workforce development
partners coordinate planning and policy-making efforts. Rational and practical economic
diversification and long-term workforce development strategies exist to build on our
workforce and industry assets. Unfortunately, up to this point, the lack of public will and
resources has limited our opportunities to use the momentum of our recent economic
growth and propel ourselves into a new era of economic vitality and stability.
The process for pursuing economic development and diversification is straightforward
and requires a commitment to career path development from high school to retirement.

In our rush to ―fill jobs‖ we have overlooked some very special workforce dynamics
occurring at the micro-level:

   Every day that a person goes to school or to work, he or she is building workforce
    credentials. The acts of managing life circumstances to show up on time, listening to
    instructions and demonstrating a willingness to learn prove invaluable to employers.
    Students and workers in our region demonstrate these skills every day.
   With the exception of employers, we undervalue the skills and intelligence of our
    entry-level and technical workers and overlook their potential to support economic
    diversification.
   We must use market forces to our advantage. The combination of an increasing cost
    of living, the region’s great quality of life, and family/community connections
    motivates workers to improve their skills, education and earning power—if we create
    the opportunities for them.
   Our quality of life remains exceptional and appealing to families and workers. Every
    day major institutions in our region, from world-renowned casino resorts to seven
    institutions of higher education, market our region as an incredible ―destination‖ to
    visit and a great place to live.
   Our education, workforce development, and business support systems continue to
    build traditional and technologically innovative solutions to support small employers
    and workers and to magnify career path connections and inventory skills in our
    region.

The World’s a Different Place

Workers and employers need a dynamic ―labor market exchange‖ that promotes skill
development and career pathway development.

Workers

   The cost of living continues to increase and outpace wages. One out of three working
    households earned less than the self-sufficiency standard in New London County
    ($37,700 to $42,700).
   A higher premium exists for knowledge-based skills. Studies document that earnings
    differ significantly by educational attainment. For example, a person who does not


                                                                                        108
    graduate high school can expect to earn significantly less ($23,400) per year working
    full time as compared to a person who holds an associate degree ($38,200), a
    bachelor’s degree ($52,200), a master’s degree ($62,300), a doctoral degree ($89,400)
    or a professional degree ($109,600).
   Lifelong career employment at the same company seldom exists
   Individuals must recognize how their skills can apply to occupations in other
    industries
   Educational and skill-building opportunities exist online and locally throughout the
    region, especially at our seven local institutions of higher education
   Quality of life and family/community connections motivate workers to stay here and
    find ways to increase earnings.

Employers

   Off-shoring and outsourcing favor companies with global connections or advanced
    technologies that can compete with low labor costs
   A knowledge economy requires higher investments in education and ongoing worker
    training
   Skilled workers (baby boomers) are retiring and will continue to retire in the next
    decade, and employers must recruit younger, qualified workers including graduates
    from our local institutions of higher education
   The business climate continues to be expensive
   Employee health care costs continue to rise




                                                                                     109
                 Marketing and Advocacy Subcommittee
                        Final Report Overview

A key element of diversifying a region’s economy is the need to market the area to
existing and prospective businesses and people from a variety of industries and
backgrounds. A first step is to gain clarity about its distinguishing attributes, character
and culture. In this way, a region can identify its unique assets, define its value
proposition, and make a compelling case for itself through a comprehensive, ongoing
marketing effort.

The Marketing and Advocacy Subcommittee recommends conducting a branding study
of Southeastern Connecticut in the Commission’s Interim Report. That study is now
complete and the consulting firm, O’Neal Strategy Group, has delivered a proposed
branding platform (see Appendix #7) that can form the basis for future marketing efforts.

The branding initiative sought to:

o Identify the key attributes and benefits that make Southeastern Connecticut a distinct
  and desirable place for business
o Articulate those strengths in a way that connects emotionally with businesspeople
  within and outside the region
o Define the core messages and imagery that will be most persuasive with the target
  audience
o Create a focused, unified approach for communicating the market advantages and
  emotional benefits of the region
o Serve as a catalyst for bringing the region’s stakeholders together to examine the
  assets of the region and address the structural obstacles affecting the area’s economic
  future

It is envisioned that a marketing campaign would also incorporate and promote assets
created or enhanced by other recommendations contained in this report.


The Challenge

A chief finding of the branding initiative was that Southeastern Connecticut is
experiencing an identity crisis. Its longtime economic mainstay, the defense industry, has
grown smaller and taken with it a large number of jobs. Newer industries, notably
tourism and entertainment, have created many new jobs, but of an entirely different
nature. Recent legislative incentives to promote the digital media and motion picture
industry have resulted in new jobs and capital investment.

Residents are concerned that the explosive growth of tourism and entertainment
industries in particular could dramatically alter the region’s character. Furthermore, the
economy is precariously situated and vulnerable because it is excessively dependent on a


                                                                                              110
small number of large employers (defense/manufacturing, pharmaceuticals/health care
and tourism/entertainment).

Despite inevitable growing pains, this subcommittee believes economic growth is
essential to maintain and generate opportunities, prosperity and a high quality of life for
people today and in succeeding generations.

Clearly, it is in the best interests of the region and the state for Southeastern Connecticut
to take action to first retain and grow the businesses it currently has, while it seeks to
actively recruit startup and out-of-state businesses representing a diverse range of
industry sectors, especially value-added firms that pay above-average wages.

The Opportunity

The branding process revealed that Southeastern Connecticut does, in fact, possess the
attributes of an excellent business location. These include:

o   A great quality of life, including abundant scenic beauty and natural resources
o   A skilled and knowledgeable workforce
o   An excellent location near major metropolitan areas and population concentrations
o   Available capital for startups
o   Major tourism destinations
o   Strong national defense and life sciences resources

In addition, the region as a whole has an appealing ―personality,‖ marked by intelligence,
boldness, creativity, resilience and a casual, unpretentious lifestyle.

The Solutions

The final report recommendations submitted here are designed to help diversify the
region’s economy by using the findings of the branding process as a foundation.

The first recommendation calls for developing and implementing a comprehensive
marketing plan to make businesses and people from across the country and around the
world aware of Southeastern Connecticut’s unique and exceptional merits as a business
location. Businesses can choose the region as a business location only if they learn that it
exists and are made aware of all it has to offer.

A second recommendation encourages regional leaders to rally around the area’s
distinctive character, work together to remove obstacles to economic growth, and make
the region even more attractive to businesses and enjoyable to residents.




                                                                                          111
Marketing and Advocacy Subcommittee
Final Report Recommendation #1

Develop and Implement a Southeastern Connecticut Economic
Development Marketing Plan
Summary Description

To diversify Southeastern Connecticut’s economy, the region needs to retain and grow
existing businesses and attract new ones to the region. This recommendation calls for the
formulation and implementation of a comprehensive, thoughtful plan to market the region
as a business location to both U.S. and foreign companies.

The plan would be implemented over at least a three-year time frame, and results would
be monitored and regularly reported. Elements of the campaign would include
development and promotion of a state-of-the-art Web site and sales materials, trained
staff to market the region both in state and out of state, events, e-communications, and
use of in-state business leaders as ambassadors for the region.

The plan would also incorporate new business programs and resources as they are
initiated and developed in the region. An example would be the UConn technology
incubator program that is being proposed for federal funding.11 The region should lend
visible support to proposals such as this that hold promise as marketable economic
development assets.

Background/Context

Southeastern Connecticut has an ongoing, active marketing effort aimed at attracting
tourists to the region. Individual attractions and regional tourism groups, acting
independently or in combination with state tourism efforts, are all part of this effort, and
it has been very successful in meeting its goals.

However, no similar effort is in place aimed at attracting or retaining businesses by
promoting the region as a desirable business location. Developing and implementing an
economic development marketing plan for the region is a vital step in cultivating business
growth and the diversification of the region’s economy.

A branding initiative conducted this summer and early fall will form the foundation of the
marketing plan. The initiative was carried out with the help of an outside branding
consultancy. The firm worked closely with stakeholders, who participated in a process to
identify the region’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges. It also

11
   The University of Connecticut has put forth a proposal that would create new business incubator space and expand
related programs at its Groton Avery Point campus. The project would promote and foster entrepreneurial and new
business startup activity. UConn has applied to the federal government for funding in the amount of $5 million. If this
funding is approved, UConn would begin a major initiative, supported by the region, which would complement existing
resources and strengthen marketing efforts aimed at new and existing entrepreneurs.


                                                                                                                  112
conducted research among in-state and out-of-state companies and location consultants to
determine their perceptions of the region as a place to do business.

The research was subsequently presented to stakeholders to collect their impressions and
solidify the findings. In November 2006, the consultant submitted a "brand platform" that
describes the attributes of the region and recommended a brand image and tag line.
Findings from the branding process can serve as a basis for positioning, messaging and
the ―look and feel‖ of the marketing campaign, including Web site development.

Building on Regional Assets

The marketing plan proposed here has great potential for success, because the region
actually has much to recommend it as a business location. Discussions held with
stakeholders during the recent branding process revealed a genuine sense of pride in the
region’s heritage, desirable lifestyle, and the presence of strong business assets. Its
proximity to the water, the presence of Pfizer, and the strength of area tourism and
entertainment businesses make the region an ideal location for growing firms such as
marine-, biomedical-, film- and media-related companies.

Rationale

A solid economic development marketing initiative would be a major step toward
diversifying Southeastern Connecticut’s economy. Diversification would benefit both the
region and the state as a whole by attracting and retaining companies in high-growth
industries. Such companies would serve as economic drivers regionally and statewide.
The more varied and vibrant business environment they would create would also make
the region a more desirable home for the military associated with Naval Submarine Base
New London.

Data show that there has been a significant shift in employment in the region in recent
years. Manufacturing has lost nearly 9,000 employees (nearly 33 percent) since 1990,
while tourism, entertainment and retail trade have gained nearly 20,000 employees,
accounting for nearly 90 percent of the total increase in the region. Although the number
of jobs in the Norwich/New London region actually increased from 114,100 in 1990 to
135,700 in 2005 (an increase of 21,600 jobs or 18 percent), the new jobs are in industries
that pay significantly lower wages than the jobs that have been shed. The average
manufacturing wage in Connecticut today is over $64,700, while the average retail wage
is $30,400 and the average wage in the accommodations and food service industry is
around $19,000. A major benefit of a successful economic development marketing effort
would be the attraction and creation of more high-wage jobs. This would provide
economic opportunity that would stem the out-migration of residents and attract new ones
to the area, while fostering a high quality of life.

Southeastern Connecticut must actively market itself as a business location if it is to grow
and diversify its economy. Competition for businesses nationwide and globally is fierce.
Localities, regions, states, and even groups of states are aggressively marketing



                                                                                        113
themselves to businesses in order to increase business vitality and grow their economies.
No matter how desirable Southeastern Connecticut might be as a business location, it
cannot attract businesses unless it mounts an effective marketing campaign.

Such marketing efforts are effective. Research shows that places that engage in marketing
and outreach to businesses, site selectors and others often succeed in being considered as
business locations when they would not otherwise have been noticed.

Marketing to business is complex. It can often be difficult to determine what the most
effective tactics and strategies are. However, there are many lessons to be learned from
experts on how to reach out, follow up and measure success. Focusing on developing a
well conceived plan with reasonable goals and objectives, allocating appropriate
resources, and establishing a management structure are elements that will lead to success,
assuming that the product—the location being promoted—is solid, as Southeastern
Connecticut certainly is.

Resources Required

Funding needed for developing the plan and implementing it over three years is estimated
to be $600,000 ($200,000 each year). Funding should be a combination of state, local and
private sector monies.

Expected Outcomes

As noted above, the results of developing and implementing an effective economic
development marketing campaign would be a stronger, more diverse regional economy; a
region that is an engine of growth for the state’s economy; an increase in high-wage jobs;
and a continued desirable quality of life.

We suggest that measures of success include levels of awareness, numbers of inquiries
and leads and tracking of success stories. Levels of awareness can be researched and
reported each year, and goals should be set for a percentage increase from year to year.
While it takes years to realize some of the direct results, such as new company locations
or existing company expansions, tracking and reporting of local business-expansion
announcements and relocations can occur immediately and be reported to show levels of
business activity.




                                                                                      114
Marketing and Advocacy Subcommittee
Final Report Recommendation #2

Develop a Plan to Strengthen Regional Cooperation in
Southeastern Connecticut
Summary Description

This recommendation calls for an initiative that would result in enhanced cooperation
among municipalities, regional organizations and private-sector entities in Southeastern
Connecticut. The three-part initiative would include:

1) identifying best practice models of regional cooperation in Southeastern Connecticut,
the state and the nation;
2) bringing major stakeholders in the region together to examine best practices and
explore opportunities for cooperation; and
3) developing a plan for regional cooperation and action that would strengthen economic
development efforts, diversify the regional economy, help municipalities and residents
benefit from economies of scale, and help local legislators identify and advocate for
legislative initiatives that would benefit the region as a whole.

Background/Context

In today’s global economy, political boundaries delineating individual cities and towns
are far less relevant than ever before. Site selection firms and businesses seeking new
locations typically assess potential sites based on the merits of a region as a whole, rather
than those of a single community. At the same time, municipalities are increasingly
challenged by the need to provide quality services to residents and businesses on budgets
that are stretched quite thin. As locations across the country have found, one of the best
ways to address these 21st century realities is through increased levels of regional
cooperation.

The value of regional cooperation was highlighted in the CEDS document as Goal One,
which reads, in part: ―Promote a more effective and efficient infrastructure that enhances
collaboration around economic development and unites the regional behind a common
vision.‖ This recommendation grows out of this goal, which already has broad support
among stakeholders in Southeastern Connecticut.

Rationale

A cooperative, regional approach to economic development and other key issues would
help diversify Southeastern Connecticut’s economy while easing strains on individual
municipalities’ budgets and improving services to residents and businesses. Such an
approach could also create a more formal process for local legislators to build consensus
on regional issues that could be addressed by state legislation. In addition, cooperative



                                                                                         115
strategies that prove successful in Southeastern Connecticut could also serve as a model
for other regions in the state.

Working together, local governments could make it easier for companies to do business
in the region. Businesses and site selection firms considering new business locations
could view the region more favorably knowing that the various cities and towns were in
agreement regarding policies and practices and cooperating—rather than competing—to
attract businesses to the area. Municipalities could engage in cooperative initiatives such
as revenue-sharing, major project development, regulatory consistency, shared services,
regional governance approaches to specific undertakings, and long-term regional
planning. Such cooperation would benefit all communities by enhancing economic
development, achieving economies of scale and promoting civic vitality.

Enhanced and strategic regional cooperation that would be a significant positive
economic benefit requires special resources and direction beyond those currently found
within a single municipality or organization. Without these resources, best intentions and
voluntary cooperation will not be sufficient to meet the economic challenges facing
Southeastern Connecticut.

The Recommendation: Regional Cooperation Initiative

This initiative is a three-part approach to achieving breakthrough levels of cooperation in
the region and sustaining them over the long term. The initiative would be guided by an
oversight group likely administered by the Southeastern Connecticut Council of
Governments (SCCOG) and involving leadership of other regional entities, including
seCTer, the region’s chambers of commerce and other appropriate interests. The three
components are:

1) Identify current best practices – In conjunction with the oversight group, SCCOG
would retain a skilled, experienced firm that would study current best practices in
regional cooperation in the region, the state and the nation. The firm would also assist the
oversight group and community leadership in developing a written plan for implementing
regional economic initiatives.

2) Systematically involve, educate and motivate stakeholders – After reviewing the
findings of the best-practices study, the oversight group would convene a series of
meetings involving public, private, nonprofit and community stakeholders from across
the region. Together, they would discuss the study’s findings and explore opportunities
for adapting other locations’ best practices to this region’s needs, priorities, and culture.
They would educate the public on the benefits of regional cooperation, build consensus
for it and motivate people to take steps toward achieving it. Specifically, the goals would
be to:

 Assess and review current governmental and private regional planning efforts
 Determine ways to enhance, support and link current regional planning efforts and
  authorities



                                                                                          116
 Enhance and broaden regional interaction and understanding of government and
  private-sector leadership by providing a means to examine seriously options for shared
  responsibility and authority for long-term planning and economic development
  initiatives
 Encourage the region’s two tribal nations—the Mashantucket Pequot and the Mohegan
  Tribes—and gaming industry leaders to participate in the regional long-term planning
  process

3) Develop a plan for enhancing regional cooperation – The outcome of this process
would be a written plan for undertaking regional initiatives. The plan would serve as a
framework for moving toward long-term, cooperative, regionally directed economic
development, planning, advocacy and provision of services.

Resources Required

Funding needed for developing the plan is estimated at $125,000. Funds would be used to
retain the expertise needed to conduct the best-practices study, involve community
leadership and develop the regional cooperation plan, as well as to cover expenses
associated with meeting facilitation, promotion and documentation. The subcommittee
suggests that these funds come from a legislative appropriation, justified by the fact that
the learning from such an exercise could be readily transferred to and employed by other
regions in the state. In addition, in-kind support would be solicited from the oversight
group organizations and private industry.

Expected Outcomes

The time frame for this project is estimated at 18 months. We anticipate that the research
portion, including identifying and retaining a consultant, would take six to eight months.
The awareness-raising and discussion among stakeholders may take three months, and
the remaining time would be spent on the actual development of the plan.

Implementation of this recommendation is expected to:

 Diversify and strengthen the region’s economy through more effective, efficient
  economic development
 Potentially reduce the burden on the municipal tax base by reducing duplication of
  effort among municipalities and achieving economies of scale
 Potentially improve the quality of services provided to businesses and residents
 Give the region a competitive edge in business recruitment by enabling a regional
  marketing approach
 Enable local legislators to prioritize and more effectively advocate for legislation
  beneficial to their constituents
 Provide greater economic stability and vitality for all communities in the region




                                                                                         117
                          APPENDICES


1.    MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION, ITS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, SUBCOMMITTEE
      CHAIRPERSONS AND PARTICIPANTS

2.    NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND STATE EXPERTS INVITED TO ADDRESS THE
      COMMISSION

3.    INTERIM REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (MARCH 31, 2006)

4.    STATUS REPORT ON INTERIM REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS (AS OF DEC. 15, 2006)

5.    BRAC LESSONS LEARNED CONFERENCE REPORT (AUGUST 24, 2006)

6.    "COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (CEDS) STRATEGY FOR
      SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT CY 2006 UPDATE REPORT," DATED JUNE 21, 2006

7.    REGIONAL BRANDING STUDY OF O’NEAL STRATEGY GROUP (FALL 2006)

8.    PRESENTATION OF NATIONAL SITE CONSULTANT CHRIS STEELE, MINTAX, BOSTON,
      MASS. (SEPTEMBER 2006)

9.    NATIONAL DEFENSE AND HOMELAND SECURITY INSTITUTIONS IN SOUTHEASTERN
      NEW ENGLAND

10.   BENCHMARKING CONNECTICUT 2006: DETERMINANTS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH,
      CONNECTICUT ECONOMIC RESOURCE CENTER INC. (NOVEMBER 2006)

11.   INTERSTATE MARKETING PRESENTATION, DAVID DRIVER, NORTHEAST
      UTILITIES (FEBRUARY 2006)

12.   INFORMATIONAL WEB SITE LINKS

13.   GROTON STRATEGIC ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN (JULY 2006)




                                                                         118
Membership – Governor’s Commission for the Economic
Diversification of Southeastern Connecticut
Chairman
Douglas G. Fisher
Northeast Utilities

Vice Chairman
Gary P. Bennett
Former Chairman/CEO of Analysis and Technology Inc.

James F. Abromaitis
Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development

Richard M. Barry
Citizens Bank Connecticut

John Beauregard
Eastern Connecticut Workforce Investment Board

Richard M. Brown
City of New London

Honorable William Brown
Town of Stonington

James S. Butler
Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments

Bruce Carlson
University of Connecticut

Ralph Carpenter
Connecticut Department of Transportation

John P. Casey
Electric Boat

Shaun Cashman
Connecticut Department of Labor

Honorable Robert Congdon
Preston

Honorable Catherine Cook
State Senator

Jane Dauphinais
Office of Congressman Rob Simmons

Philip Dukes
Office of Gov. M. Jodi Rell

Carolyn L. Forst
Jewett City Savings



                                                               119
Honorable Timothy Griswold
Old Lyme

Joseph Hammang
Pfizer Inc.

Mary Anne Hanley
Connecticut Office of Workforce Competitiveness

Martha A. Hunt
Connecticut Economic Resource Center Inc.

Christopher Jennings
Mystic Coast and Country Travel Industry Association

Grace S. Jones
Three Rivers Community College

Mary Ellen Jukoski, Ed.D.
Mitchell College

Stephen E. Korta
Connecticut Department of Transportation

Honorable Benjamin Lathrop
City of Norwich

Ellen Lind
Norwich Bulletin

Fred Litty
Sonalysts Inc.

John Markowicz
Southeastern Connecticut Enterprise Region

Patricia Mayfield
Connecticut Department of Labor

Honorable Susan Mendenhall
Town of Ledyard

Honorable Nicholas Mullane
Town of North Stonington

Marie O'Brien
Connecticut Development Authority

Mark Oefinger
Town of Groton

Linda Olbrys
Lee Hecht Harrison




                                                       120
Honorable Dennis Popp
City of Groton

Honorable R. Larry Reitz
Town of Salem

Honorable Keith Robbins
Town of Bozrah

Bill Rountree
Trivin, Inc

Frank Rowe
Office of U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman

John W. Sheehan
Southeastern Connecticut Enterprise Region

Tony Sheridan
Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut

Donna Simpson
Eastern Connecticut Tourism District

Bill Stanley
Lawrence and Memorial Hospital

Mark Stephanou
Office of U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd

Sean Sullivan
Naval Submarine Base New London (former)

Robert Tabor
Chelsea Groton Savings

William Turner
Greater Mystic Chamber of Commerce

Honorable Harry Watson
Town of Groton

Dan Weekley
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.

David Whitehead
William Backus Hospital

Len Wolman
Waterford Hotel Group




                                             121
Executive Committee Members

Douglas Fisher, Northeast Utilities (chairman)
Gary Bennett, former chairman/CEO of Analysis and Technology, Inc. (vice chairman)
James Abromaitis, Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development
Richard Barry, Citizens Bank
John Beauregard, Eastern Connecticut Workforce Investment Board
James Butler, Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments
Patricia Mayfield, Connecticut Department of Labor
Martha Hunt, Connecticut Economic Resource Center
John Markowicz, Southeastern Connecticut’s Economic Region
Mark Oefinger, Town of Groton
Donna Simpson, Eastern Connecticut Tourism District

Subcommittees, Co-Chairs and Participants

Defense and Homeland Security

       Co-chairs:
            o John Markowicz, SouthEastern Connecticut Enterprise Region
            o Tony Sheriden, Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut
            o Gary Bennett, Analysis and Technology Inc. (retired)

        Participants:
             o State Senator Cathy Cook
             o State Senator Andrea Stillman
             o Bud Fay, SUBASE Realignment Coalition
             o Sean Sullivan, USN, Naval Submarine Base New London (retired)
             o Captain Peter Boynton, United State Coast Guard
             o Catherine Chatfield, Pfizer
             o Denny Hicks, Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut
             o Richard Cooper, UConn Avery Point
             o Frank Rowe, Office of U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman
             o Hank Teskey, Electric Boat Company
             o John W. Sheehan, seCTer
             o Jack Shea, Electric Boat Company
             o Jane Dauphinais, U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons
             o John Casey, Electric Boat Company
             o Lt. Commander John Dettleff, U.S. Coast Guard Academy
             o Lois Santiago, Office of U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd
             o Mark Oefinger, Town of Groton
             o Merrill Gerber, Naval Undersea Warfare Center (retired)
             o Patricia Glynn, seCTer
             o Patrick Ryan, Microsystems Integration
             o Richard Brown, City of New London
             o Ted Colburn, Ocean Technology Foundation
             o Tony Brescia, Department of Economic and Community Development
             o Walt Lincoln, Lincoln Maritime
             o Captain Mark Ginda, Naval Submarine Base New London
             o Curtis Sumrok, U.S. Coast Guard Academy
             o Mark Stephanou, Office of U.S. Senator Chris Dodd




                                                                                     122
Infrastructure and Utilities

      Co-chairs
           o Mark Oefinger, Town of Groton
           o James Butler, Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments
           o Robert Congdon, Town of Preston

      Participants:
            o James Abromaitis, Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development
            o Tony Brescia, Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development
            o Ellen Lind, Norwich Bulletin
            o Chris Jennings, Mystic Coast and Country
            o Susan Mendenhall, Town of Ledyard
            o Carmine Trotta, Connecticut Department of Transportation
            o Ned Hurle, Connecticut Department of Transportation
            o Glenn Wilson, City of Groton Utilities
            o Robert Tabor, Chelsea Groton Bank
            o Gina McCarthy, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
            o Robert Kaliszewski, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
            o Thomas Marano, Northeast Utilities
            o Donna Simpson, Eastern Connecticut Tourism District
            o William Turner, AT&T
            o Greg Sevos, AT&T
            o John Markowicz, seCTer
            o Deborah Donovan, seCTer

Workforce and Affordable Housing

      Co-chairs:
           o John Beauregard, Eastern Connecticut Workforce Investment Board
           o Patricia Mayfield, Connecticut Department of Labor

      Participants:
            o Joe Comprone, UConn Avery Point
            o Lincoln Dyer, Connecticut Department of Labor
            o Jim Butler, Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments
            o Mark Stankowicz, Connecticut Department of Labor
            o Christine Paquette, Connecticut Department of Labor
            o Mary Ellen Jukoski, Mitchell College
            o Grace Jones, Three Rivers Community College
            o Marge Valentine, Three Rivers Community College
            o Mary Ann Hanley, Office for Workforce Competitiveness
            o Kim Andy, Office for Workforce Competitiveness
            o John Tirinzonie, Connecticut Department of Labor
            o Denny Hicks, Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut
            o Tim Coppage, Connecticut Housing Finance Authority
            o Linda Olbrys, Lee Hecht Harrison
            o Virginia Sampietro, Eastern Connecticut Workforce Investment Board
            o Harry Watson, Town of Groton
            o Diane Smith, Connecticut Housing Finance Authority
            o Frank Rowe, Office of U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman
            o Mary Berry, Norwich Adult Education
            o Cynthia Lamb, EG&G
            o Lynnmarie Thompson, LEARN




                                                                                         123
Marketing and Advocacy

      Co-chairs:
           o Martha Hunt, Connecticut Economic Resource Center Inc.
           o Richard Barry, Citizens Bank
           o Donna Simpson, Eastern Connecticut Tourism District

      Participants:
            o Tricia Barkley, Greater Mystic Chamber of Commerce
            o Deborah Donovan, seCTer
            o Fred Litty, Sonalyst Inc.
            o Paul Nunes, Washington Trust Co.
            o Daniel Weekley, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
            o Bill Gash, Connecticut Maritime Coalition
            o David Driver, Northeast Utilities
            o Tara King, Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut
            o Bill Stanley, Lawrence and Memorial Hospital
            o Frank Marco, Wiggin and Dana
            o Ben Seidel, Waterford Hotel Group
            o Tony Brescia, Department of Economic and Community Development
            o Deborah Adams, Washington Trust Company
            o Andy Maynard, Borough of Stonington
            o Steve Sigel, Garde Arts Center
            o Christopher Jennings, Mystic Coast and Country Travel Industry Association, Inc.
            o Chuck Bunnell, Mohegan Sun
            o Heidi Hamilton, Connecticut Film Division
            o Lori Lindfors, Citizens Bank
            o Timothy Griswold, Town of Old Lyme
            o Bruce Carlson, UConn




                                                                                                 124
Experts Invited to Speak to the Commission & Executive Committee
Kip Bergstrom
Executive Director, Rhode Island Economic Policy Council
Subject: Strategic economic linkages in Southeastern New England

Oley Carpp
Managing Director, Department of Economic and Community Development, Hartford, Conn.
Subject: Connecticut’s Industry Cluster Initiatives

Joseph Comprone
Associate Vice Provost and Campus Director, UConn Avery Point
Subject: Expanding UConn’s Technology Incubation Program at Avery Point

David Driver
Managing Director for Regional Development
Northeast Utilities, Berlin, Conn.
Subject: Team New England and Interstate Business Development Marketing

Bill O’Neal
Managing Director, O’Neal Strategy Group, Durham, Conn.
Subject: Regional Branding Study of Southeastern Connecticut

Ronald O'Rourke
National Defense Specialist
Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C.
Subject: Recent CRS Reports on U.S. Department of Defense and Homeland Security

John Riendeau
Defense Industry Manager
Rhode Island Economic Development Corp., Providence, R.I.
Subject: Regional Defense Industry Impacts and Linkages

Chris Steele
Director, Location Advisory Services, Mintax, Boston, Mass.
Subject: Southeastern Connecticut and the National Site Selection Process

Sean Sullivan, Esq.
Brown Jacobson P.C., Norwich; former commanding officer, U.S. Submarine Base New London
Subject: Commentary on National Defense & Homeland Security Recommendations

Rita Zangari
Executive Director, Technology Incubation Program, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Conn.
UConn’s Technology Incubation Program at Avery Point

Speakers at BRAC Lessons Learned Conference (Aug. 24, 2006)
Governor M. Jodi Rell                                    Rick Norris, U.S. Navy (ret.)
U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman                                  Gabe Stern, CMEEC
U.S Rep. Rob Simmons                                     W. Michael Regan and Rick Robbins, DECD
General Lloyd ―Fig‖ Newton, USAF (retired)               John Casey and Hank Teskey, Electric Boat
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal                      Jeff Blodgett, CERC Inc.
Walt Plosila, Battelle Institute                         Dr. Mario Fiori, BRAC Consultant
John Markowicz, seCTer                                   Jim Noone, The Washington Group
Mick O’Beirne, U.S. Navy (ret.)                          Paul Lobo, The Washington Group


                                                                                                 125

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:16
posted:11/21/2011
language:English
pages:127