DOCSLIB.ORG

Psa Report Competitive V/S Non Competitive Contracts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Psa Report Competitive V/S Non Competitive Contracts S t a t e o f C o n n e c t i c u t OFFICE OF POLICY AND MANAGEMENT REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY Personal Service Agreements Benjamin Barnes Secr et ar y Office of Policy and Management 450 Capitol Avenue Hartford, Connecticut 06106 Sub mitt ed October 31, 2017 This page is intentionally left blank 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction . 3 A. Purpose . 4 B. Background . 4 C. Scope and Methodology . 5 D. Inquiries . 6 Part I. PSA Data . A. Total Number of PSA 1. Chart Competitive and Noncompetitive Payments All Contracts. 7 2. Chart Competitive and Noncompetitive All Contracts. 8 3. Chart Competitive and Noncompetitive Under 20K . 9 4. Chart Competitive and Noncompetitive 20K and Over . 10 B. Summary Data . 11 C. Detail Data. 13 Part II. Consultant Agreements . A. Summary of Consultant Agreements. 51 B. Detail Data . 52 3 INTRODUCTION A. Purpose This document summarizes information regarding Personal Service Agreements for State fiscal year 2017. B. Background A Personal Service Agreement (PSA) is a duly executed and legally binding contract that defines the services or end products to be delivered by a Personal Service Contractor to a State agency. It is one of the primary mechanisms used by the State for procurement purposes. Typically, a PSA is used to purchase infrequent and non-routine services or end products, such as consulting services, technical assistance, and training. By law, no State agency may hire a Contractor to deliver such services or end products without first executing a PSA. C.G.S. § 4–212 defines who is included and who is not included in the term “Personal Service Contractor.” Included is “any person, firm or corporation not employed by the State, who is hired by a State agency for a fee to provide services to the agency.” Not included in the term “Personal Service Contractor” are the following: (a) a person, firm or corporation providing contractual services to the State, as defined in C.G.S. § 4a–50; (b) certain consultants hired by the Department of Administrative Services (DAS), Division of Construction Services, as defined in C.G.S. § 4b–55; (c) certain consultants hired by the Department of Transportation, as defined in C.G.S. § 13b–20b; (d) agencies of the federal government, State government, or political subdivisions of the State; and (e) certain consultants hired by the DAS, Bureau of Enterprise Systems & Technology, as defined in C.G.S. § 4d–2(c)(5). A State agency wishing to enter into a PSA must adhere to the requirements set forth in the Connecticut General Statutes, Title 4, Chapter 55a, Part II, Sections 212 - 219, inclusive. Section 4-217 requires the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) to establish standards for State agencies to follow when entering into a PSA. Pursuant to this statute, the standards must include, but are not limited to, (1) evaluating the need for a PSA, (2) developing a Request For Proposals, (3) advertising for Contractors, (4) evaluating submitted proposals, (5) selecting a Contractor, (6) monitoring and evaluating Contractor performance, (7) documenting the process for selecting and managing Contractors, and (8) carrying out any other aspect of such processes. Also pursuant to Section 4-217, each agency must establish written procedures for implementing the standards established by OPM’s Secretary. The written procedures must be submitted to the Secretary for approval. Upon receiving the Secretary’s approval, an agency may enter into a PSA based on the approved procedures. If the Secretary disapproves an agency’s procedures, OPM must return them to 4 the agency with recommendations for revisions. No State agency may enter into a PSA unless the Secretary has approved the procedures established by an agency. In addition, according to Sub-section (p) of Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) Section 4e-16, effective October 1, 2014, State agencies, prior to entering into or renewing any privatization contract, shall evaluate such contract to determine if entering into or renewing such contract is the most cost-effective method of delivering such service. A privatization contract is defined as an agreement with a person or entity to provide services that are substantially similar to and in lieu of services provided, in whole or part, by State employees, with the statutes exempting certain contracts with nonprofit agencies. State contracting agencies shall, according to Sub-section (p), perform such evaluation in accordance with a template prescribed by the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, which evaluation shall be subject to verification by the Secretary. The template and the related policies and procedures can be found on OPM’s website at http://www.ct.gov/opm/cwp. It is important to note that certain proposed privatization contracts will be subject to Sub-section (a) of C.G.S. Section 4e-16, which indicates that prior to entering into any contract for the privatization of a state service that is not currently privatized, the state contracting agency shall develop a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in accordance with the provisions of subsection (b) of this section. Such cost-benefit analysis requirement shall not apply to a privatization contract for a service currently provided, in whole or in part, by a non-state entity. C. Scope and Methodology This report describes the contracting activities of executive branch agencies with respect to Personal Service Agreements. Contracting activities of the legislative and judicial branches of state government are excluded from this report. PSA data for this report is gathered using Core-CT, the statewide financial system. State agencies are required to enter their PSAs into Core-CT as a contract. Required fields to be entered include, but are not limited to, contract ID, contract type, begin and end dates, contract maximum amount, description of services, contractor name and funding information. The data presented in this report is only as accurate as the contract data entered by State agencies into Core-CT. OPM summarizes the information and submits an annual report to the General Assembly. The data in this report represents PSAs that were in effect during SFY2017. PSAs can range from a few months to several years in duration. Accordingly, the total dollar amount of a PSA may represent several years of activity. Also, many PSAs overlap during a fiscal year. For example, if a PSA ends December 31st and a new PSA starts with the same provider on January 1st, then two contracts (and two contract amounts) would be included in this report. The payment amounts presented in this report are payments made by State agencies to Personal Service Agreement contractors during SFY2017. The 2017 payment column in the attached sheets reflects the General Fund payments under the contract, in addition to the amounts included in the Federal and Other Payments columns. Please note that annual payment amounts are often substantially less than the total contract amounts. This is due to the fact that the total contract amounts may 5 represent more than one year of contracting activity while the payment amounts represent activity for one year. For this reason, the annual payment amounts are a better gauge of annual contracting activity. D. Inquiries For further information concerning this report, contact: Executive Finance Officer Office of Finance Office of Policy and Management 450 Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT 06106 C/O Valerie Clark 860-418-6313 [email protected] 6 STATE OF CONNECTICUT 2016 PSA REPORT COMPETITIVE V/S NON COMPETITIVE CONTRACTS PSA Competitive/Non-Competitive Payments FY 17 * Competitively Bid, Not Competitively Bid, $148,391,252 , 48% $163,557,862 , 52% Competitively Bid Not Competitively Bid Non competitive would shift to 46% by removing the Bus Services Contracts 7 STATE OF CONNECTICUT 2017 PSA REPORT COMPETITIVE V/S NON COMPETITIVE CONTRACTS PSA Competitive/Non-Competitive All Contracts FY 17 Competitively Bid, 382, 32% Competitively Bid Not Competitively Bid, 829, Not Competitively Bid 68% 8 STATE OF CONNECTICUT 2016 PSA REPORT COMPETITIVE V/S NON COMPETITIVE CONTRACTS PSA Competitive/Non-Competitive All Contracts Under $20K FY 17 Competitively Bid, 88, 30% Not Competitively Bid, 202, Competitively Bid 70% Not Competitively Bid 9 STATE OF CONNECTICUT 2016 PSA REPORT COMPETITIVE V/S NON COMPETITIVE CONTRACTS PSA Competitive/Non-Competitive All Contracts Over $20K FY 17 Competitively Bid, 292, 32% Competitively Bid Not Competitively Bid, 629, Not Competitively Bid 68% 10 STATE OF CONNECTICUT 2017 PSA REPORT SUMMARY BY AGENCY 2017 PSA Report Summary by State Agency 2017 General Total # of Total Contract Fund Payments 2017 Federal 2017 All Other Agency Contracts Amount * Fund Payments Fund Payments Board of Regents 19 $ 2,112,207 $ - $ 224,452 $ - Chief Medical Examiner 1 $ 24,900 $ 14,700 $ - $ - Connecticut State Library 30 $ 391,339 $ - $ 205,631 $ - Dept. of Agriculture 16 $ 270,275 $ - $ 184,675 $ 53,182 Dept. of Administrative Services 26 $ 323,840 $ 119,050 $ 80,575 $ - Dept. of Children and Families 73 $ 42,541,454 $ 8,046,571 $ 3,297,237 $ - Dept. of Corrections 26 $ 3,507,530 $ 209,592 $ 233,684 $ - Dept. of Developmental Services 43 $ 4,833,450 $ 605,437 $ 72,879 $ - Dept. of Energy & Environmental Protection 46 $ 17,437,756 $ 103,759 $ 2,367,973 $ 3,086,444 Dept. of Higher Education 26 $ 180,528 $ 28,705 $ 72,851 $ - Dept. of Housing 12 $ 15,981,376 $ 315,400 $ 819,974 $ 2,627,646 Dept. of Labor 5 $ 729,000 $ - $ - $ 147,632 Dept. of Transportation 17 $ 162,998,428 $ - $ - $ 13,516,583 Dept. of Public Health 173 $ 63,763,039 $ - $ 14,888,344 $ 3,559,970 Dept. of Emergency Services & Public Protection 69 $ 924,129 $ - $ 464,050 $ - Dept. of Social Services 43 $ 871,023,068 $ 44,467,639 $ 17,218,405 $ 1,105,713 Econ.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Q U I F E R P R O T E C T I O N a R E a S N O R W a L K , C O N N E C T I C
    !n !n S c Skunk Pond Beaver Brook Davidge Brook e d d k h P O H R R O F p S o i d t n n l c t u i l R a T S d o i ll l t e e lv i d o t R r r d r l h t l l a H r n l t r M b a s b R d H e G L R o r re R B C o o u l e t p o n D o e f L i s Weston Intermediate School y l o s L d r t e Huckleberry Hills Brook e t d W d r e g Upper Stony Brook Pond N L D g i b R o s n Ridgefield Pond a t v d id e g e H r i l Country Club Pond b e a R d r r S n n d a g e L o n tin a d ! R d l H B n t x H e W Still Pond d t n Comstock Knoll u d a R S o C R k R e L H d i p d S n a l l F tt h Town Pond d l T te r D o e t l e s a t u e L e c P n n b a n l R g n i L t m fo D b k H r it to Lower Stony Brook Pond o r A d t P n d s H t F u d g L d d i Harrisons Brook R h e k t R r a e R m D l S S e e G E o n y r f ll H rt R r b i i o e n s l t ld d d o r l ib l a e r R d L r O e H w i Fanton Hill g r l Cider Mill School P y R n a ll F i e s w L R y 136 e a B i M e C H k A s t n d o i S d V l n 3 c k r l t g n n a d R i u g d o r a L 3 ! a l r u p d R d e c L S o s e Hurlbutt Elementary School R d n n d D A i K w T n d o O n D t f R l g d R l t ad L i r e R e e r n d L a S i m a o f g n n n D d n R o t h n Middlebrook School ! l n t w Lo t a 33 i n l n i r E id d D w l i o o W l r N e S a d l e P g n V n a h L C r L o N a r N a S e n e t l e b n l e C s h f ! d L nd g o a F i i M e l k rie r id F C a F r w n P t e r C ld l O e r a l y v f e u e o O n e o a P i O i s R w e t n a e l a n T t b s l d l N l k n t g i d u o e a o R W R Hasen Pond n r r n M W B y t Strong
    [Show full text]
  • Customer Opinion Survey Final Report
    Task 1.2: Customer Opinion Survey Final Report URBITRANR EPORT URBITRAN Prepared to Connecticut Department of Transportation S ubmitted by Urbitran Associates, Inc. May 2003 Task 1.2:Technical Memorandum Customer Opinion Survey TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................1 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................................................................1 FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................................................................1 EXHIBIT 1: SURVEY SAMPLE.....................................................................................................................................2 COMPARISON TO METRO-NORTH RAILROAD CUSTOMER OPINION SURVEY ...........................................................10 CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL PROFILE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS.........................................................12 SYSTEM-WIDE ANALYSIS OF SURVEY QUESTIONS 1, 2, AND 3 .................................................................................13 SYSTEM-WIDE ANALYSIS OF SURVEY QUESTIONS 4, 5, 6, AND 7 .............................................................................15 SYSTEM-WIDE ANALYSIS OF SURVEY
    [Show full text]
  • Stamford East Main Street Transit Node Feasibility Report & Action Plan
    Stamford East Main Street Transit Node Feasibility Report & Action Plan Stamford East Main Street Transit Node Feasibility Study & Action Plan STAMFORD EAST MAIN STREET Transit Node Feasibility Study & Action Plan Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff for the South Western Connecticut Regional Planning Agency and the New York/Connecticut Sustainable Communities Consortium. November 8, 2013. Note: All photographs taken by members of the project team unless otherwise noted. Stamford East Main Street Transit Node Feasibility Study & Action Plan Stamford East Side’s East Main Street corridor. Stamford East Main Street Transit Node Feasibility Study & Action Plan Contents 1. Introduction 5 5. Implementation Strategies 61 Executive Statements 8 Mitigation Strategies 63 Project Partners 9 Interim Bus 64 Long Term Main Line Option 66 2. Community Context 11 Existing Conditions 12 6. Phasing 69 Gauging Community Desire for Change 14 1-CompletionoftheTransitway 70 Quality of Life Goals: Three Main Drivers 18 2-InterimBusShuttle 71 Public Engagement 20 3-DevelopmentNorthofEastMainStreet 72 Elements of a Transit-Supported Main Street 22 4-EastMainStreetBridgeReplacement 73 5-BranchLineStationwithSurfaceParking&Retail 74 3. Alternatives Evaluation 25 6.FullBuild-OutwithDevelopmentEastofTracks 75 Evaluation Process & Criteria 26 Feasibility Analysis by Location 35 7.Conclusion 77 Analysis of Feasible Alternatives 42 Preferred Alternative 48 4. Transit-Oriented Development Scenario 51 Market Analysis 52 Development Program 54 Circulation & Access 56 Traffic 57 Parking 58 Stamford East Main Street Transit Node Feasibility Study & Action Plan A busy bus station along East Main Street. 4 | Stamford East Main Street Transit Node Feasibility Study & Action Plan 1. Introduction 1. Introduction | 5 Stamford East Main Street Transit Node Feasibility Study & Action Plan A aerial view of the intersection of East Main Street and North State Street, the adjacent train tracks and East Main Street Rail Bridge, and the I-95 supoerstructure.
    [Show full text]
  • South Western Region Long Range Transportation Plan 2007-2035 Update Schedule
    SouthSouth Western RegionRegion LongLong RangeRange TransportationTransportation PlanPlan 20072007--20352035 Endorsed by: South Western Region Metropolitan Planning Organization May 8, 2007 Prepared by: South Western Regional Planning Agency 888 Washington Blvd. 3rd Floor Stamford, CT 06901 203.316.5190 SOUTH WESTERN LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2007-2035 CONTENTS Guide to the Plan – Frequently Asked Questions………….. FAQ1- FAQ9 Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 The South Western Region ................................................................... 17 Regional Characteristics ....................................................................... 23 Transportation Inventory and Travel Characteristics............................ 28 Long Range Transportation Plan 2007 – 2035 ..................................... 39 Transportation Plan Update Components……………………………... 48 Regional Transportation Plan References……………………………... 50 The Transportation Planning Process ................................................... 51 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................ 53 Highway Systems and Operations ........................................................ 56 Transportation Systems Management and Operations.......................... 62 Safety ................................................................................................... 64 Road Condition....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mta Property Listing for Nys Reporting
    3/31/2021 3:48 PM MTA PROPERTY LISTING FOR NYS REPORTING COUNTY SECTN BLOCKNO LOTNO Property_Code PROPERTYNAME PROPERTYADDDRESS AGENCY LINE PROPERTYTYPE limaster LIRR Customer Abstract Property LIRR Customer Abstract Property LIR Main Line Station Bronx bbl05200 Bronx Whitestone Bridge Hutchson River parkway BT Block/Lot Bridge Bronx 9 mha04650 ROW b 125th & Melrose XXX St MN Harlem ROW Bronx 9 mha06600 ROW b 125th & Melrose Milepost 5,Sta-Mon# 31.5 MN Harlem ROW Bronx 12 mha09500 FORDHAM STATION Fordham Rd (Fordham U) MN Harlem Station Bronx mhu00343 Perm E'ment at Yankee Stadium Sta-mon 30.5 MN Hudson Payable Easement Bronx mhu06251 Spuyten Duyvil Substation Sta-Mon# 68.5 MN Hudson Payable Easement Bronx 19 mhu06301 Parking at Riverdale Milepost 12 , Sta-Mon# 68.5 MN Hudson Parking Bronx tbl03600 Unionport Shop Unionport Rd. NYCT White Plains Road Shop Bronx tbl65340 Con Edison Ducts East 174 St NYCT Block/Lot Ducts Bronx tbw32500 231ST 231 St-Broadway NYCT Broadway/7th Avenue Station Bronx tbw32600 238 ST 238 St-Broadway NYCT Broadway/7th Avenue Station Bronx tbw32700 242 ST 242 St-Van Cortlandt Pk NYCT Broadway/7th Avenue Station Bronx tco21000 161 ST Yankee Stadium 161 St/River Ave NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21100 167 ST 167 St/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21200 170 ST 170 St/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21300 174 175 STs 174-175 Sts/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21400 TREMONT AVE Tremont Ave/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21500 182 183 STs 183 St/Grand
    [Show full text]
  • Drainage Report
    ENGINEERING REPORT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 132 FLAX HILL ROAD NORWALK, CONNECTICUT September 21, 2020 Revised April 20,2021 Prepared for: Workforce Partners, LLC PO Box 692 South Norwalk, CT 06856 Prepared By: Ricardo Ceballos, P.E. Professional Engineering Consulting Services 245 Sturges Highway Westport, CT 06880 (203)635-0922 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 132 Flax Hill Road Norwalk, CT PROJECT DESCRIPTION The descriptions and computations included within this Stormwater Management Plan and Appendix are provided in support of applications submitted by Workforce Partners, LLC to the City of Norwalk for permitting purposes related to site and building improvements at 132 Flax Hill Road in Norwalk. The site's storm water management system shall be sized to accommodate runoff from a 25-year design storm and the system shall be designed so that post development peak discharge rates, and stormwater runoff volumes, do not exceed predevelopment quantities. Per City requirements, the storm water management plan has been prepared by a Connecticut-licensed professional engineer. Location The project site is located at 132 Flax Hill Road, Norwalk, Connecticut (site); As shown in Figure 1 the site is located in South Norwalk. The 0.217-acre site is a fully developed urban area. Project Location Figure 1 Project Location – 132 Flax Hill Road, Norwalk, CT. Page 2 Existing Conditions The site has 1 existing residential building, a detached garage structure, a driveway, and walkways. The site’s open space are landscaped grass areas. The purpose of the proposed project is to demolish the existing garage structure and add additional parking and driveway areas. As shown on Appendix A, there are no stormwater features, catch basins, yard drains or storm pipes.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Plan of Conservation and Development Planning and Zoning
    2016 Plan of Conservation and Development Planning and Zoning Commission TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 Introduction 11 1 2 Conditions & Trends 15 Context Planning 3 Planning Issues 29 4 Maintain and Enhance Community Character 35 5 Preserve Open Space 47 Manage Coastal Resources 53 Strategies 6 Conservation 7 Protect Natural Resources 59 8 Maintain and Enhance Downtown 69 9 Transform Noroton Heights Business Area 83 Manage Residential Development 97 Strategies 10 Development 11 Guide Business and Economic Development 107 12 Maintain and Enhance Community Facilities 115 13 Address Transportation Needs 125 Manage Utility Infrastructure 145 Strategies 14 Infrastructure 15 Promote Sustainability and Resiliency 151 16 Future Land Use Plan 159 17 Implementation 167 Conclusion 18 Conclusion 170 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview This Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) is an advisory document which is intended to provide a framework for consistent decision‐making with regard to conservation and development activities in Darien. It is an update of the 2006 POCD. Darien has a history of preparing plans to guide future conservation and devel‐ opment activities and it is in that spirit that this POCD has been prepared. This POCD was prepared with an eye to two key things: • Involving residents and property owners in identifying and refining of POCD recommendations • Promoting implementation of the POCD following adoption. The POCD focuses on identifying “policies” and “action steps”: • A “policy” is an on‐going policy or approach which does not generally have an end date. • An “action step” is a recommended task that helps implement the strat‐ egy (a task has an end date or specific result).
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 !Ã !N !N !N !N !N !N !Ã !N !Ã !N !Ã !N !N !N !Ã !N !N !N !Ã !N !N !N !N !N !N !N
    D T a Earth Pond u Ferris Hill Cyrgalis Pond d d n d R r R b y t O R Coleytown at r l C o t l e Domenicks Pond u n e n h C d H e ve d L e r e d r B n R r o b Belden Hill s y Copts Brook Doubtful Pond R D A 14 o o lu l s R y C u d l l a C i d o F B l R k ry l R R r r Sayles Pond re l d u d l R c nt a il e e nn r T Doughnut Lake d s i n e u M g L h e Fivemile River H n i d d r o k o L i W Silvermine Pond Huckleberry Pond n w L e C is R Barker Pond a n F k n r t 57 a r L R g m e e Newtown Avenue Pond Laurel Reservoir C R e o r S d L L Fire Pond Coleytown V F n g n n n High Ridge i i in d t R d d K L n a Tuttle Pond n e pl g r Belden Hill Brook l p T O i Sipperly Hill a n e d Mayapple Pond y e w Crawford Pond u r a i l A 14 R M n T a k d a Saugatuck River k R P South Wilton o o Kingdom Pond a o B m W L r n Jules Pond M R d d T L in B am R k B ho d rne Rd L o K er i r h t n r s L e l s n t a a Covleytown a e l d a l i t E Chestnut Hill Pond e c R T y o n n S k R l e o e g r n t r m S u Landscape Pond F u Lambert Pond t n T a b r L e H tA 14 Collins Pond D s Lake Susan 124 R o w s lls Rd Rd D i L a y i s d West H Hill Old South Norwalk Reservoir Coleytown New York Tanglewood Ln S N r Canoe Hill i t x d V R t s New Canaan Pond d n R t i s N l t r t g l h i ll e e e s r L i R d n V e L e r L t H P t L a y H w C r l L s e n i w A 14 a d h n l l R o e a r w T n n o s v Rosebrook Pond y a C M r C s d L R o u y e e C o W Ke Qu s o n Tulip Tree Pond ar G d t t l e a r Field Pond s a r e r e M 5 e l tt K ile i d y m A R l v Rd n n Grumman Hill m e
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Station Report
    Individual Station Report Darien URBITRANR EPORT CONTENTS: Stakeholder Interview Customer Opinion Survey Parking Inventory & Utilization Station Condition Inspection Lease Narrative and Synopsis Station Operations Review Station Financial Review URBITRAN Prepared to Connecticut Department of Transportation S ubmitted by Urbitran Associates, Inc. July 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 Stakeholder Interview URBITRANR EPORT URBITRAN Prepared to Connecticut Department of Transportation S ubmitted by Urbitran Associates, Inc. The district representative had some concerns/issues regarding the lease relative to operational and maintenance responsibilities, but overall was satisfied with the arrangements. He felt that CDOT is responsive on day to day issues, even as they are perceived less favorably with regard to expansion. With regard to a minor issue, he wanted to know who was responsible for maintaining the vegetation around the electrical towers. The District pays for the parking attendants from the parking revenues, and pays for routine maintenance from the same fund. The station is considered revenue neutral to the District, and the District does maintain a reinvestment fund. They have had some problems with enforcement of parking violations, and with speeding and reckless driving in the lots, which they are discussing with the Norwalk police, since this is not part of the attendant job description. The District clearly wants to keep control of the station through its lease with CDOT, and would not favor a plan for a state takeover. The District is making plans for upgrading of the site, and specifically identified the following: a new sprinkler system in the station building, better landscaping, new gutters, improved drainage to prevent water from flowing down onto the pavement and icing in winter, better signage, speed bumps in the lot, and a berm in the center of the northside lot to eliminate middle parking.
    [Show full text]
  • Waterbury Station
    TRANSPORTATION RESOURCES IN SOUTHWESTERN CONNECTICUT KNOW HOW TO GO KNOW HOW TO GO KNOW HOW TO GO KNOW HOW TO GO KNOWfor HOW TO GOSENIORS, PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO GO WITH KNDISABILITIESOW HOW TO GO KNOW HOW TO GO and VETERANS www.knowhowtogoct.org Waterbury Station Naugatuck Station Beacon Falls Danbury Station Station Seymour Station Seymour Danbury Bethel Station Ansonia Station Ansonia Monroe Derby Shelton Redding Station Station Derby Redding Ridgefield Branchville Station Shelton Trumbull Milford Easton Cannondale Station Weston Bridgeport Wilton Wilton Station Milford New Merritt 7 Station Canaan Station Fairfield BridgeportStratford Station Stratford Station New Canaan Westport Station Fairfield Metro Station Fairfield Station Stamford Norwalk Southport Station Talmadge Hill SERVICE SERVICE AREA Station Green’s Farms Station Springdale Westport Station Station Darien E. Norwalk Station Glenbrook S. Norwalk Station Greenwich Station Rowayton Station Darien Station Noroton Heights Station Long Island Sound Stamford Station Old Greenwich Station Riverside Station Cos Cob Station Greenwich Station 1 Table of Contents Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................2 Ferry ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Metro North Train Time Schedule
    Metro North Train Time Schedule Levon misnames his damson pollinates therewithal, but payable Herbert never nose-dives so bareback. pasty-facedPutrefiable Leonard when cluster never some rabble-rousing tenes irritates so infuriatingly translationally? or hits any Weymouth awheel. Is Ulick other or Find your travel protocols to metro north Find help the information you need is PATH schedules and maps here. You want to house. We traveled from. Lirr schedule times, metro to jump to be less than ccie lab exams other. The train times and southeast and max improvements in. Online for timely deliveries and service to college graduates at least sixty passengers around france, which are adding extra charge that you? Great Northern Railway staff and the Northern Pacific Railway Company. Tickets purchased using a mobile device cost the same as those purchased at a ticket machine. Grand Central Terminal and the leasing of its retail space, has now issued a statement welcoming the investigation and expressing. Weekend travel to Danbury starts at South Norwalk. Fifth Avenue in Manhattan: Back to Bridge and Tunnel Club Home. Ticket or delivery to hotels, LOW RATES GUARANTEED! He intended not destiny the Hudson Line portion of strict project. Read free samples of ebooks and listen to free audiobook previews. Find Nyack restaurants in the Westchester area explore other. Passenger Crowding: View where chase car will stop follow the platform to proactively position yourself to find out seat before dawn train reaches the station. Pennsylvania Railroad; Home; About Us. Peak period schedules will be changing for. Weekday travel to South Norwalk, Grand Central starts at Danbury.
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Strategies
    INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGIES COMMUNITY FACILITIES UTILITIES SUSTAINABILITY RESILIENCY TRANSPORTATION 113 114 MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE COMMUNITY FACILITIES 12 Overview Community facili‐ ties provide for Community facilities support functions such as education, public works, public desired services safety, and recreation, all of which are important to maintaining the character and enhance the and quality of life in Darien. quality of life in The POCD does not get involved in the day‐to‐day operations of individual the community … departments. Rather, the POCD seeks to identify potential community facility needs (buildings and sites) so that they can be anticipated and planned for. The POCD also serves as a useful guide for referrals of proposed municipal im‐ provements (as required by CGS Section 8‐24) for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Education Recreation Safety Emergency 115 Legend Address Community Facility Needs Generally expected to be EDUCATION FACILITIES Assessment adequate for community Education Darien public schools are consistently ranked among needs to 2025 Darien High School the best public schools in Connecticut Darien residents are firmly committed to neighbor‐ Middlesex Middle School hood schools and new residents often purchase May have some based on school districts issues to Hindley Elementary consider Holmes Elementary Some elementary schools have been using portable Ox Ridge Elementary classrooms since the late 1980s Attention Royle Elementary None of these 14 classroom spaces are directly appears
    [Show full text]