Community Corner

Department of Labor Says North Center School Contract Violates Prevailing Wage Laws

Town officials say latest development won't stop project, but will delay move and cost the town $500,000.

The sale-lease of the North Center School property for the development of municipal and school administrative offices is a creative one, the state Department of Labor said, but violates the state’s existing prevailing wage laws.

In a letter to Allan Borghesi of Borghesi Construction dated June 7 that was released to the public and press Wednesday following a Freedom of Information request, the Department of Labor cautioned that the project includes considerable funding and planning from the town and is not exempt from wage laws applicable to government agencies.

“In the CTDOL’s view, a reasonable interpretation of the term ‘incidental’ construction would likely have to be less than the stated amount of $100,000 which triggers the application of the statute,” wrote Gary Pechie, the director of the Wages and Workplace Standards division of the State Department of Labor.

“Accordingly, based on my review of the totality of the factual circumstances surrounding the proposed lease of private premises by the Town of Southington, I have concluded on behalf of the CTDOL that the contemplated sale, renovation, lease, buyback entail substantially more than incidental construction to the premises, and thus, implicate the application of statute 31-35,” Pechie concluded.



Messages left with both Pechie and Borghesi were not returned Wednesday.

The town went through an extensive process that began in December to reach an agreement that would allow the town to sell the property at 196 North Main St. for $1 dollar, lease it back at a cost of $375,000 for the first year and $387,000 for each year after that.

Southington, which approved the proposal by Town Council vote in early May, could buy back the property after eight years for a cost of $2.9 million.

But some protested the proposal, including a group of union workers that said the project violates statutes of prevailing wage laws during public hearings at several levels.

After a complaint was filed with the state Department of Labor, it entered into an investigation of the contract, however. The name of the complainant has not been released but Town Councilor Edward Pocock III said the town has requested the information through the Freedom of Information Act.

Southington Patch has also requested copies of any other letters, including the complaint, from the Department of Labor.

“We were not expecting this,” said Town Manager Garry Brumback. “We had three legal entities that reviewed the project and each said it is not an applicable project under the vague prevailing wage laws, only to have the Department of Labor decide to go their own way.”

Brumback said the ruling would adversely affect the timeline on the project – town department had been scheduled to move in by November – and would add just under $500,000 in additional costs, pushing the overall cost over $7 million.

“The biggest thing and most disappointing aspect is that it’s an increased burden on the taxpayers that we feel is totally unnecessary and completely unjustified,” Brumback said. “Going with this approach, even with the increase, will still save over $1 million than if done we had looked to do this ourselves and we are pressing forward.”

Brumback said the town would seek to challenge the ruling but would move forward with the new estimates to continue in an expedited manner.

The new development may affect the timeline for the move, said School Superintendent Joseph V. Erardi Jr., but will not impact the Board of Education’s timeline in proceeding with the sale of the administrative office building at 49 Beecher St.

Erardi said the facility committee interviewed three finalists on Monday and would be prepared to select a realtor in the near future.

Pocock said the decision will have statewide implications and if upheld could lead to the investigation and determination of other projects on both a state and local level.

“There is wiggle room and it’s something we will vote on at our next meeting,” Pocock said. “This was a frivolous complaint, however, and ultimately the only thing it will do is cost the taxpayers more money.”


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here