The Seacoast 20/20 community engagement process is designed to guide the community through working together to set its own agenda - to dare the community to envision how it can be an even better place to live and then to develop a plan to collaboratively create that vision.
June 25, 2009
8:30 AM Registration
9:00 AM - 12:00 PM Program
University of New Hampshire
Memorial Union Building
Granite State Room
2nd Floor
83 Main Street
Durham, New Hampshire
Please RSVP by June 19, 2009. Space is limited so please respond early . www.seacoast2020.com
Monday, June 8, 2009
Dover Coalition for Youth Relaunch Meeting
Date: Tuesday June 30th
Time: 11:30am
Location: Coalition Office, McConnell Center
Join the Coalition staff for lunch and a review of the recent Dover survey results and brainstorm what the coalition can do.
? Do you know how many 8th graders have tried alcohol?
? What percentage of high school students have used marijuana?
Want a sneak peak at the results? See the attachment to review the stats and get a head start on thinking about what can be done.
Or contact Vicki Hebert at v.hebert@dover.nh.gov or 603.516.3273
Time: 11:30am
Location: Coalition Office, McConnell Center
Join the Coalition staff for lunch and a review of the recent Dover survey results and brainstorm what the coalition can do.
? Do you know how many 8th graders have tried alcohol?
? What percentage of high school students have used marijuana?
Want a sneak peak at the results? See the attachment to review the stats and get a head start on thinking about what can be done.
Or contact Vicki Hebert at v.hebert@dover.nh.gov or 603.516.3273
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
GFD 12-08 Newsletter
Good for Dover Newsletter #6
Welcome to Spring. The days are getting longer and it's getting easier to take part in all that Dover has to offer. Thanks to everyone who responded to our survey. If you haven't responded yet, just click the link - it's short and will only take a few minutes. We are compiling responses and look forward to seeing what's important to you, and working with those who expressed an interest in getting more involved.
Welcome to Spring. The days are getting longer and it's getting easier to take part in all that Dover has to offer. Thanks to everyone who responded to our survey. If you haven't responded yet, just click the link - it's short and will only take a few minutes. We are compiling responses and look forward to seeing what's important to you, and working with those who expressed an interest in getting more involved.
This month’s newsletter includes:
- Public meetings
- Things to Do
- Notable News
- Fun Fact about our City
Public Meetings
Most public meetings allow for public comment at the begining. And all hold public hearings which you can find on their agendas on the city website. For meetings not included here, go to www.ci.dover.nh.us and use the drop-down menu.
School board –
6:30 p.m. the 2nd Monday of each month in City Council chambers.
As you may have heard, there hasn't been much input at these meetings, so it's a great opportunity to speak up for what's good for Dover's schools.
Planning board –
7:00 p.m. the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month in City Council chambers.
City council –
7:00 p.m. the 2nd and 4th Wednesday of each month in City Council chambers
Planning board –
7:00 p.m. the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month in City Council chambers.
City council –
7:00 p.m. the 2nd and 4th Wednesday of each month in City Council chambers
A hearing on the Energy Audit is scheduled for March 25 - see below for details.
Things to Do
April 4, 8:00 p.m. at First Parish Church
This performance includes soloists and a chamber orchestra with strings, woodwinds, and trumpet. You won't want to miss this presentation, with its many choruses, and solo sections, with the triumphant 'Hallelujah Chorus' and stirring 'Amen'.
Clean up Branches Damaged by Winter Storms
by April 13
Community Services will be picking up storm-related brush during two weeks starting April 13. Pick up in your neighborhood could be any time during that period. Stack brush by the curb with the cut side facing the road. This special pick-up is specifically for storm-related debris, not trash or other yard waste.
10th Annual Dover Pride: Clean Up Day
April 25, 8:00 am-noon, followed by lunch rain or shine
The Dover Main Street program’s tenth annual Clean Up Day kicks off downtown preparations for summer activities. Volunteers are treated to a Pancake Breakfast at the Cochecho Mills Courtyard on Central Avenue, where they are assigned to worksites. Please wear loose comfortable clothing (work gloves are recommended). Rakes, shovels, wheelbarrows, pruners, brooms, etc., with your name on them are always welcome. Children with supervision are welcome. Help transform the downtown and make Dover bloom for summer! Please call the Dover Main Street Office at 740-6435 or email dovermainst@ci.dover.nh.us to volunteer.
Red's Shoe Barn Race For A Better Community
April 26, starting at 10:00 a.m. at Dover City Hall
5 Mile Road Race & 3 Mile Walk
April 25, 8:00 am-noon, followed by lunch rain or shine
The Dover Main Street program’s tenth annual Clean Up Day kicks off downtown preparations for summer activities. Volunteers are treated to a Pancake Breakfast at the Cochecho Mills Courtyard on Central Avenue, where they are assigned to worksites. Please wear loose comfortable clothing (work gloves are recommended). Rakes, shovels, wheelbarrows, pruners, brooms, etc., with your name on them are always welcome. Children with supervision are welcome. Help transform the downtown and make Dover bloom for summer! Please call the Dover Main Street Office at 740-6435 or email dovermainst@ci.dover.nh.us to volunteer.
Red's Shoe Barn Race For A Better Community
April 26, starting at 10:00 a.m. at Dover City Hall
5 Mile Road Race & 3 Mile Walk
Dover Discussion
Watch Fosters and the Dover City News for announcement for the next DOVER DISCUSSIONS event. At press time the date had not been set but it is believed to be planned for sometime in April. This time the Discussion will be hosted by Ward 5 and 6 Councilors.
Notable News
Local resident and Planning Board member Kirt Schuman was recently named Executive Director of the Dover Chamber of Commerce. Kirt will be a tireless advocate for Dover's business community and their outreach programs in our community. Congratulations Kirt!
The Energy Audit completed by Johnson Controls was discussed at two recent City Council Workshops. The topic is now scheduled to be referred to a Hearing on April 8th with Council vote on April 22nd. The important feature of the proposal is that Johnson Controls guarantees a payback in energy savings (units) in 7.2 years. The cost of the proposal of energy upgrades to city structures is $2.4M with total costs ranging up to $3.5 M depending on how the program is financed, but as we all know, guarantees are few and far between! Good For Dover will be endorsing passage of the resolution for debt financing of this energy upgrade. Citizens are encouraged to support this by attending the hearing on April 8th and Citizens Forum on April 22nd. Letters to the editor are also welcome.
Fun Fact
Dover's name has changed many times over the years. Thanks to the Dover Public Library, we know that we could be living in Hilton’s Point, Pascataqua, Pascataway, Newichwannock, Cochecho, Bristol or Northam. Would we still be the Green Wave?
=============================================================
To be removed from this mailing list, send an email to goodfordover@yahoo.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject line. Send an email to that address with any news you would like to see included in our newsletter or any other ideas you may have.
Seacoast 20/20: A Community Vision
What does it take to create a great community?
Economic stability?
Low crime rates?
Access to quality early learning opportunities and healthcare?
We invite you to come and lend your voice to setting our community's agenda. We invite you to envision how the seacoast can be an even better place to live.
In these challenging times we don't want to lose sight of the fact that our quality of life here on the seacoast requires everyone's stewardship. As we all look for ways to do do more with less, it is important for us to communicate and define the things that matter most to us all.
That's why we have joined together to continue our work with speaker Joseph "Jay" Connor to help guide us through the process of discovering and articulating a clear community vision. Jay Connor, JD/MBA, is the founder/CEO of "The Collaboratory for Community Support."
Local business/community leaders and non-profits met on February 19th to kick off the process of learning to work together to achieve the community's goals. Now we need your input to establish the vision that will shape our community for years to come.
This kind of communication is what it takes to create real, sustainable social change. It starts with a few people learning about a new way to do things, and turns into a powerful movement across the community. Help Seacoast 20/20 to keep the momentum going by forwarding this email to 5 friends, so they too can become connected.
Learn more at www.seacoast2020.com
Economic stability?
Low crime rates?
Access to quality early learning opportunities and healthcare?
We invite you to come and lend your voice to setting our community's agenda. We invite you to envision how the seacoast can be an even better place to live.
In these challenging times we don't want to lose sight of the fact that our quality of life here on the seacoast requires everyone's stewardship. As we all look for ways to do do more with less, it is important for us to communicate and define the things that matter most to us all.
That's why we have joined together to continue our work with speaker Joseph "Jay" Connor to help guide us through the process of discovering and articulating a clear community vision. Jay Connor, JD/MBA, is the founder/CEO of "The Collaboratory for Community Support."
Local business/community leaders and non-profits met on February 19th to kick off the process of learning to work together to achieve the community's goals. Now we need your input to establish the vision that will shape our community for years to come.
This kind of communication is what it takes to create real, sustainable social change. It starts with a few people learning about a new way to do things, and turns into a powerful movement across the community. Help Seacoast 20/20 to keep the momentum going by forwarding this email to 5 friends, so they too can become connected.
Learn more at www.seacoast2020.com
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Council OKs bridge - Large Turnout in Support
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)