Hopes are high for redevelopment of CT trash-to-energy plant. Now 1,000 acres are being looked at

Since the mid-1980s, the view for motorists cruising across the Charter Oak Bridge has been dominated by one major sight: a trash-to-energy plant perched below on the banks of the Connecticut River that was still taking garbage from nearly 50 towns when it shut down in 2022.

The 80-acre property is seen as promising for future redevelopment — given its location on the river — and now, so are more than an estimated 1,000 acres to the south and west that all could become part of a massive, new redevelopment district in Hartford’s gritty South Meadows.

The district, part of a bill in the legislature this session, would include a wide swath of land between the Connecticut River and Wethersfield Avenue, taking in not only the trash-to-energy plant but also the Connecticut Regional Market and Hartford-Brainard Airport.

The bill is touching off opposition — not for redeveloping the trash-to-energy plant — but for again stoking up controversy that has surrounded a push in recent years to close and redevelop the airport. Those efforts, aimed at mixed-use redevelopment, have been led by state Sen. John W. Fonfara, D-Hartford and former Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin in recent years.

The proposal for the new development district was tacked onto a bill that seeks to transfer control of the trash-to-energy plant to the Capital Region Development Authority to guide its future redevelopment.

Fonfara, who envisioned the new district, recently told members of the legislature’s finance committee, which he co-chairs, that the closure of the trash-to-energy plant invited the idea of looking at the South Meadows area more broadly.

“This is an underdeveloped area and including the site of the [trash-to-energy] plant,” Fonfara said, as the committee debated whether to send it to the full General Assembly possible adoption. “It has taken the garbage of the state for 50 years, and now we’re left to figure out what to do with it. And so, we’ve expanded the boundaries to a much larger area, much larger than the airport area to attempt to begin a conversation on how to improve that area.”

Fonfara said the goals included boosting the grand list and property taxes; promoting economic development; and creating jobs.

“There is nothing in the bill that involves — there is no language that would provide for any subsidy, enticement — any encouragement for development,” Fonfara told committee members. “It just simply creates a boundary for economic development purposes, including the airport.”

Rocky road

But some legislators see a rocky road ahead for the bill, if the airport stays in the proposed district. And the Connecticut Airport Authority, which oversees Brainard, said the bill, as now drafted, “leaves undefined the mission, organizational structure and powers of the development district.”

Closing an airport requires the approval of the General Assembly and the backing of the Federal Aviation Administration. If approved, a closure could take years. A $1.5 million legislative study last year recommended keeping the airport open, but it did outline possible alternatives should the decision be made to close it.

While agreeing with Fonfara on the need to redevelop many portions of the South Meadows, state Rep. Dave Yaccarino, R-North Haven, said he considers the airport a vital asset to the area that needs to be preserved. Brainard not only serves aircraft arrival and departure but also supports job training for the aviation field and is critical to supporting nearby hospitals, Yaccarino said.

“Why don’t we just write it into the statute that they are protected?” Yaccarino said, at the meeting. “And that land is theirs, and it’s able to be used going forward unless they choose to sell?”

Fonfara told the committee that he could not counter the perception that linked the redevelopment district with downside change for the airport.

“The assumptions made that this is somehow aimed at affecting the airport in a negative way — I can’t control that narrative,” Fonfara told the committee.

The finance committee voted late last month to send the bill out of committee for further debate in the wider General Assembly.

Subsequently, when contacted by The Courant, Fonfara — through a spokesman — said he had no comment on the bill.

Hartford Mayor Arunan Arulampalam has been far less supportive than his predecessor, Bronin, about redeveloping the airport. Arulampalam has questioned the viability of such a plan and how much of a priority it should be.

In a recent interview, Arulampalam said he is enthusiastic about the potential for pushing forward on the redevelopment of the former trash-to-energy property under the guidance of CRDA.

He acknowledges the realities of the cost of an environmental clean-up, a price tag that could run into a challenging tens of millions — perhaps more — and stretch out for years for a site with an industrial history reaching back a century.

“We are focused right now on redevelopment of the [trash-to-energy] site, which we see as a much more immediate possibility for economic development,” Arulampalam said.

Arulampalam said he believes decisions must first be made about the vision for the site because the costs of contamination remediation can vary widely depending on future uses — or combination of uses. He said he hopes initial planning can start later this year.

‘Son of Adriaens’

In the 1920s, the trash-to-energy plant property was a coal-fired electric plant before converting to an oil-fueled generator in the 1940s. In the mid-1980s, an expansion created a waste processing center paired with an electricity-generating plant. The plant operated until 2022 and is now in the final stages of winding down under the MIRA Dissolution Authority The authority the successor to the Materials Innovation and Recycling Authority, which operated the trash-to-energy plant.

A recent recent study commissioned by the dissolution authority detailed the challenges facing redevelopment. Clean-up could take years, the costs are dependent on what is envisioned for the property and not only what’s in the soil but how many buildings are demolished. Environmental remediation requirements become much more stringent if residential development becomes part of the plan.

According to a 1,535-page report on the study’s findings, the costs just to get the property ready for development could range from $48 million for industrial and commercial uses to $334 million for heavily residential. Those figures are based on getting started in 2026 and rise significantly waiting five or 10 years.

According to the MIRA Dissolution Authority, it expects to wind down in late spring with $50 million in reserves that could cover remediation for future development.

“Truly, it’s not much different than Adriaen’s Landing was,” Michael W. Freimuth, CRDA’s executive director, said. “I mean, Adriaen’s was coal tar and tank farms and multiple properties and the waterfront. The process is pretty similar. Land use controls and environmental land use restrictions and all that stuff. It’s really kind of the son of Adriaen’s.”

Coal tar was left behind by the early coal-burning plants that provided heat and light to city residents in the early part of the last century.

Adriaen’s Landing in downtown Hartford now includes a convention center, hotel, apartments, an entertainment district and the University of Connecticut’s downtown regional campus. The trash-to-energy plant property is more than double the size of Adriaen’s Landing.

Initially, Adriaen’s Landing — launched in the early 2000s after years of planning — was envisioned as unfolding in just a few years.

But the Front Street entertainment district, for example, wasn’t completed until 2010, and its first lease signed two years later as the country slogged through a deep recession. There was a change in developers and housing — originally planned for above the storefronts — was taken out of the design.

Arulampalam, the Hartford mayor, acknowledged that the cost of environmental clean-up could limit future residential development on the trash-to-energy plant property.

“For the conversion of the entire parcel into residential — at least right now — seems like it would be cost prohibitive,” Arulampalam said. “But I think there’s probably some eventual blended use that can be achieved on that site.”

Kenneth R. Gosselin can be reached at kgosselin@courant.com.