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.
