Here's an overview of the new facility (via U.S. Army Reserve handout):
Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) with approximately 96,000 square feet, joint vehicle maintenance shop with approximately 18,000 square feet, and unheated storage building with approximately 3,000 square feet.
This Armed Forces Reserve Center replaces the United States Army Reserve Centers in Danbury, Fairfield, and Waterbury CT., as well as the Connecticut Army National Guard Armories in Naugatuck and Norwalk.
It is estimated that 1,000 Army Reserve and Connecticut National Guard soldiers will utilize the new complex on rotating schedules.
The new complex incorporates all the Reserve's latest training and administration requirements while using an array of sustainability concepts.
Total project of 33.8 million was awarded to Korte-Fusco Joint Ventures of St. Louis, Missouri on August 31, 2011.
This AFRC is part of construction undertaken as a direct result of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) recommendations made in 2005.
From earlier today, here's video highlights of the ceremony.
Money flow is a touchy subject for most businesses, smoothing inflows through the year may be a beside impossible task, but gathering a reserve of money and opening other channels of opportunity are not absolutely unrealistic.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
Unknown, 7:16 PM
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
Army Claims