DOT’s train station plans bring out detractors

As published in the Record Journal Wednesday May 29, 2013

By Andrew Ragali
Record-Journal staff
aragali@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224
Twitter:@AndyRagz

WALLINGFORD — During a public information session Tuesday night, residents and town councilors showed displeasure with plans for a new train station proposed by the state Department of Transportation.

As part of Tuesday’s Town Council meeting, John Bernick, project manager for the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield commuter rail, presented designs for the new station, which will be near the corner of Parker and North Colony streets, about a half mile away from its current location between Hall Avenue and Quinnipiac Street.

“I’m not really agreeable to the location,” Town Councilor John Sullivan said. “I like the design of the station.”

Six residents of North Cherry Street, adjacent to the proposed station, and some residents of the surrounding area told the eight state officials present Tuesday that oppose the location.

Those who spoke said they were concerned about traffic issues on North Cherry Street. Commuter buses will shuttle rail users to and from parking lots. Residents said they felt the buses would struggle to navigate the narrow street.

They also expressed concern over lighting from the station. Plans call for the widening of a portion of North Cherry Street, as well as the planting of mature trees to help mitigate lighting issues for residents. Plans also call for the purchase of several properties in the area, including one that currently houses a business. Residents were told that properties can be taken by eminent domain.

Bernick told concerned residents that he was willing to schedule personal meetings.

“I know they probably won’t sleep soundly tonight with all this new information, but at least it’s information they have,” Sullivan said.

Construction of the three-story station will begin early next year, Bernick said. The design calls for two parking lots with about 220 parking spots. Also, a 500-foot platform will be built, as well as a pedestrian walkway to cross the tracks.

Service will launch in late 2016, with 45 minute peak-hour and hourly midday service between New Haven and Springfield, Mass. The railway will provide 17 round trips daily, with the potential for 25 round trips in the near future, Bernick said. Estimates show, Bernick said, that 250 to 300 Wallingford residents will ride the commuter trains daily.

“This is the worst place for this,” Town Councilor John LeTourneau said. “This is a mistake for Wallingford that will affect us for the next 50 to 100 years. It’s a mistake.”

“I think the train concept is a boon to the town,” Town Councilor Jason Zandri said, adding that he, too, has concerns with the stations location. “I probably would have liked to see this farther down in Judd Square.”

A station at Judd Square was one of the alternate proposals brought before the town, Bernick said, adding that it had been a decision of the Town Council to build a station at the new location.

Councilor Craig Fishbein took offense to the statement by Bernick, arguing that “we were not presented with Judd Square” the last time town councilors met with DOT officials about the project.

Bernick disagreed, and said both site plans were presented. Fishbein said he would give Bernick the benefit of the doubt, but would look back at the video from the meeting.

Security issues at the new station were also discussed. Phones that dial 911 directly are to be installed in parking lots and at the station, according to the plans. Cameras will also be installed, but Bernick said it’s impossible to stop all crime.

“Crime could happen, yes, correct,” Bernick said in response to questions from Town Council Chairman Bob Parisi. “I want to portray this as realistically as possible.”

“There should be more money put into safety,” Parisi said.

“It’s a done deal no matter what? It’s a done deal?” LeTourneau asked Bernick on the location of the station.

“Yes,” Bernick responded.

A new location for the Wallingford Train Station

As published in the Record Journal, Monday June 11, 2012

By Laurie Rich Salerno

Record-Journal staff

WALLINGFORD — On Tuesday night, town councilors are expected to vote on where Wallingford’s next train depot should go — a decision that could affect downtown traffic and development for decades of years to come.

There are two sites being suggested by the state Department of Transportation: one at the intersection of the railroad tracks and Ward Street, called Judd Square, or Plan 1; and another near the intersection of North Cherry and Parker streets, referred to as Parker/Cerrito, or Plan 2. Town staff are primarily backing the Parker Street site, citing safety issues due to traffic interruption and a parking garage at the Judd Square location.

“Of all the sites discussed … it’s the optimal one at this point,” Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. said of the Parker Street site, citing the concerns of emergency personnel.

The council’s decision is not binding, but according to John Bernick, the rail project’s supervising engineer, it will be heavily considered when the DOT gives recommendations to the Federal Rail Administration, which is funding the project. The DOT is soliciting public comments until June 22 on its environmental impact survey, available on its website.

Town Engineer John Thompson sought to have the council vote Tuesday night so the town could have a voice on the location.

“We didn’t want somebody outside of Wallingford deciding where the station should be,” said Thompson, who has been working with both the DOT and the town on the project.

The new passenger platform would serve the state’s proposed New Haven-to-Springfield high-speed rail service, which officials say could eventually bring 25 round-trip commuter trains — 50 trips — through town each day. It is scheduled to be completed in 2016 and begin with about 17 round-trip trains a day.

Neither depot would include an actual train station; rather, they would consist of parking lots or parking structures, platforms on each side of the track and a vaulted pedestrian walkway to connect the two. Riders would buy tickets on the train, as do now, or use automated systems on the platforms, engineers say.

The historic train station at Hall, Quinnipiac and Center streets will remain, but not as a train station. It won’t be used for the high-speed rail, according to engineers, because trains stopping there cut off access to not only those streets, but can clog Route 5 and close nearby Ward and Parker streets.

“It would literally tie up downtown,” Thompson said.

Judd Square

The Judd Square site was proposed as an alternative to both an initial Parker Street plan and a separate plan that would have placed a station across the tracks from Holy Trinity Church.

The depot there would feature one 200-space parking garage on the north side of Ward Street and the west side of the railroad tracks, along with 500-foot platforms on each side of the tracks and 200-foot shelters directly across from one another and joined by a raised pedestrian overpass, according to DOT schematics. Entrances to the lots would be both on Ward and South Cherry streets, and the parking structure would abut a parking lot belonging to the Judd Square condominium complex.

Having a more-than-300unit condominium right next door seemed like it would be a natural feeder for the service, Thompson said.

“When the Judd Square site was floated — that jumped out as being an absolute home run in terms of ridership potential,” he said.

But a town working group formed to analyze the sites after a public hearing last August found the site to be less than ideal in terms of traffic and public safety, according to Thompson.

Ward Street is a busy artery for east-west traffic, extending from North Elm Street on the east and joining with Quinnipiac Street on the west side, which feeds into Route 15. Trains stopping at Judd Square 50 times a day would close Ward, Hall and Quinnipiac — which engineers say are the town’s busiest streets — all at once. Trains stopping at Judd Square would make Parker, a short street that runs between North Colony and Washington, the nearest open road downtown. And that, Thompson said, could hamper the ability of emergency vehicles to quickly get to different sides of town.

Thompson said that one Sunday he saw this in action while sitting in his car at a crossing behind an ambulance as a train went by. “I’m watching an emergency vehicle with its lights flashing,” he said. “We just can’t let this happen 50 times a day.”

The working group also opposed the construction of a parking garage, citing public safety and aesthetic concerns.

“Most people find them difficult to navigate when getting off the train. The darkness of those places and the manner in which they’re designed is usually pretty intimidating,” said Police Chief Douglas Dortenzio, who attended some of the working group meetings. The chief said he’s not a fan of high-rise parking garages from a public safety standpoint — particularly those that do not have attendants — but he said he thinks there are subtle advantages and disadvantages to each site, and he isn’t a strong believer in either one.

Republican Town Councilor Craig Fishbein said he is leaning toward the Parker Street site because of Judd Square’s proposed parking garage.

“I don’t want to see the Wallingford landscape include a multilevel parking lot. I think it would turn the town of Wallingford into the city of Wallingford,” Fishbein said, though he is opposed to the high-speed rail project on the whole.

For the site to work as it has been designed, the state would need to acquire the Knights of Columbus building, a vacant industrial site and a private home.

Parker Street

The Parker Street depot would be a split site with two parking lots, one on each side of the tracks, totaling 210 spaces. One of the lots would be at the intersection of Parker and North Cherry streets on the south side of Parker and the west side of the tracks,with entrances on North Cherry. The land that would become the North Cherry lot is owned by the state. The second lot would be placed on North Colony Street, at the site of Cerrito’s used car lot.

The state would have to acquire property from only one owner to complete the Parker Street site, and though Cerrito’s owners did not return calls Friday, DOT officials said the town had discussed the proposed plans with them. Bernick said the state would pay for the property and relocation costs. “It’s a pretty fair shake,” he said of the process.

The two 500-foot platforms and 200-foot shelters would not be directly across from each other, but the ends would overlap in the middle, where there would be an overhead pedestrian walkway.

The distance between platforms is one of the reasons Republican Town Councilor John LeTourneau is a proponent of the Judd Square location, saying it could be difficult for handicapped, aged and other travelers if they need to get from one parking lot to the other side of the tracks.

“Judd Square … I like because it can be a nice, neat, clean up-and-over to get from one platform to the other,” Le-Tourneau said. He said the public safety argument for Parker Street is thin — the increased frequency of trains could cause public safety issues no matter where the new station is. He believes auxiliary police and fire stations may eventually be necessary.

The town’s working group favors the Parker Street site, as there would be no parking garage and trains stopping there would close Parker, Hall and Quinnipiac, but leave the busier Ward Street open.

Having parking lots on both sides of the tracks would also minimize bottlenecks to one lot or side of the tracks, according to Thompson.

“It gives (riders) the ability to park on the side closer to them,” Thompson said, which “lessens traffic impact on the local roadway network.”

Democratic Town Councilor John Sullivan said he would wait until Tuesday’s meeting, which will include a presentation from town engineers, to decide which site to support.

Residents

There were few residents out near either location late Friday morning, but some weighed in on the possibility of having a train depot nearby. Leon Bernstein, who has lived in the Judd Square condominiums for about 15 years, said he did not want a train stop next door.

“I don’t really like the idea. I wish they would put it someplace else,” Bernstein said.

At the other location, residents of Parker Place condominiums, which would be directly across the street from one of the parking lots, were more enthusiastic about having a station so near.

“The convenience of having the station here — that would be great,” Carole Evon said. “I have a car, but I might use it.”

As for increased noise, Diann Burrill, who has lived in a unit facing the tracks for three years, said it likely wouldn’t make that much difference to her and her husband.

“We have gotten used to it,“ Burrill said of the train whistle and other noises. The location would be convenient for others in her building, she said, including her son, who lives in a separate apartment in the same complex.

“He and his girl might use it once in a while … go see the Red Sox and Yankees. I think people would use it,” Burrill said.

Above: A vacant parcel next at Parker and North Cherry streets is a proposed site for a new Wallingford train station.Below: A lot across the tracks behind Dairy Queen on Ward Street is a possible location for a parking structure to be part of a train station.

Photos by Christopher Zajac / Courtesy of the Record-Journal

Tracking the rail project in Wallingford

As published in the Record Journal, Monday August 8, 2011

By Mary Ellen Godin
Record-Journal staff
mgodin@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2255

WALLINGFORD — Travel speeds, downtown traffic, land acquisition and changes in the Judd Square area are some of the concerns being raised by the public over plans for commuter rail service from New Haven to Springfield, Mass.

Plans call for upgrading signals along the 62-mile stretch, which could begin as early as next spring. But locally, the public voiced concerns at a meeting last week over a proposal to move the train stop to Judd Square, with an elevated platform and parking for 200 cars.

The state Department of Transportation held the first of many informational sessions last Thursday with residents and town officials over where and how to lay out the new station. The rail line will increase commuter and inter-city service while also providing high-speed Acela transit along the corridor.

Springfield will become a central connector with service to Boston, Vermont and finally to Montreal. The project consists of double tracking 62 miles of track, upgrading the signals, building new stations in North Haven, Newington and Enfield, relocating Wallingford’s station and building new elevated platforms, walkways and parking garages in each town.

“Nothing has been set in stone,” said DOT Project Manager John Bernick.
He asked town officials to create a panel to act as an advisory board throughout the project.

Wallingford has the most crossings of any municipality along the corridor — 10, eight with signals and two unsignaled gates. The most heavily trafficked areas are Parker, Hall, Ward and Quinnipiac streets. The town now has five or six trains passing through per day. The rail project calls for 25.

Public officials have said they are concerned that more trains, which can go as fast as 110 mph, would pose a safety threat to residents and disrupt nearby businesses.

City Councilor Jerry Farrell opposed Amtrak’s taking any land from Most Holy Trinity Church. Bernick assured him that wouldn’t happen.

Farrell also he had concerns about 25 trains roaring through a very densely populated section of town every day. The crossings are at grade. He was assured that just because the trains had the potential to reach 110 mph didn’t mean they would travel that fast through Wallingford or other high density areas. “No matter where you place it or combine it, grade crossings are going to be a problem,” Bernick said.

A traffic study conducted by Wilbur Smith & Associates reviewed the traffic signals at Parker, Hall, Ward and Quinnipiac streets and gave several of them failing grades should the anticipated commuter and intercity service start with no changes in existing traffic routes. Solutions include some road widening in certain areas, signal changes and right-turn-only lanes.

Residents of Judd Square and the nearby area expressed concerns that their parking, already in short supply, would be impacted. Bernick said no parking would be taken away and Amtrak plans to use land now housing a warehouse for that purpose.

There were only rough schematics of the site, parking garage and walk-up from Route 5 because project leaders hope to gather more public input on the location of the new train platform and design specifications. Judd Square is not a definitive site — moving the stop several blocks to the north has also been discussed — but is the best for the project, Bernick said.

Councilor Craig Fishbein questioned the cost of the project and the amount Amtrak receives annually in subsidies to support its operation. He said that without an obvious demand by people working in other towns, he didn’t see how the operation could sustain itself. The cost of the project is set at $647 million, and a $110 million shortfall is expected for the Hartford-to-Springfield leg, which planners expect will come from the federal government.

“You would be better off giving the money to the people,” Fishbein said.

Bernick replied that demand has already been proven and the project will offer significant economic development opportunities to communities with train stations. He also said increased usage of Metro-North has made it the most profitable service in the U.S.

Other benefits are that the ability to travel to Boston and New York in one to two hours could make office space in Meriden or Wallingford more attractive. Shuttle buses to and from industrial parks are also a possibility and the station will connect with the public service bus lines.

The public meetings in the cities and towns along the rail line will become part of the environmental impact study expected this fall. Upgrades to the signals could begin as early as next spring, Bernick said.

Gail DeLucia, president of the Judd Square Homeowners Association, got on board with the project after she learned the residents would not lose any parking. She was careful to say she was speaking as an individual and not for the group. But the sluggish economy and job market offer more reasons to invite commerce and create jobs.

“We have to look to the future,” DeLucia said, “or we don’t get any solution.”

FROM WALLINGFORD - Truth overtakes rail project

This week’s FROM WALLINGFORD was written by Stephen Knight

As published in the Record Journal, Sunday August 7, 2011

I have been a student of the railroad industry for my entire adult life; as a student in graduate school, as a keenly interested observer, and as a professional transportation consultant. So I write this column with considerable angst, because it is my conclusion that the proposed New Haven-Hartford-Springfield commuter rail project that will run through Wallingford is a boondoggle of fantastic proportions. My inherent predisposition to support this project is overwhelmed when confronted with the 1) downright mythical speed and service projections, 2) wildly optimistic ridership projections and 3) blindly underestimated capital and operating expenses.

Speed and service projections: In a May 9 press release, Gov. Malloy stated that these trains would reach “speeds up to 110 miles per hour.” I say: only if you catapult the trains from every station like they do jet fighters off an aircraft carrier. Why? First of all, there will eventually be 11 stops in the 62 miles between New Haven and Springfield. That’s an average of less than six miles between stops. So where exactly will these trains do 110 mph? And — are you ready for this? — the service will commence with hand-me-down equipment from Shoreline East. According to their latest schedule, those trains, making all the stops, move between New Haven and New London averaging less than 50 mph, and do so on the most advanced, best maintained railroad track in America. Secondly, this speed in a corridor with thirty-eight grade crossings? Really? So calling the NHHS project high speed rail is utterly fictitious.

Ridership projections built on the sentiment “Build it and they will come”: in calculating potential ridership, the numbers presented assume a) many more daily Amtrak trains running on the line; b) enormous numbers of passengers feeding the line from the so-called “Knowledge Corridor” line in central Massachusetts which has yet to be rebuilt; and c) thousands upon thousands of people willing to live in this corridor and work 2 ½ hours away in New York City. In other words, the number of commuters between New Haven and Springfield that is supposedly the driving force behind this project could never, ever justify the price tag, so numbers assuming a complete northeastern United States rail system build out are used to puff up the stats.

Capital and operating expenses: The price tag for rail line and station construction alone is $647 million, and the project is counting on huge support from the feds. Here is the latest fed response: State of Connecticut request — $227 million. Fed grant: $30 million. Result: the project has already contracted to providing trains only during peak commuter times. And how much money is allocated to purchase rolling stock — the stuff you ride on? Zero. As mentioned above, the plan is to use the existing Shore Line East equipment until, well, who knows?

As for operating expenses, somehow the project is making revenue estimates, but they haven’t even set the fare schedule. How do you do that? But even assuming (do you see that word a lot here?) their revenue and ridership projections are accurate, there is an inherent, unavoidable, inevitable huge annual cash subsidy. This is not unusual. This is the norm, but could someone in Hartford admit that?

So here’s the rub. Even more than I love railroads, I love the truth. The unvarnished, straight up, tell-it-like-it-is, we can take it truth. And we aren’t getting it. We are being fed pretty pictures, fantastic blue-sky fuzzy numbers and gauzy descriptions of an idyllic life in a future northeastern U.S. economy that seems farther from reality every single day.

If these words seem harsh, they spring from disappointment.

Disappointment that this project is not a practical, financially sensible fit for the market in which it is to operate, and disappointed that you and I are, yet again, being treated like proverbial mushrooms: kept in the dark and covered with . . . well, you know what I’m saying.

FROM WALLINGFORD - Time for a new game-changer

This week’s FROM WALLINGFORD is written by my counterpart on the column – Stephen Knight

Transportation Game-Changers: The Appian Way of ancient Rome, the Erie Canal of the 1820s, the 19th century Clipper ship, the transcontinental railroad completed in 1869, the New York City subway system of the early 20th century, the Interstate Highway System begun in 1956, the Boeing 707 developed in the late ‘50s, and the Sea-Land containership. These are but a few of the transportation projects that have not only transformed how we move about but eventually transformed either national or worldwide society.

With that as a backdrop, I have read with great interest the debate in the Record-Journal about the commuter railroad that the State of Connecticut is committed to building. The letters in the Record-Journal in response to the hyperbole- laden, this-is-the-answer-to-our prayers rhetoric from Speaker Donovan (I ask you: do they teach courses at the capital to write like that?) have been thoughtful and articulate. I especially enjoyed Bud Sielaff of Wallingford’s analysis of the supposed benefits of the project.

I would like to weigh in with these two observations: 1) proponents of this project – and I include myself in their ranks – really should level with the people as to the actual costs, and 2) the benefits of this project will take years if not decades to be realized.

First of all, let’s talk costs: the $800 million price tag is just to build the system. If this system is built, there will have to be an annual subsidy of millions of dollars to operate it. There is not a commuter rail system on the planet that is self-sufficient. I ride Metro North into New York on a fairly regular basis, and the trains are invariably packed, yet the State of Connecticut supplements their operating budget by many millions every year. And the State is buying 300 new railcars to the tune of $760 million to replace the 30 to 40-year old rolling stock now in use. Bottom line: these rail systems are big bucks to build and to operate.

Now that that’s on the table, we had better talk about benefits. And I’m not talking about 4,000 jobs, billions of gallons of gas saved and all the other supposed benefits Speaker Donovan listed that letter writer Sielaff so deftly refuted. I am speaking of the long-term benefits of an attractive, efficient alternative to the motor vehicle, long-term being defined as a period of at least fifty years. Yes, intelligent transportation planning needs to look to that far of a horizon.

Connecticut is one of the most densely populated states in the country, and despite the unattractive economic climate here presently, it probably will remain so for the next century. We have been told that miles driven in Connecticut are up by 30 percent over the past twenty-five years. That rate of increase is unsustainable for the future, given that land for additional lanes of interstate is almost impossible to purchase given current land values — even if the land were available, which it is not. We are built out. And can you imagine the disruption of constructing a fourth lane of I-91 in each direction? We’d all be at each other’s throats by the time we got to work each day. A veritable ten-year road rage epidemic.

So the ultimate benefit this commuter rail line will have is to protect the quality of life we enjoy here — in Wallingford and in Connecticut. It will be expensive. It will take decades for its impact to be realized. It is politically risky for our state leaders to ask Connecticut voters to assume this financial obligation at this precarious time.

All that said, we just have to find a way to avoid the slow, inexorable strangulation we are facing because of our total dependence on the automobile. Our transportation arteries are clogging. We need a bypass. Commuter rail from New Haven to Springfield is one of those “procedures” that will keep our state economy alive.

Is Connecticut too deep in debt for rail project?

As printed in the Record Journal Sunday August 15, 2010

Originally published online at CTMirror.org - “State borrowed from capital program to keep budget afloat” 

CTMirror.org is the Web site of The Connecticut Mirror, an independent, nonprofit news organization covering government, politics and public policy in the state.

 

Nearly $600 million borrowed from future capital projects to help state government pay its bills has thrown a wrench into Gov. M. Jodi Rell's efforts to bond another $260 million for the planned New Haven-to-Springfield commuter rail line.

Rell canceled Wednesday's scheduled State Bond Commission meeting after leaders of the legislature's Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee questioned why the $580 million in short-term borrowing - approved in April 2009 when the state was more than $1 billion in deficit - still hasn't been repaid.

And Rep. Vincent J. Candelora of North Branford, ranking House Republican on the committee, said he was unaware the financing had been sought to keep the state's checkbook in balance, and not to finance capital projects.

"There wasn't any discussion about borrowing for our cash flow at the time," Candelora, whose finance committee leadership post also makes him a member of the bond commission, said Thursday. "I don't want there to be any secrets or surprises out there."

Candelora and his fellow GOP lawmakers already have criticized both Rell, a Republican, and the legislature's Democratic majority for ordering $2 billion in borrowing over the past year to cover government operating costs.

Despite having nearly $1.4 billion in the state's emergency reserve, Rell and the legislature agreed last fall to borrow $1.05 billion to cover the 2008-09 budget deficit. This enabled them to use the entire reserve to support the 2009-10 and 2010-11 budgets.

The governor and legislature then agreed to borrow again this past May, approving another $956 million in financing for the current budget--an amount that has been cut to $700 million by recent surplus projections.

And if the state effectively advanced itself another $580 million in April 2009 that will eventually be used for capital projects, why does Rell need  another $260 million for the rail project now? Candelora asked.

"I believe it is imperative that the commission members have adequate information prior to its vote," Candelora wrote this week to Rell, warning he was prepared to vote against further borrowing at the bond commission's Aug. 11 meeting. The panel, which is being asked to approve $520 million in new general obligation bonding for projects, including $260 million for the commuter line, has been rescheduled to meet Aug. 17.

Rep. Cameron C. Staples, D-New Haven, and Sen. Eileen M. Daily, D-Westbrook, then sent e-mails to Rell, indicating they shared many of Candelora's concerns.

The governor's office issued an statement this week indicating the meeting had been delayed because of lawmakers' concerns about past borrowing. "All of us, including Representative Candelora, the other lawmakers and my administration, deserve to have this extra information before we move ahead," she wrote.

That borrowing was authorized by Rell, and performed by state Treasurer Denise L. Nappier, in accordance with emergency provisions spelled out in state law. The treasurer is empowered, with the governor's approval, to borrow funds when the state coffers are at risk of running dry.

Nappier submitted a plan in early March 2009 to Rell, which the governor subsequently approved. The "first line of defense" in that plan stems from a procedure commonly followed when state government finances road repairs, new building construction or other capital initiatives.

The bond commission routinely allocates a fixed amount of borrowing, to be repaid over 15 or 20 years, for such projects. But in the early stages, a relatively small amount of the funds might be needed for tasks such as architectural designs or engineering studies.

This fraction of the total project budget typically is borrowed, at lower interest rates for short terms such as one or two years, through bond anticipation notes.

When the state is ready to move ahead with the bulk of the project, it issues long-term bonds, and uses the proceeds both to repay the anticipation notes and to pay for the remaining work.

Nappier's plan called for the bond commission to approve $700 million for future capital projects, which it did in April 2009.

The treasurer then used bond anticipation notes to effectively secure an advance of $580 million, to improve the state's cash flow.

"That plan was reviewed by the governor and shared with the General Assembly," Nappier wrote this week in a response to Candelora, adding it allowed Connecticut to borrow at rates ranging from 0.47 percent to 1.15 percent. "Had the BANs not been used in FY 2009, to aid the state's overall cash position, other methods of cash flow borrowing, more than likely at higher interest rates, would have been necessary to ensure our ability to meet the state's obligations."

This system works because of state government's common cash pool, a system that effectively mingles tax revenues, receipts from fees, licenses and penalties, federal grants, and proceeds from borrowing, in one big account.

Originally scheduled to be repaid in June 2010, those notes were extended for another year. Nappier added in her letter that she plans to issue long-term bonds next June to borrow the full $700 million authorized for capital projects back in April 2009, and to use those proceeds to repay the short-term notes.

But what about the $580 million used to shore up state government's operating budget last year as tax receipts ran low? Is all of that funding effectively still available? If so, why does the Rell administration need more borrowing?

"You want to be able to see how this $580 million fits into the whole context," Staples said. "The treasurer's letter provides some information, but it doesn't provide us with all of the context we need."

"If we were going to borrow even more money for (operating costs,) this is something that should have been debated by the legislature," Candelora said.

Staples added committee leaders would be seeking to meet with Nappier in the next few days to better understand the common cash pool.

Candelora and Rep. Craig Miner of Litchfield, ranking House Republican on the Appropriations Committee, questioned during the regular 2010 legislative session whether the state's operating budget effectively was borrowing from its capital projects to stay afloat.

About 27 percent of the funds in the state's cash pool at the end of January 2009 came from bonding, while that ratio had jumped to 52 percent one year later, said Candelora, who sponsored a measure enacted this year that requires the treasurer to issue monthly reports on the state's cash balance starting in October.