Legal Bills Mount In Boathouse Concrete Suit

The Elicker Administration is now looking to pay outside attorneys $159,000 in total in a bid to hold a city-hired contractor accountable for cracking concrete outside of the Canal Dock Boathouse.

Local legislators heard — and endorsed — that legal-funding request during the most recent meeting of the Board of Alders Finance Committee. The in-person meeting took place in the Aldermanic Chamber on the second floor of City Hall.

Ultimately, the Finance Committee alders voted unanimously in support of a proposed order approving an amendment to a legal service agreement between the city and the law firm of Neubert, Pepe & Monteith P.C.

That proposed amendment — if approved by the full Board of Alders — would increase the maximum compensation for that law firm from $99,000 to $159,000 for its legal work related to the Canal Dock Boathouse at 475 Long Wharf Dr., which is the publicly-owned waterfront recreational and meeting space that opened its doors in 2018.

At the June 13 Finance Committee meeting, city Corporation Counsel Patricia King, city Senior Project Manager Donna Hall, and City Budget Director Michael Gormany explained that the outside law firm has been particularly helpful in assisting the city with a city-initiated state court case called City of New Haven v. Nosal Builders, Inc.

In that case, first filed in February 2021, the Elicker administration has accused the boathouse’s general contractor of doing a shoddy job of mixing and pouring the concrete topping slab that covers the boathouse’s deck, pier, and promenade. The Cheshire-based contractor, Nosal Builders, has generally denied liability and wrongdoing on this matter — and has looped into the case the boathouse subcontractors Universal Foundations Inc. and L. Suzio Concrete Co.

Over the past year, the list of defendants in the complex litigation case has expanded to include Langan CT Inc., Aecom Corp, and Cowi North America Inc., in addition to Nosal, Universal, and Suzio.

Click here to read all of the online court filings in the ongoing case.

“A dispute arose over the concrete slab topping at the boathouse, which as I understand it, was a contract valued of about $20 million,” King told the Finance Committee alders when making her pitch for why they should add $60,000 to the city-law firm contract. ​“That is what gave rise to this litigation.”

Overall, Hall said, the boathouse construction project cost roughly $40 million in federal funds to complete.

On top of all of the work that the Neubert, Pepe & Monteith law firm has done in the ongoing state court case itself, King said, the city-hired attorney — Deborah Monteith Neubert — also recently helped represent the city in a state Freedom of Information Commission hearing. That hearing was in regards to a complaint filed by Nosal’s attorney against the Elicker Administration for its delayed response to requests for thousands upon thousands documents related to the boathouse. (Click here for the recent Freedom of Information Commission proposed decision in that case.)

“Between litigation, trying to talk to expert witnesses, and the FOI complaint,” King said, ​“the attorneys fees were significantly higher than what we expected.” 

Given the $20 million value of this part of the boathouse project, she said, adding $60,000 to the law firm contract is ​“frankly money well spent.”

“Has the contractor taken any responsibility for this job gong wrong?” East Rock Alder Anna Festa asked.

“We’re hoping that it gets resolved in mediation,” King said. At this point, the court case is still in its ​“very early stages. Frankly, nobody’s taken any responsibility for anything at this point.”

She predicted that mediation in the case should take place this upcoming fall.

Has the city ever worked with this general contractor before?

“This is the first time the city has worked with Nosal Builders,” Hall said.

“The platform, which is the plaza surface, is really the only issue,” she said. ​“And it had to do with the type of concrete. So it wasn’t about workmanship, necessarily.”

And ​“how urgent is the need for a remedy” of this concrete problem? Festa asked. ​“Will this site be able to function for a while before things start to deteriorate?”

“It has been functioning, with the exception of cracking and spalling,” Hall replied. ​“The idea is, as time goes on, freezing and thawing in particular will cause the situation to get worse over time.” She said the legal statute of limitations for when the city could file such a lawsuit in relation to when the concrete contract work was done has also spurred the city on in its prosecution of this case. 

During the committee’s deliberations on the proposed law-firm-contract increase, Festa spoke in favor of the order — albeit cautiously.

“This is obviously a tricky situation,” she said. ​“I would encourage everyone to vote in favor of this. We do want the experts to litigate this item, since it’s already quite an investment that’s been made.

Edgewood Alder Evette Hamilton agreed. ​“I think the $60,000 will be well spent to protect the interests of the city.”

With that, all of the committee alders voted in support of the proposed order. Now that proposal heads to the full Board of Alders for a final debate and vote.