Council OKs bridge: Seen as key to waterfront development
By LESLIE MODICA
lmodicafosters.com
Article Date: Thursday, November 13, 2008
DOVER — It was called a "bridge to nowhere" by opponents and a "bridge to the future" by supporters.
In the end, the City Council agreed with the supporters.
In an unexpected 8-1 vote Wednesday night, councilors exceeded the required super majority and authorized the release of funds for building a vehicular bridge on Washington Street over the Cocheco River that will provide the crucial link between the city's downtown and the piece of land in the middle of what has been a rigorous discussion about a proposed waterfront development.
It was At-large City Councilor Karen Weston, considered for the past two weeks to be the swing vote in the issue, who summed up a sentiment expressed by more than a dozen speakers during a lengthy public hearing.
"I remember looking at the bridge in the middle of the river," Weston said of the day the former vehicular bridge was destroyed years ago. "And I remember then thinking 'Boy, the city made a big mistake'... Whether it's Dickinson Development or any other developer, it (the bridge) is so important to help with traffic and help with the safety of the citizens. Somebody is going to go there. The bridge is definitely needed and it would be a big mistake not to vote for it."
But Weston's statement was far more simple than the process Wednesday night.
Before approving the $4 million bid, it was also Weston who proposed an amendment that reduced the 10 percent contingency for the project by $300,000, citing expectations that dropping costs for materials will make it possible to not expect to spend the entire contingency, which acts as a buffer to protect against changes in the cost of materials.
The amendment, which was unanimously approved by the council, brought the ticket price down to $4,006,305, of which 80 percent will be paid for using federal highway funds.
Weston was not the only person to express fear of making a mistake with the wrong vote, a theme that threaded through posturing by two dozen supporters and opponents during the public hearing and more than an hour of discussion between councilors.
For supporters, the mistake would be the prospect of losing millions in federal and state funds and potentially more in litigation and lost economic revenue.
"If we lose the bridge, we lose 20 years of investment and lose forever state and federal funding," Ward 2 City Councilor Doug DeDe said. "We were told it might be possible to go to the back of the line, but right now we have it in front of us. It would be foolish of a person and foolish of the council to walk away from this opportunity."
For opponents, the mistake would be the prospect of agreeing upon a bid amount that is three times the cost that was estimated for the project four years ago.
"The issue to me is to see if we can get it for a little less," Ward 3 City Councilor David Scott, the sole dissenting vote, said. "It behooves us to see if we can get it for less."
Scott also disputed claims the city would lose federal and state funds if the project was delayed, and said he had an e-mail from the project manager for the state Department of Transportation that said the city would likely not lose funds if it decided to delay the decision to go out to bid again.
It was this statement that sparked claims by At-large City Councilor Steve McCusker that Scott was withholding information from the council when asked the name of the person with the state who he e-mailed and Scott said he did not have the name or a copy of the e-mail with him.
However, McCusker, who sits next to Scott in the Council Chambers, said when Scott referred to the e-mail, he had the state official's name and a copy of the e-mail with him.
McCusker added that Scott's information, which was inferred to have come from Project Manager Jeff Marshall, contradicted statements by the city's Transportation Planner, Bruce Woodruff, that the city would not necessarily be denied funding for the project, but that it would be taken out of the plans for the current fiscal year.
Woodruff added that when the state reprioritized its 10-year plan earlier this year, emphasis was given on fixing and maintaining current bridges, rather than new construction.
When asked a second time by Mayor Scott Myers if Scott could release the name of who he e-mailed, Scott said he could not release the information until he secured permission from that person.
In a showing not rivaled since last year's City Council vote, Wednesday's public hearing was a parade of city notables, all but four of whom urged councilors to approve the project.
Local resident Edward Bleiler was one of the only speakers to tell councilors to wait on voting for the project, and submitted a list of 16 questions that he said must be answered before the project could be approved, although he said he ultimately thought the project should be approved.
City Manager Mike Joyal eventually answered all 16 questions, but Deputy Mayor Dean Trefethen classified the questions as less an effort to find answers than an effort to stall progress.
"There's always a 'but,'" Trefethen said. "Every single one of these questions could be answered to his satisfaction and the next day he would still have an objection ... Frankly, there is a very small group of people who do not want this to happen. They don't want the waterfront to happen, they don't want anything to happen in the city. They don't want any credit to go to the people who are trying to make things happen."
Wednesday's vote was the second major milestone in waterfront development process this week.
On Monday, the Cochecho Waterfront Development Advisory Committee finalized more than year of work and approved an extensive set of design guidelines that will be included in the agreement between the city and the Massachusetts-based Dickinson Development.
Both sides hope to soon sign a Land Disposition Agreement, essentially a purchase-and-sales agreement, that would finalize the sale.
Once the LDA is signed, the developers will still have to seek approval from various local boards and state and federal permitting agencies.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
More on the Washington St. Bridge
From: "Jan A. Nedelka"
Date: November 11, 2008 3:52:01 PM EST
To: citycouncil@ci.dover.nh.us, Mike Joyal
Subject: Upcoming Washington Street bridge vote
Dear Councilors,
As you are aware, you will be voting Wednesday night on whether or not to build the proposed Washington Street bridge. Please vote YES.
-If you support careful, prudent planning, vote YES. The planning for the development of the waterfront and construction of this bridge has been almost two decades in the making, incorporated into multiple City Master Plans, with a number of committees of Dover taxpayers providing input over several years. Nothing has been rushed.
-If you support small government, vote YES. There are two alternatives if the council votes no: leave 20 barren acres in the heart of the city fallow, owned by the government and used by nobody, or the city of Dover could enter the real estate and developer business (again, some would say) - imprudent for a number of reasons. The proposed waterfront solution puts cash into the city of Dover, and requires no additional staffing.
-If you support easing the property tax burden of Dover residents, vote YES. With almost 80% of the assessed property value being residential, the easiest way to reduce pressure on residents is to increase the amount of commercial property in use. The waterfront development offers this diversification. Voting no ensures we residents must continue to bear the brunt of the burden.
-If you support funding one-time projects with external grant money rather than Dover tax dollars, vote YES. With Dover's ~$1 million loan to the project (for which we get reimbursed!), we qualify for ~$3 million in grant money. The grant money WILL be spent - the question before you is does it benefit Dover, or someone else? Rochester, Portsmouth, Nashua, Manchester, and others are all places with nice people who probably feel they deserve the money more than we do - as an elected representative of Dover, are you prepared to send that money to another town with a 'no' vote?
-If you support pedestrian and traffic safety, vote YES. The completed bridge project will offer cleaner, safer vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Far fewer cars on Henry Law means few parking problems, safer seniors, and safer children - all three of which converge as Henry Law approaches downtown. If you were nervous about cars pulling up George and Williams Street in winter with the conversion to one-way traffic, imagine no alternative route for traffic over the coming decades.
In short, there may have been reasons to vote 'no' ten, five, or even two years ago. But thanks to the hard work of a dozen city councils, hundreds of volunteer citizens on committees and in public forums, the early proposals that overlooked or ignored many details have been overhauled to look like something Dover deserves, with the attention to detail that you as councilors rightfully demand. Vote YES with confidence and pride that your positive impact will be seen in Dover for generations to come.
Sincerely,
Jan Nedelka
Date: November 11, 2008 3:52:01 PM EST
To: citycouncil@ci.dover.nh.us, Mike Joyal
Subject: Upcoming Washington Street bridge vote
Dear Councilors,
As you are aware, you will be voting Wednesday night on whether or not to build the proposed Washington Street bridge. Please vote YES.
-If you support careful, prudent planning, vote YES. The planning for the development of the waterfront and construction of this bridge has been almost two decades in the making, incorporated into multiple City Master Plans, with a number of committees of Dover taxpayers providing input over several years. Nothing has been rushed.
-If you support small government, vote YES. There are two alternatives if the council votes no: leave 20 barren acres in the heart of the city fallow, owned by the government and used by nobody, or the city of Dover could enter the real estate and developer business (again, some would say) - imprudent for a number of reasons. The proposed waterfront solution puts cash into the city of Dover, and requires no additional staffing.
-If you support easing the property tax burden of Dover residents, vote YES. With almost 80% of the assessed property value being residential, the easiest way to reduce pressure on residents is to increase the amount of commercial property in use. The waterfront development offers this diversification. Voting no ensures we residents must continue to bear the brunt of the burden.
-If you support funding one-time projects with external grant money rather than Dover tax dollars, vote YES. With Dover's ~$1 million loan to the project (for which we get reimbursed!), we qualify for ~$3 million in grant money. The grant money WILL be spent - the question before you is does it benefit Dover, or someone else? Rochester, Portsmouth, Nashua, Manchester, and others are all places with nice people who probably feel they deserve the money more than we do - as an elected representative of Dover, are you prepared to send that money to another town with a 'no' vote?
-If you support pedestrian and traffic safety, vote YES. The completed bridge project will offer cleaner, safer vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Far fewer cars on Henry Law means few parking problems, safer seniors, and safer children - all three of which converge as Henry Law approaches downtown. If you were nervous about cars pulling up George and Williams Street in winter with the conversion to one-way traffic, imagine no alternative route for traffic over the coming decades.
In short, there may have been reasons to vote 'no' ten, five, or even two years ago. But thanks to the hard work of a dozen city councils, hundreds of volunteer citizens on committees and in public forums, the early proposals that overlooked or ignored many details have been overhauled to look like something Dover deserves, with the attention to detail that you as councilors rightfully demand. Vote YES with confidence and pride that your positive impact will be seen in Dover for generations to come.
Sincerely,
Jan Nedelka
Monday, November 10, 2008
Paraphrase of a Letter to the Editor; Nov 8, 2008; Submitted by Doug DeDe, Councilor, Ward 2.
At a recent Public Forum, local ‘activist’ E.J. Bleiler made statements concerning the waterfront area to be developed under the ‘Terms Agreement’ signed by Mark Dickinson and City Manager, Mike Joyal. Bleiler’s commentary made oblique reference to ‘love canal’ and an imaginary price tag of up to $20,000,000 to clean up the area. Bleiler compared the Waterfront development area to the Tolend Road superfund waste site.
Mr. Bleiler’s statements were inaccurate and inappropriate to say the least. Bleiler’s comments are intended to create fear by their inflammatory nature.
What is Bleiler’s purpose? He and a small contingent of supporters have been opposed to the Waterfront Development project from the outset of deliberations. These ‘toxic waste’ charges represent a last ditch attempt to scare (some) councilors and the public and thereby prevent the waterfront’s development from going forward by opposing the funding of what Bleiler described as a ‘bridge to nowhere’. Actually this bridge is a key element of Dover’s long-range traffic mitigation and economic development Master Plan.
Here are facts. The area to be developed includes only 14 acres of the 35-acre tract that comprise the total waterfront parcel. Within the area of proposed development, there are some contaminated soils. GZA Environmental, a highly qualified and respected company in soil analyses analyzed 35 test borings and did find contaminants, but no toxic or hazardous waste! The GZA cost estimate for removal of these contaminants is $500,000, not the $20,000,000 that Bleiler stated at the Public Forum. In addition, the Terms Agreement that the City and Dickinson signed, provide for the project to be abandoned if the cost of contaminant removal exceeds $800,000.
However, if the Council fails to approve the bonding for the Washington Street Bridge there will be several unintended and undesirable consequences.
First, the long-range traffic study, which has cost over $50,000, is designed to mitigate congestion in the City of Dover. The Washington Street Bridge is an integral part of that plan, waterfront development or not. Presently egress from Henry Law Avenue to our ‘downtown’ is up George St or Hanson St, neither of which were ever built for that purpose. The long-term plan for downtown access from Henry Law Avenue utilizes an upgraded River St and the new Washington Street Bridge to access downtown onto two-way traffic Washington St. If the City Council does not support the Washington St. Bridge bond, it will doom that portion of the long-range traffic plan. As a result, egress onto Central Ave. for Museumgoers and Henry Law Ave residents will be an ongoing problem for the foreseeable future.
Second, in anticipation of the eventual development of our waterfront, previous Councils have already invested over $6,000,000 to relocate our City Garage and Recycle Center, as well as having invested $50,000 in a traffic study plan, and several weeks ago, an additional $60,000 to purchase rights of way for the abutments for this same bridge.
Dover’s cost for the Bridge bond is approximately $800,000 of the estimated $4,300,000 with the balance coming from State and Federal funding (which will be lost forever if the Council fails to pass this measure). Dover’s portion will be covered with unspent bonding from other projects as well as the Transportation fund that is funded by a portion of vehicle registrations. There will be very little impact on taxes as a result of this bond issue.
A third unintended and problematic consequence is the almost certain ‘Breach of Contract’ lawsuit that would be filed by the developer. While there is no official information as to the amount of financial commitment already made in good faith by Dickinson Development, it is certain to be a substantial amount, certainly greater than the requested bonding amount. It is safe to say that Dickinson has invested a substantial sum in meeting the requirements provided for in the Terms Sheet Agreement and the Request for Proposals between the City of Dover and Dickinson. Each of these two referenced documents included commitments that the City of Dover would build the Washington Street Bridge to connect Dover’s Downtown to the area that Dickinson would develop.
Based on those signed documents, Dickinson has concluded (accurately) that ‘…we have a deal…’ Therefore it is reasonable to presume that the largest issue is the certainty that the developer will seek more than simple costs. In speaking with a private attorney, it is clear that in such cases the court typically awards costs and the reasonable profits lost as well. Clearly this amount would dwarf the proposed bonding amount.
The City Council and the citizens of Dover are at a crossroads on November 12th. The Waterfront project, having been worked on for over twenty years could come to a screeching halt if the Bridge bond is not approved. In addition to not getting the benefit of an estimated million plus dollars of annual revenue stream (with little impact on service costs), Dover could wind up with an unsolved congestion problem, the stigma of a significant waste of previously spent funds committed to developing the waterfront and a court award of taxpayer money at a probable seven figure level. If the City of Dover reneges on this plan the State and Federal funding will be lost forever; there will be no second chance.
What to do? Speak at the Nov. 12th hearing and communicate with the entire City Council at Allcouncil@ci.dover.nh.us or via phone call or letters. Communicate your support for the Washington Street Bridge bond issue. Make your voice heard.
Mr. Bleiler’s statements were inaccurate and inappropriate to say the least. Bleiler’s comments are intended to create fear by their inflammatory nature.
What is Bleiler’s purpose? He and a small contingent of supporters have been opposed to the Waterfront Development project from the outset of deliberations. These ‘toxic waste’ charges represent a last ditch attempt to scare (some) councilors and the public and thereby prevent the waterfront’s development from going forward by opposing the funding of what Bleiler described as a ‘bridge to nowhere’. Actually this bridge is a key element of Dover’s long-range traffic mitigation and economic development Master Plan.
Here are facts. The area to be developed includes only 14 acres of the 35-acre tract that comprise the total waterfront parcel. Within the area of proposed development, there are some contaminated soils. GZA Environmental, a highly qualified and respected company in soil analyses analyzed 35 test borings and did find contaminants, but no toxic or hazardous waste! The GZA cost estimate for removal of these contaminants is $500,000, not the $20,000,000 that Bleiler stated at the Public Forum. In addition, the Terms Agreement that the City and Dickinson signed, provide for the project to be abandoned if the cost of contaminant removal exceeds $800,000.
However, if the Council fails to approve the bonding for the Washington Street Bridge there will be several unintended and undesirable consequences.
First, the long-range traffic study, which has cost over $50,000, is designed to mitigate congestion in the City of Dover. The Washington Street Bridge is an integral part of that plan, waterfront development or not. Presently egress from Henry Law Avenue to our ‘downtown’ is up George St or Hanson St, neither of which were ever built for that purpose. The long-term plan for downtown access from Henry Law Avenue utilizes an upgraded River St and the new Washington Street Bridge to access downtown onto two-way traffic Washington St. If the City Council does not support the Washington St. Bridge bond, it will doom that portion of the long-range traffic plan. As a result, egress onto Central Ave. for Museumgoers and Henry Law Ave residents will be an ongoing problem for the foreseeable future.
Second, in anticipation of the eventual development of our waterfront, previous Councils have already invested over $6,000,000 to relocate our City Garage and Recycle Center, as well as having invested $50,000 in a traffic study plan, and several weeks ago, an additional $60,000 to purchase rights of way for the abutments for this same bridge.
Dover’s cost for the Bridge bond is approximately $800,000 of the estimated $4,300,000 with the balance coming from State and Federal funding (which will be lost forever if the Council fails to pass this measure). Dover’s portion will be covered with unspent bonding from other projects as well as the Transportation fund that is funded by a portion of vehicle registrations. There will be very little impact on taxes as a result of this bond issue.
A third unintended and problematic consequence is the almost certain ‘Breach of Contract’ lawsuit that would be filed by the developer. While there is no official information as to the amount of financial commitment already made in good faith by Dickinson Development, it is certain to be a substantial amount, certainly greater than the requested bonding amount. It is safe to say that Dickinson has invested a substantial sum in meeting the requirements provided for in the Terms Sheet Agreement and the Request for Proposals between the City of Dover and Dickinson. Each of these two referenced documents included commitments that the City of Dover would build the Washington Street Bridge to connect Dover’s Downtown to the area that Dickinson would develop.
Based on those signed documents, Dickinson has concluded (accurately) that ‘…we have a deal…’ Therefore it is reasonable to presume that the largest issue is the certainty that the developer will seek more than simple costs. In speaking with a private attorney, it is clear that in such cases the court typically awards costs and the reasonable profits lost as well. Clearly this amount would dwarf the proposed bonding amount.
The City Council and the citizens of Dover are at a crossroads on November 12th. The Waterfront project, having been worked on for over twenty years could come to a screeching halt if the Bridge bond is not approved. In addition to not getting the benefit of an estimated million plus dollars of annual revenue stream (with little impact on service costs), Dover could wind up with an unsolved congestion problem, the stigma of a significant waste of previously spent funds committed to developing the waterfront and a court award of taxpayer money at a probable seven figure level. If the City of Dover reneges on this plan the State and Federal funding will be lost forever; there will be no second chance.
What to do? Speak at the Nov. 12th hearing and communicate with the entire City Council at Allcouncil@ci.dover.nh.us or via phone call or letters. Communicate your support for the Washington Street Bridge bond issue. Make your voice heard.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Panel expected to vote on waterfront design plan Monday
By LESLIE MODICAlmodicafosters.comlmodica@fosters.com
Article Date: Friday, November 7, 2008
DOVER — It could be a wrap for the city's waterfront committee Monday following what is expected to be the final meeting before approving an extensive set of design guidelines for the project.For the Cochecho Waterfront Development Advisory Committee, which has met for the past 16 months, the final meeting is a major milestone and an indication that an official agreement between Dickinson Development Corp. and the city may be forthcoming.
But before the committee can adjourn for the final time, members must agree on a few changes to the drafted design guidelines and vote to make the 72-page document official.The majority of the changes are minor, such as replacing "must" with "should" in a few instances, but the changes would also add a stipulation for the city that any design changes forced by state or federal regulations must be approved or denied by the committee or the Dover Housing Authority, which has legal purview over the project for the city, within 15 days.
The changes also remove a numerical requirement for additional common open space beyond the required two-acre public park in the development.The design guidelines previously required four such common spaces, but if the change is approved, the guidelines will only define a common space and stipulate that if included, they will include at least two benches and a widened path.
Although the design guideline report addresses the various expectations for different portions of the project, most of it focuses on the design principles the committee thinks should apply to the entire project, regardless who has purview.
They include promoting an urban character, maintaining a design relationship to downtown, developing the project to the natural grading and topography, ensuring continuity of streets and sidewalks in both private and public areas and varying the character of the landscape.
The document also lays out several specific guidelines for both public and private portions of the development, including guidelines for landscaping and building designs.
The committee previously held two public hearings on the proposed design guidelines; however, both of the meetings were sparsely attended, and the little public comment that did occur did not directly result from specific guidelines.However, comments from Eric Steltzer, the chair of the city's Energy Advisory Committee, did spark discussions among committee members about the level of requirement for energy efficiency in the development.
The committee ultimately decided it would encourage energy efficiency, but would not make any mandates.This discussion also prompted a letter to the committee from local resident Otis Perry, who said he was disappointed in the decision to use a voluntary approach to LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification.
Perry added that he was concerned a requirement for a variety of building styles would lead to "stereotypic facades, which look like a movie set of Disney village."Although the committee has held the final public hearings for the design guidelines of the project, Monday's meeting will still include an opportunity for input during Citizen's Forum.
Once the Cochecho Waterfront Development Advisory Committee approves the guidelines and the LDA is signed, the developers will still have to get final approval from the Technical Review Committee and Planning Board, as well as several state and federal agencies that oversee permitting requirements. The committee will meet Monday at 5 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
The draft design guidelines are available on the city's website, www.ci.dover.nh.us, at the bottom of the home page under "Important Information."
Article Date: Friday, November 7, 2008
DOVER — It could be a wrap for the city's waterfront committee Monday following what is expected to be the final meeting before approving an extensive set of design guidelines for the project.For the Cochecho Waterfront Development Advisory Committee, which has met for the past 16 months, the final meeting is a major milestone and an indication that an official agreement between Dickinson Development Corp. and the city may be forthcoming.
But before the committee can adjourn for the final time, members must agree on a few changes to the drafted design guidelines and vote to make the 72-page document official.The majority of the changes are minor, such as replacing "must" with "should" in a few instances, but the changes would also add a stipulation for the city that any design changes forced by state or federal regulations must be approved or denied by the committee or the Dover Housing Authority, which has legal purview over the project for the city, within 15 days.
The changes also remove a numerical requirement for additional common open space beyond the required two-acre public park in the development.The design guidelines previously required four such common spaces, but if the change is approved, the guidelines will only define a common space and stipulate that if included, they will include at least two benches and a widened path.
Although the design guideline report addresses the various expectations for different portions of the project, most of it focuses on the design principles the committee thinks should apply to the entire project, regardless who has purview.
They include promoting an urban character, maintaining a design relationship to downtown, developing the project to the natural grading and topography, ensuring continuity of streets and sidewalks in both private and public areas and varying the character of the landscape.
The document also lays out several specific guidelines for both public and private portions of the development, including guidelines for landscaping and building designs.
The committee previously held two public hearings on the proposed design guidelines; however, both of the meetings were sparsely attended, and the little public comment that did occur did not directly result from specific guidelines.However, comments from Eric Steltzer, the chair of the city's Energy Advisory Committee, did spark discussions among committee members about the level of requirement for energy efficiency in the development.
The committee ultimately decided it would encourage energy efficiency, but would not make any mandates.This discussion also prompted a letter to the committee from local resident Otis Perry, who said he was disappointed in the decision to use a voluntary approach to LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification.
Perry added that he was concerned a requirement for a variety of building styles would lead to "stereotypic facades, which look like a movie set of Disney village."Although the committee has held the final public hearings for the design guidelines of the project, Monday's meeting will still include an opportunity for input during Citizen's Forum.
Once the Cochecho Waterfront Development Advisory Committee approves the guidelines and the LDA is signed, the developers will still have to get final approval from the Technical Review Committee and Planning Board, as well as several state and federal agencies that oversee permitting requirements. The committee will meet Monday at 5 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
The draft design guidelines are available on the city's website, www.ci.dover.nh.us, at the bottom of the home page under "Important Information."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)