Huge projects unveiled for Portland waterfront

grittys457 said:
New site for Ocean Properties. How can anyone pick this over Olympia?

http://www.mainestatepier.com/homepage.htm
Click to expand...

although I like the layout of olympia a lot better (with the park and curvature) ocean properties is certainly looking dense and very built up and has a parking garage (something olympia should consider). I dont know, they both look cool. I can see portland rising to more "top lists" if we had a waterfront rooftop garden to attent. But a public market on the water wouldn't be bad either.

cneal - I cannto view that blog from my work computer, but I am sure it is very informative. Which project do you prefer at this time?

It is funny how not one significant project in portland has been built since, well, 1990. Maybe this will start to chaneg things.
 
Pier politics push Cohen out of loop

It had to happen. With all the political currents swirling around the Maine State Pier, someone was bound to have his feet swept out from under him.
"On a personal level, it would be wonderful to participate," Portland City Councilor Jim Cohen said Tuesday, referring to the looming decision on how the crumbling pier should be resurrected -- and by whom.
But Cohen can't participate. When, later this year, the council casts its most important vote in decades between two star-studded development groups -- each vying to build the crown jewel of Portland's waterfront -- the District 5 councilor will be out in the hallway watching local history pass him by.
Why? Because at times Maine's largest city can be a very small town, that's why.
It all started when gargantuan Ocean Properties Ltd., headed by Bangor native Tom Walsh, began adding political muscle to its $90 million, multi-use proposal for the pier.
First came former Sen. George Mitchell. Then Bob Baldacci, brother of Gov. John Baldacci, and former Portland Mayor Peter O'Donnell.
And last but not least, Dennis Bailey of Savvy Inc. -- Portland's pre-eminent communications and public relations firm.
All of this, of course, was watched closely (and with some dismay) by The Olympia Cos. and its president, Bangor native and former America's Cup sailor Kevin Mahaney.
"Somebody said they'd hired Dennis Bailey," said Mahaney. "I had never even heard of Dennis Bailey I don't do politics."
Still, Mahaney knew that he needed some PR muscle on his roster -- and fast.
Enter Maine Street Solutions, a subsidiary of the Portland law firm Verrill Dana (which has represented Mahaney's family for decades). Maine Street Solutions is run by Mike Saxl -- for those keeping score, that would be former Maine House Speaker Mike Saxl.
All of which brings us back to Councilor Cohen. Not only is he a partner with Verrill Dana, he's also listed on Maine Street Solutions' Web site as a member of Saxl's "team."
"I learned of (Saxl's) retention and said I couldn't participate (as a councilor) if it went forward," Cohen said. Recusing himself, he added, "was just the right thing to do."
So, when the deal with Saxl was sealed last week, Cohen quietly spread the word that he was off the Maine State Pier deliberations.
That means Cohen, whose four-year tenure on the council includes extensive work on transportation and community development, will now refer all constituent calls on the Maine State Pier to his fellow councilors. And whenever the dueling developers come before the council, he'll quietly get up and exit the chamber.
Mahaney, who knew that hiring Saxl would shrink the council votes from nine to eight, said "it was a very difficult decision on our part."
But as he saw how the other side was preparing, "I said to myself, 'Geez, there's something going on here and I need to get some help with this process.'"
Of course, Mahaney might have turned to Pierce Atwood, the other Portland law firm with which he's done business, for help spinning his proposal. But alas, he couldn't.
"They were conflicted out," Mahaney said. "They've done work for Ocean Properties."
Columnist Bill Nemitz can be contacted at 791-6323 or at:
bnemitz@pressherald.com


Reader comments




Mo of Chicago, ME
Mar 21, 2007 9:59 AM
seems to be this was pre-meditated subbornation of an official local proceeding to gain advantage in same.. the perps, although rich and attorneys should be indicted and put in jail along with the officers of OLYMPIA inc.. doesn't that include our senator olympia snowe, her hubby, jocko mckernan, and mikee lalibertee?? this paper is a rag ... inept reporting, every article..


yardbird of Arundel, ME
Mar 21, 2007 8:43 AM
sounds like the guy on the street is going to need a lot of vaseline


Arthur Fink of Peaks Island, ME
Mar 21, 2007 7:52 AM

So what's the big deal? Cohen did the right thing, stepping aside in the face of an obvious conflict of interest. There's no guilt, no blame, nothing wrong here at all.
 
Developer promises ferries, seeks long-term pier lease

Officials with Ocean Properties, Ltd., say they will bring two high-speed ferries to Maine and run daily trips between Portland, Rockland and Bar Harbor.
But there's a catch: The company says the ferries won't come unless the City Council gives it a long-term lease for the Maine State Pier property, where it wants to build a hotel and office building.
The Olympia Cos., the other company bidding to redevelop the pier, argues that a ferry service was never part of the city's request for proposals and that the development plans themselves must remain the focus of attention.
"If a fast ferry service makes sense here, we'll be happy to host it," said Nicholas Walsh, a Portland lawyer working for Olympia.
Mark Walsh, vice president of Ocean Properties, calls the proposed ferry service an integral part of his company's business plan, connecting the hotels it owns in Bar Harbor and Rockland with the luxury hotel it wants to build in Portland.
The company owns six high-speed ferries, which are used to operate four ferry routes in Florida. Those ferries carry more than 1 million passengers annually, but in the summer, when the tourism business in Florida slows, the company could easily send two boats to Maine, Walsh said.
"It's a nice complement to our Florida operations," he said. "It's something we have wanted to do for a long time."
The proposal is preliminary. The company hasn't contacted the Rockland harbor master, for example, or the Penobscot Bay Regional Chamber of Commerce or the Maine Port Authority. Skeptics say it's easy for Ocean Properties to make promises now in trying to win City Council approval.
But the company says it is serious about providing the service.
"We know what it would take for us to do it because we do it every day," Walsh said. "It's more than conceptual."
Kevin Mahaney, president of The Olympia Companies, said any ferry company -- not just Ocean Properties -- will have access to the new Ocean Gateway terminal being built near the Maine State Pier. He said the City Council should focus on the competing proposals' design.
"It's a 75-year lease," said Nicholas Walsh, the attorney for Olympia. "The tenants are going to come and go."
Others, though, welcome talk of regular ferry service along Maine's coast.
Mark MacDonald, executive officer of Bay Ferries Ltd., which operates The Cat, a high-speed service between Portland and Nova Scotia and Bar Harbor and Nova Scotia, said he's talked with officials from Ocean Properties about its proposal. He said the addition of a coastal ferry service would be a boost for his service because many people would ride both ferries.
Considering summer traffic, he said, a coastal ferry service could attract enough passengers to make money.
His company's ferry is not allowed to travel between two U.S. ports because it was manufactured in New Zealand. Federal law requires that only American-built boats can travel between U.S. ports.
The Ocean Properties ferries were designed in New Zealand but built in the United States.
Ocean Properties' ferries transport passengers, not cars. They are jet-propelled catamarans made with lightweight aluminum and range in size. The smallest carry 330 passengers, the largest carry 550. They reach speeds of 40 to 50 mph.
Mark Walsh said it would take two hours to travel between Portland and Rockland, and about two hours between Rockland and Bar Harbor.
At its meeting with the City Council's community development committee Tuesday, Ocean Properties mentioned the ferry proposal, but it was not discussed in any detail.
Ocean Properties did set up a model of one of its smaller ferries, the Atlanicat, a 120-foot long ferry it brings to Bar Harbor in the summer to use as a whale-watching boat. The company owns five hotels in Bar Harbor.
Ron Roy, who heads the office of passenger transportation for the Maine Department of Transportation, said the state more than a decade ago created a plan that envisioned the creation of a coastal ferry service working in conjunction with expanded passenger rail service and bus service, allowing tourists to leave their cars at home.
Until the late 1930s, several shipping companies, such as the Eastern Steamship Co., transported passengers between Boston, Portland and points along the Maine coast, said Jeff Monroe, the city's director of ports and transportation. He said the return of ferry service would provide an attractive alternative for tourists.
"These things make a great deal of sense," he said, "particularly when people are sitting in traffic for hours on U.S. Route1."
Staff Writer Tom Bell can be contacted at 791-6369 or at
tbell@pressherald.com


Reader comments




Jay of Auburn, ME
Mar 21, 2007 7:23 AM
Ocean Properties must have a magician on their development team - that's the good old rabbit-from-the-hat routine. Sneaky...

Steve123 of Portland, ME
Mar 21, 2007 9:46 AM
Ocean Properties is simply attempting to turn attention away from their proposal, which is not as strong as the Olympia Company's. The Olympia Company has put together a detailed and thoughtful plan for the site which they created with lots of community interaction (just visit each company's website and the differences are clear--Olympia has a plan and Ocean has biographies of its principles). The Olympia Company proposal demonstrates that they are serious about bringing a world class project to Portland (their hometown). Ocean Properties' proposal lacks character and panache. Surface parking on the pier? Never! And Baldacci's assertion that people will not walk a block or so to park is hogwash--it's part of city living and I for one am insulted by Baldacci's comments--does he think we're all fat and lazy? Portlanders are quite capable, thank-you.
To sum up, I'm just blown away by Olympia's proposal. If built as planned it truly will be Portland's crown jewel, and will spur further development in our great city.


Holly Bernstein of Brunswick, ME
Mar 21, 2007 9:10 AM
Ferry service along the coast of Maine is a great idea! Also, what is the definition of a luxury hotel?
 
some liberal named dominic was complaining about dirty buildings on the pressherald website today, the people that comment on those sites are unbelievable sometimes.
 
You bastard!!! I just responded to you. I thought you used your name. You got me.
 
haha I have a name and a nickname...

I had to make that comment, because the people on that site go nuts if you say something pro development....usually someone gets accused of benig a liberal weenie in the process, even if politics have nothing to do with it all. haha.
 
Editorial

Fierce competition for pier an opportunity

What to make of the testiness enlivening the competition to redevelop the Maine State Pier?
During a meeting with a subcommittee of the Portland City Council on Wednesday, the two companies vying for the project not only touted their own proposals but trashed the competition.
Ocean Properties Ltd. of Portsmouth, N.H. , and the Olympia Cos. of Portland have submitted $90 million proposals for the construction of a hotel, office and retail space on and around the pier.
The city put out a request for proposals for the pier after rezoning it last year to allow for new commercial development on the waterfront. As part of the project, the city wants the developer to repair the pier, which could cost $10 million or more.
Inasmuch as the deteriorating condition of the pier needs to be addressed, there's been some welcome urgency. Normally, the city approaches waterfront development with an excessive amount of caution, owing to the tense politics surrounding the debate over waterfront uses.
As welcome as the urgency is, however, Wednesday's session should serve as a reminder of just how valuable a piece of real estate this is.
Ocean Properties is led by hotel developer Tom Walsh and Robert Baldacci, a brother of the governor. Olympia is led by developer Kevin Mahaney and a team that includes some of the city's best-known design, engineering and legal firms.
Already, things are getting tense. At the meeting, one developer accused another of throwing his plan together in a few days. That led to harsh words in the hallway after the meeting.
Ocean Properties has been reworking its plan, even promising a new coastal ferry service. Olympia, meanwhile, touts its extensive work consulting community leaders in the development of its proposal. It claims Ocean Properties is unfairly altering its proposal in response to negative feedback about its original plan.
It's too soon to say which proposal is better. Actually, the way things are going, it's hard to know exactly what these developers would be willing to do to get their hands on the pier.
And therein lies an opportunity for the city.
What the council should take away from this squabbling is the fact that these developers really want to do this project.
The final deal may involve city tax breaks, long-term leases for city property and the development of a park or other amenities.
By all means, the city should encourage these developers to improve their proposals -- and drive a hard bargain in the process.
 
Developers square off on pier proposals
By Kate Bucklin (published: March 22, 2007)
PORTLAND ? The two teams seeking redevelopment rights to the Maine State Pier squared off in two public meetings this week, trumpeting the merits of their own proposals while offering blatant criticism about the competition?s elements.

On Tuesday night, Ocean Properties Ltd. and The Olympia Cos. each formally presented their $90 million proposals to turn the 85-year-old city-owned pier into what both teams said will be a destination for tourists and residents.

The presentations to the Community Development Committee and about 150 spectators ? including a couple dozen who had to stand in the hallway outside City Council chambers in City Hall ? were similar to those made at a Portland Community Chamber gathering that drew about 600 people Monday afternoon at Merrill Auditorium.

Both proposals call for building offices, a hotel, public walking and gathering spaces and cruise ship berths. Olympia has touted a two-acre park as the cornerstone of its proposal, while Ocean Properties wants to build a cruiseport and introduce coastal ferry service and whale-watching excursions.

The Ocean Properties team, led by Robert Baldacci Jr. and company founder Thomas Walsh, Tuesday promoted the company?s track record and said their vision for the pier had been altered from the original submission the city received Feb. 22. Baldacci said prior to the meeting that the changes made reflect comments the developers received from the community ? requests for more open space, better view corridors and a commitment to environmentally friendly design. Those elements are similar to ones in the Olympia proposal.

Baldacci said Walsh and their partner, former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell, are enthusiastic about redeveloping the pier because the men are ?from and of Maine? and want to show their appreciation to the state.

?This proposal reflects their desire to give back to a state that has been so good to them,? Baldacci said.

Olympia has emphasized it?s hometown roots and a creative process that included a community focus group and several local designers. Company founder Kevin Mahaney ? a former Olympian ? told committee members that while Olympia invested in a community vision from the start, the proposal by Ocean Properties appeared rushed and unthoughtful.

?What they delivered on Feb. 22 probably took them six (days) to do,? Mahaney said of the Ocean Properties submission.

During his presentation, Baldacci stressed that his company met with dozens of residents, including fishermen, union representatives and neighbors of the pier. At last night?s meeting, several people wore stickers that said ?OP Opportunity for Portland.?

The opposing development teams are a who?s who of Maine politicians, architects, engineers and consultants. And none seem to be having trouble criticizing the other side.

Parking, financing and building locations were some topics on which the teams traded shots. Ocean Properties plans to build a 300-space parking garage on property closest to the city?s Ocean Gateway cruise ship terminal and have room for about 80 vehicles to park on the pier in an area Baldacci said will double as event space.

Olympia shows about 50 parking spots adjacent to its hotel. The company plans to lease space in nearby garages and has said immediate parking is not needed. Mahaney said the focus group his company used said ?absolutely not? to the idea of parking on the pier.

While traffic engineer Tom Gorrill of Gorrill Palmer backed up Olympia, the Ocean Properties team was adamant about the need for parking on and next to the pier.

?The parking shortage is the port area is well known,? Ocean Properties attorney Ron Ward said. ?Not having parking on the pier will make the problem in the port area even worse.?

Ward also said people needed the option of parking near the restaurant and wholesale and retail market planned for the end of the pier

The Olympia proposal shows a hotel at the foot of the pier. When the City Council rezoned the pier for non-marine use in September, it decided hotels on the property could not be built below the spring tide line. Olympia would fill under a portion of the pier, therefore pushing the spring tide line further back and providing a permanent fix for a failing skirt wall.

Ocean Properties said getting permission from environmental and marine agencies to fill under the pier could take years, but engineer Barry Sheff of Woodard & Curran told councilors the action can be allowed.

Financing is sure to be a sticking point in the selection of a proposal.

Olympia is seeking a 75-year lease of the property and proposes $15 million in immediate repair work for the pier, which the city has concluded is failing after years of not being maintained. Olympia wants either tax increment financing for 20 years at $650,000 a year or an $18 million bond that the company would pay back. The company estimates the redeveloped property would generate annual taxes of $1 million.

Ocean Properties is asking for a 50 percent property tax return annually for 30 years, and estimates paying about $500,000 yearly in property taxes. The company wants a 99-year lease and is offering $11 million for upgrades and work to the pier. It would invest $3 million up front for pier repair, Baldacci said.

The city rezoned the pier last fall, after reporting that about a third of the pilings holding the 84-year-old pier up are failing and needed about $15 million in repairs. An inability to find a tenant for the industrial marine-zoned pier was also cited as a reason to rezone it for non-marine use.

The Community Development Committee on Tuesday accepted initial feedback from staff and from outside consultant Appledore Marine Engineering. The process going forward was also discussed, with Councilors Kevin Donoghue and David Marshall expressing some hesitation about what committee Chairman Jim Cloutier referred to as a ?fluid? process.

Donoghue and Marshall said after the meeting they were concerned about substantial changes to the original proposals received Feb. 22, and Donoghue said his decision will be based on the original submissions.

The committee is unlikely to forward a recommendation to the full council before summer, Cloutier has said. The CDC will resume discussing the proposals next month.

Kate Bucklin can be reached at 781-3661 ext. 106 or kbucklin@theforecaster.net.
 
there are some good new pictures/renderings of the maine state pier proposal on the Ocean Properties website....but in each one the hotel looks different. in one it is a four winged building and in some others it is a one winged building...not sure why..?
 
new animation on the olympia website, takes you on a virtual bird's eye tour of the proposed development.
 
PORTLAND: City poses questions about competing pier proposals
The city is seeking greater detail on two competing proposals to redevelop the Maine State Pier.
Portland officials issued a list of 35 questions to Ocean Properties Ltd. and The Olympia Companies on Friday. Most of the questions pertain to both development teams; some are specific to one team or the other.
The questions cover marine uses, pier operations and repairs, traffic circulation, parking, waterfront security, public access, zoning and permits. City officials want written answers by April 19.


Im still not sure I like either of these proposals better than the other one, but I reall like the curved building concept from olympia...
 
Use high standards to weigh State Pier proposals

About the Author
John Knox is president of the board of trustees of Greater Portland Landmarks. The redevelopment of the Maine State Pier is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform and revitalize Portland's historic waterfront area with exciting new architecture and public space.
Like the Portland Observatory, Deering Oaks, the Portland Museum of Art and other Portland landmarks, whatever is created on the Maine State Pier will help to define our city for generations to come.
That is why Greater Portland Landmarks has been closely monitoring the recent public meetings and carefully reviewing the proposals that Ocean Properties and The Olympia Companies have submitted for the redevelopment of the pier. Both developers, in fact, recently made presentations to our board of trustees.
At the March 20 Community Development Committee meeting, the city's review process remained unclear. Because of its monumental importance to the future of Portland, we believe that the selection process must be inclusive, transparent, thorough and fair.
In order to meet these standards, we have urged the city to follow four basic guidelines:
First, because there are only two proposals, we believe the entire City Council should review both proposals and decide on the developer. Developer selection should not be left to the councilors on the Community Development Committee alone.
Second, because of the complexity of this project, city leadership should allow time for a thorough review process and not make a fast-track decision.
Third, each proposal should be carefully evaluated in light of the seven selection criteria specified in the city's request for proposals, including: meeting the city's specified requirements; consistency with design guidelines and desire for signature architecture; expanded public access to the water; support for water-dependent uses; impact on surrounding properties/businesses; provision for maintenance; and financial offer to the city.
Fourth, the review should be based on the proposals as submitted at the time of the RFP deadline (3 p.m. on Feb. 22). It is fundamentally unfair to allow either developer to significantly change their proposal after the fact, and it is enormously difficult to evaluate a moving target if the developers continue to modify their proposals after this initial deadline.
In addition to the above guidelines, which speak to the integrity of the process, the board of Greater Portland Landmarks has approved a set of guiding principles by which to evaluate the competing plans.
We will use these principles in evaluating the proposals and making our recommendation to the city. We also urge councilors to follow them in assessing how successfully each proposal meets the RFP's criteria for producing signature architecture that is consistent with the goals of the Eastern Waterfront Design Guidelines.
Some of them include:
Does the plan create dynamic contemporary architecture?
Is the proposed architecture compatible with its historic surroundings -- in scale, massing, composition of facades and relationship to the street -- but distinctly of our own time?
Are the proposed building designs appropriate to Portland, a small historic seaport? Are the proposed buildings people-friendly at street level?
Does it strive to create a unique sense of place that will delight visitors and feel comfortable to residents?
Does it propose flexible buildings and landscapes that can evolve and can accommodate year-round uses?
Does it create a landscape component that will be as distinctive as the architecture?
Does it minimize parking facilities on the waterfront and their impact on the waterfront?
All 14 of the principles are at www.portlandlandmarks.org.
City councilors must make a tough decision in choosing a developer for this project, but given all that is at stake here, they owe it to all of us and to future generations to get it right.
- Special to the Press Herald


Reader comments

Arthur Fink of Peaks Island, ME
Apr 17, 2007 6:56 AM

And, for anybody who hasn't looked at the two proposals, it should be pointed out that the Olympia Group proposal clearly satisfies these criteria; the competing proposal does not.
 
PORTLAND: Munjoy residents can hear discussion of pier plans
Proposed redevelopment of the city-owned Maine State Pier will be the subject of a community forum hosted by the Munjoy Hill Neighborhood Organization at 7 p.m. Tuesday at St. Lawrence Church, 76 Congress St.
The pier is located on Portland's eastern waterfront, at the base of Munjoy Hill. Two development teams, Ocean Properties Ltd. and The Olympia Companies, have offered competing $90 million proposals.
Representatives of each team have been invited to present their proposals and take questions from the public.
 
OH NO

Land dispute threatens pier plan

OCEAN PROPERTIES LTD.
Includes 200-room hotel, 247-space parking garage and 1-acre park on land.n 120,000-square-foot office building, fish and farm cooperative and two restaurants on pier.
Two rooftop gardens, tugboat, cruise ship and intercoastal ferry landings.

THE OLYMPIA COS. n?Includes 115,000-square-foot office building and 2-acre park on land.

175-room hotel, fish and farm market, three restaurants on pier.

Tugboat and cruise ship landings, staircase to harbor, "green" design and off-site parking.



Portland's effort to redevelop the Maine State Pier may be in jeopardy because a state agency disputes the city's ownership of submerged land beneath the 85-year-old pier.
The Maine Department of Conservation has notified city officials that new zoning and two competing $90 million proposals to redevelop the dilapidated pier may conflict with state laws protecting public use of waterways.
The development proposals call for nonmarine uses such as a hotel, an office building and restaurants on the pier, which was formerly used by Bath Iron Works and Cianbro Corp. for shipbuilding and heavy marine construction.
Portland officials rezoned the 7-acre property, including land at the intersection of Commercial Street and Franklin Arterial, and sought redevelopment proposals last fall. The 1,000-foot-long pier needs more than $13 million in repairs, and the city has been unable to find a major industrial tenant for the past few years.
The City Council's community development committee is now reviewing the competing lease proposals and is expected to recommend a preferred development team in June.
At issue for the Department of Conservation is 1981 legislation that transferred pier ownership from the state to the city as part of a deal that brought BIW to Portland.
The legislation failed to specifically name submerged or underwater land as part of the transfer. The city's 1982 deed to the pier, however, includes "all submerged lands."
Because of the discrepancy, and because of longstanding laws protecting public use of waterways, the Department of Conservation -- specifically its Bureau of Parks and Lands -- claims that it still owns and controls underwater land beneath and around the pier.
The bureau outlined its concerns in a March 20 letter from Dan Prichard, director of the bureau's Submerged Lands Program, to Mary Costigan, an associate city attorney.
"I think there is a real and valid concern that some elements of the development proposals under consideration are inconsistent" with state law, Prichard wrote.
The city released Prichard's letter and related documents only after the Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram filed a written request for information under the Maine Freedom of Access Act.
City Attorney Gary Wood said Thursday that the city maintains its ownership claim to the submerged land, even though City Manager Joseph Gray Jr. signed a 30-year agreement in 2004 to lease the 28-acre area from the bureau at no cost. The lease applies to submerged land near the pier and the Ocean Gateway cruise-ship terminal, a city and state project under construction nearby.
The lease authorized the city to maintain and further develop "a public port and marine transportation services facility known as the Maine State Pier and Ocean Gateway."
Wood said Portland officials agreed to the lease because it contains a clause stipulating that the city "is not waiving any claims to ownership it may have" by virtue of the city's deed to the pier. He said city officials have been trying to amend the 1981 legislation for several years.
"We do not agree with (Prichard's) interpretation of (what the city) purchased or with an overly narrow interpretation of what uses are allowed on the pier," Wood said.
He said he met with Prichard and other Department of Conservation officials last week and hopes to work out a compromise that addresses their concern that public access and marine uses be preserved.
Prichard said a compromise may be possible, but made no promises.
The City Council passed zoning last September to allow mixed-use development on the pier as long as some first-floor uses are marine-related. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection has approved the zoning with some amendments.
Portland officials didn't ask the Department of Conservation if the new zoning or the city's redevelopment plan for the pier was OK before issuing a request for proposals last fall. City officials disagree on whether that was a mistake.
"In hindsight, we certainly should have started (talking with the Department of Conservation) much earlier," Wood said. "It just never crossed anyone's mind that they were one of the departments we would need to bring in."
Councilor James Cloutier, chairman of the three-member community development committee, said the Department of Conservation is one of several local, state and federal agencies that developers will have to face as the pier proposals move forward.
"I'm not in the least concerned that there will be a conflict in the way these agencies apply their jurisdiction that would prevent the successful completion of a project," Cloutier said.
The new pier zoning allows a wide variety of uses as long as they don't infringe on marine uses. It prohibits residential uses, amusement parks, marine-related waste processing, bulk freight facilities and gambling casinos. It also prohibits building a hotel directly on the pier, but allows a hotel to be built on city land next to the pier.
The developers behind the competing pier proposals submitted in February offered reserved comments on the Department of Conservation's concerns.
"We're willing to work with the city and the Department of Conservation and any other agency to find a resolution to these issues so we can move forward with possible redevelopment of the pier," said Sasa Cook, project coordinator for The Olympia Cos., a Portland-based development team headed by Kevin Mahaney.
The Olympia proposal includes a hotel on the pier, despite the city's zoning restriction, because the development team decided that a hotel was better suited for the pier with an office building on land.
The other development team, Ocean Properties Ltd. of Portsmouth, N.H., has proposed building an office building on the pier with a hotel on land.
Ocean Properties is headed by Thomas Walsh, former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell and Robert Baldacci, Gov. John Baldacci's brother.
Robert Baldacci said the submerged land dispute is a matter between the city and the state. He said wrangling with various regulatory agencies is part of the risk of development.
Asked whether the city should have resolved its dispute with the Department of Conservation before seeking redevelopment proposals, Baldacci said, "In a perfect world? Probably. But I'm not particularly troubled by it."
Staff Writer Kelley Bouchard can be contacted at 791-6328 or at:
 
Question of fairness plagues city process to redevelop pier
E-mail this page Reader Comments (below)
By KELLEY BOUCHARD, Staff Writer Portland Press Herald Saturday, April 21, 2007

Two months ago, Portland officials received two competing $90 million proposals to redevelop the dilapidated Maine State Pier.
Since then, the proposal from The Olympia Cos. of Portland has stayed largely the same. But the other, from Ocean Properties Ltd. of Portsmouth, N.H., has changed significantly.
The discrepancy has raised questions about the fairness of Portland's review process and whether allowing developers to alter proposals after they've been submitted turns the process into a horse race with an unclear finish line.
Portland officials are considering the proposals because the 1,000-foot-long pier needs more than $13 million in repairs, and the city has been unable to find a major industrial tenant for the prime waterfront real estate. It was previously occupied by Bath Iron Works and Cianbro Corp.
Both Ocean Properties and Olympia have offered proposals that call for a hotel, an office building, a park and other features on the 7-acre property at Commercial Street and Franklin Arterial.
Controversy over the review process comes as city and state conservation officials disagree over whether redevelopment of the pier can include hotels, office buildings or other non-marine uses.
Olympia representatives say the proposals should be judged largely as they were when city officials opened them Feb. 22. Its proposal can be seen at www.cascobaypark.com.
Ocean Properties has changed and added to its proposal, showing several different architectural renditions on its Web site, www.mainestatepier.com.
The council's community development committee had a host of questions about both proposals, and both development teams answered them by Thursday's deadline. The committee will consider establishing written guidelines to ensure a thorough review when it meets at 5:30 p.m. Wednesday at City Hall.
The committee is expected to recommend one of the development teams to the full council in June.
City officials in charge of the review say it's OK to let the proposals evolve. Others, including some officials involved in the review, say the flexible approach defeats the purpose of issuing a request for proposals that meet specific criteria and must be submitted by a deadline.
They say issuing an RFP is intended to promote a fair, above-board review of proposals.
"My concern is that by allowing submissions to be changed in a substantial way after the deadline, people will be frustrated by the lack of fairness and the city won't attract the best proposals," said Barbara Vestal, a Portland lawyer and former city official who has been active in waterfront issues for more than 20 years.
She participated in a focus group organized by Olympia to prepare its proposal.
Councilor James Cloutier, chairman of the three-member community development committee, disputes that allowing the pier proposals to evolve will discourage developers from working with the city in the future. He said it would be unfair to limit either development team to its initial pier proposal given the massive scope and complexity of the project.
"We never pretended we would simply accept one of the proposals made in response to an RFP," Cloutier said.
He acknowledges that the review process may be perceived as unfair from the start because Ocean Properties expressed interest in redeveloping the pier shortly before the city sought proposals. "But nobody has a leg up at this point," he said.
Cloutier said his committee is reviewing the proposals as "concepts," although the RFP made no such reference.
Councilor Kevin Donoghue, another committee member, said he plans to vote on the proposals based on the initial submissions, if he chooses either of them.
"The notion of a concept RFP undermines our credibility as an arbiter of the merits of these proposals because there are no clear rules," Donoghue said.
Councilor Jill Duson, the third committee member, could not be reached for comment.
Although state law lays out detailed rules to ensure fairness in competitive bidding on state-funded projects, the city has more general requirements.
Ocean Properties has made several changes to its proposal in recent weeks. The hotel and parking garage have been moved and redesigned, a park has been included and several "green design" features have been added, including solar and wind power. The proposal also includes an office building.
"Often what's proposed and what's approved are two different things," said Peter O'Donnell, a former city councilor who is an unpaid consultant for Ocean Properties. "The bottom line is that this is up to the city."
Olympia representatives note that their proposal featured a park and green design from the start. They say they won't be changing their original design, which also includes a hotel and office building.
"It's not right to appropriate other people's ideas," said Michael Saxl, former speaker of the Maine House of Representatives who is a paid consultant for Olympia. "It undermines the spirit of evenhandedness."
Disagreement over the review process comes as Portland officials negotiate with the Maine Department of Conservation to reconcile a dispute over who owns underwater land near the pier and whether non-marine uses can be allowed on the pier.
At issue is 1981 legislation that transferred pier ownership from the state to the city as part of a deal that brought BIW to Portland.
The Department of Conservation says it still owns the underwater land because the legislation failed to specifically name submerged land as part of the transfer. The city claims it owns the land because its 1982 deed to the pier references "all submerged lands."
Despite its ownership claim, the city signed a 30-year agreement with the Department of Conservation in 2004 to lease the submerged land at no cost. The 28-acre area includes the Ocean Gateway cruise-ship terminal, a city and state project under construction nearby.
City Attorney Gary Wood said the goal of the agreement was to prevent the state from leasing the submerged lands to another party while ownership was in dispute.
Staff Writer Kelley Bouchard can be contacted at 791-6328 or at:
 
Find a quick answer to the pier problem
E-mail this page Reader Comments (below)
Maine Sunday Telegram Sunday, April 22, 2007

First, let's be clear. A dispute between the state Department of Conservation and the city of Portland regarding the proposed redevelopment of the Maine State Pier can be solved simply.
Conservation believes the 1981 legislation that transferred pier ownership from the state to the city didn't grant ownership of the submerged land around the pier.
And so Conservation is of the opinion that it still owns and controls the land, and that non-marine uses proposed under redevelopment plans violate state law. The city disagrees and believes it owns the submerged land.
The city said it has unsuccessfully tried for several years to amend the legislation. We suggest city officials try again. At this point in the game, we believe the political will must exist to draft legislation that creates a compromise.
Perhaps House Speaker Glenn Cummings, D-Portland, could be of some assistance here.
While the solution should be simple, what is much harder to understand is how this potentially show-stopping detail has only come to light now. Now, after two reputable and respected development firms have expended enormous amounts of time, money and energy on two competing proposals for the pier. That is two, might we add, $90 million proposals.
Frankly, it's disappointing that neither the Department of Conservation nor the city of Portland worked this out before this point. If this is someone's idea of brinksmanship, they are sorely misguided.
And the fact that the city forced this newspaper to officially file a freedom of information request for the documents related to this issue goes beyond disappointing. Putting administrative roadblocks in front of journalists hinders the public's right to know and raises questions about exactly what officials hoped to keep quiet.
In short, the entire way this issue has been handled is bush league, at best.
 
Product more important than process for pier


Flexibility or adherence to traditional methods of planning for development? That's the core of a debate facing Portland officials, as they move to decide on which proposal, and thus which company, they'll choose to develop the Maine State Pier. It's worth noting that the project is huge, entailing about $90 million, so a lot is riding on the outcome.
In the end, the city should decide that a reasonable amount of flexibility is more important than traditional attitudes about the so-called Request for Proposal process.
The controversy hinges on plans prepared by two competing firms: The Olympia Cos. based in Portland and Ocean Properties Ltd. of Portsmouth, N.H.
Proposals submitted by the two companies were opened on Feb. 22. In the interim, the Olympia plan hasn't changed. Ocean Properties, however, has amended its design and caused cries of foul from advocates on the Olympia side.
Should either company be allowed to make changes to their design after those plans have been submitted?
Various city officials have come down on both sides. Some are arguing that allowing changes to RFP responses creates unfairness, which may diminsh the city's ability to attract developers in the future. They also say that a flexible "concept RFP" undermines the city's credibility in choosing proposals.
Others, particularly Councilor James Cloutier, are taking a more pragmatic approach -- arguing that changes to designs after an initial deadline are both acceptable and beneficial.
Cloutier has it right. The Maine State Pier project is of immense importance to Portland as it embarks on a period of growth that will significantly alter the nature of the city's waterfront and downtown area for a very long time. The city's interest in getting the best possible design should be of paramount concern.
Yes, deadlines are reasonable but they should not unduly restrict the flow of ideas. According to Cloutier, however, the Feb. 22 date to review proposals was not seen as a strict cutoff of design input.
It appears that in this case Ocean Properties took an initiative that Olympia chose not to. If a final, "pencils down" date is still an issue, the city should clear it up.
Meanwhile, if both companies are granted equal opportunity to change and improve their designs, the real winner will be the city of Portland.


Reader comments




Company Girl of PTLD, ME
Apr 25, 2007 10:08 AM
Indeed, both Nemitz and the Editorial Board have ostentatiously kissee George Mitchell's bottom over the last several weeks. It's almost when they write those editorials praising Blethen.
The PPH has its bosses and isn't the public.


MainelyJack of New Gloucester, ME
Apr 25, 2007 10:03 AM
The editorial is sanitized to keep out the basic reason for it's support of Ocean Properties being allowed to change it's proposal. This is the group headed by George Mitchell and John Baldacci's brother who are going to get the contract. Count on it.


Ep of Portland, ME
Apr 25, 2007 9:35 AM
"It appears that in this case Ocean Properties took an initiative that Olympia chose not to."

And why is that? Because Ocean Properties' original proposal was laughably horrible, and they changed their plan by copying parts of Olympia's proposal. Olympia's proposal was well-thought-out and already great, and there was nothing remotely good in Ocean's plan they'd want to copy.

May you should pay attention before you start commenting on how this process should go.
 
Pier review procedure to be discussed
By Kate Bucklin (published: April 26, 2007)
PORTLAND ? The City Council committee responsible for weeding through two proposals for redeveloping the Maine State Pier will consider how the review process should proceed at its meeting Wednesday night.

The Community Development Committee last heard publicly from developers Ocean Properties and The Olympia Cos. a month ago. Both developers are proposing $90 million mixed-use projects for the city-owned pier. In exchange for leasing rights to the property, the chosen developer would repair the dilapidated structure.

Last week, both developers turned in lengthy responses to a series of questions posed by city staffers concerning elements of the proposals. Those responses, along with other information on the proposals, can be found by clicking on the Maine State Pier link on the city Web site, portlandmaine.gov.

The city opened requests for proposals for the pier Feb. 22 and since then the two development teams have been battling to prove their proposals are superior.

Ocean Properties, the company that spurred rezoning of the pier last summer after pitching redevelopment plans to city officials, has modified its original plan to reflect feedback from the public, said Robert Baldacci, the company?s vice president of development. The changes include more ?green? design elements, more open space and shifting of buildings to allow for better view corridors. The plan includes a restaurant, a public market, a parking lot/event space on the pier, an office building, a hotel and a parking garage.

Olympia has not changed its original plan, which calls for an office building, a two-acre park, a hotel at the beginning of the pier and a restaurant and shopping village to be located at the end of the pier. Although city zoning does not allow for a hotel on the pier, Olympia proposes to fill under that section of the structure.

There is some conflict on the Community Development Committee as to whether the proposals submitted by the developers can be altered. Councilor James Cloutier, chairman of the committee, has said the process was intended to be ?fluid.? Councilor Kevin Donoghue has said he will judge both plans based on their original proposals.

The committee Wednesday is expected to discuss a comprehensive review process outlined in a memo by Cloutier and staff. The process calls for four sessions to discuss the pier. The sessions would each focus on a particular review component: Framework, function, form and finance.

Cloutier is suggesting three meetings in May and one at the beginning of June, with a recommendation to the full council coming in June as well.

The city is also waiting to hear from the state Department of Conservation regarding a request made by city officials that the state agency reconsider its position on development of the pier. In a letter sent to the city?s corporation counsel March 20, Dan Prichard of the Bureau of Parks and Lands informed the city of concern his department has with allowing non-marine uses on the pier. The bureau has claimed it holds the right to submerged land under and around the pier. In accordance with the public trust doctrine, the property could only be used for ?fishing, fowling and navigation.?

City Attorney Gary Wood said last week the city hopes the state will compromise, allowing for mixed-use development on the pier so long as the city assures the property will remain city-owned.

?That should be a fair resolution and give us leeway to lease (the pier),? he said. The city plans to preserve the public access to the water for fishing and questions the state?s interpretation that the public trust doctrine should be applied under the pier.

?No one is driving boats under that pier,? he pointed out.

?Access under those old piers is not going to happen again unless the piers fall into the ocean and the pilings are pulled,? said Wood. ?The fact is, if there is not some sort of privately funded restoration, (the state pier) will fall into the ocean.?

Wood acknowledged the city was late bringing the Department of Conservation into the conversation.

The Community Development Committee meets at 5 p.m. tonight in City Council Chambers.



Kate Bucklin can be reached at 781-3661 ext. 106 or kbucklin@theforecaster.net.
 
Pier proposals review causes committee tension
By Kate Bucklin (published: May 03, 2007)
PORTLAND ? City councilors ended a committee meeting last week squabbling over how they should evaluate two competing proposals for redevelopment of the Maine State Pier.

City Councilors Kevin Donoghue and David Marshall argued that the Community Development Committee needs a written process outlining how the two ambitious proposals for the pier will be reviewed. The committee must recommend to the full council which of the $90 million developments is best for the city. The committee could also decide not to recommend either one.

Marshall, who is not on the three-member committee, but sat in on the April 25 meeting, questioned whether the committee would review the pier proposals from Ocean Properties and The Olympia Cos. as they were written Feb. 22 (the deadline for submissions) or if the process allows the proposals to be altered. Ocean Properties has made changes to its original proposal as a result of feedback from the public, according to the company.

?Is the process fluid or well-defined?? Marshall asked. ?I think we need something in writing.?

Marshall said when he asked how proposals submitted through the city?s Request for Proposals process are reviewed, he was told a process does not exist.

?(City Manager) Joe Gray told me it wasn?t in writing because it was based on institutional knowledge,? Marshall said.

City Councilor Jim Cloutier, chairman of the CDC, said creating scenarios for how the proposals should be reviewed is not productive because the council reserves the right to make legislative decisions.

?The bottom line on how it works is ? it works however the council says it works,? Cloutier said. He also dismissed suggestions the city is setting itself up for a lawsuit by not defining the process.

Donoghue, who is a member of the CDC, has said he will review the proposals based largely on the content submitted Feb. 22. Last week he tried to pass an order making the rest of the committee review the proposals in that way, too. The order failed to get support from Cloutier ? who has said the process should be fluid ? or Councilor Jill Duson. Donoghue also criticized the Request for Proposals itself, saying it should have included criteria for the review process.

?The public has no idea what is going on,? Donoghue said. ?I am worried about the direction of this.?

The councilor also suggested scheduling a full council workshop to discuss how the committee should proceed. That notion did not receive support from Duson and Cloutier, either.

Duson, who said she was ?practically speechless? by the open disagreement her fellow councilors were having, asked Donoghue to get together with Cloutier sometime before the next Community Development Committee meeting to try and work out a process agreeable to both of them. Neither councilor seemed receptive to the suggestion.

The committee voted 2-1 to accept a process developed by Cloutier and city staff that divides discussion of the merits of each proposal into four categories ? framework, function, form and finance. Each topic will take up a full meeting. Cloutier said he would like to forward a recommendation to the full council in June.

Donoghue did not support the process.

The committee spent part of the meeting Wednesday asking applicants for feedback on a series of questions posed to each one by city staff. Cloutier had at first suggested each applicant give a presentation, but Olympia protested, saying they were told by staff that there would be no opportunity for a public presentation.

?We were also told we couldn?t use any video or electronic equipment,? said Olympia consultant Michael Saxl, noting a projector and laptop computer Ocean Properties had set up.

Robert Baldacci, Ocean Properties vice president for development, said his team was told by staff to prepare for a 15-minute presentation.

?We?re all for fairness,? said Peter O?Donnell, a consultant to Ocean Properties. ?If they?re not prepared, it wouldn?t be fair.?

After answering some council questions related to special permitting that would be required for each project, the applicants sat through a presentation from Joseph Cuetara, of the Boston investment company Moors & Cabot.

Cuetara offered observations about financial impact of the two proposals and broke down how much each applicant proposed to spend on certain elements of redevelopment of the 85-year-old city-owned pier.

Last fall the city rezoned the pier to allow for non-marine uses. The pier, according to city officials, needs as much as $15 million in piling replacement and other repairs. The Request for Proposals issued by the city last October offers the redevelopment opportunity in exchange for the developer agreeing to fix the structure.

Ocean Properties, owned by Bangor native Tom Walsh, proposes building a restaurant, a public market, a parking lot/event space and an office building on the pier. On land abutting the pier, the developer wants to build a hotel and a parking garage. Ocean Properties has also incorporated some changes to its original proposal, including more ?green? design elements, more open space and shifting of buildings to allow for better view corridors.

Olympia has not changed its original plan, which calls for a hotel at the foot of the pier and a restaurant, museum and shopping village at the end of the pier. On land abutting the pier, a two-acre Casco Bay Park would offer water views and access. An office building is also planned for land along Commercial Street. Although city zoning does not allow a hotel on the pier, Olympia proposes to fill under that section of the structure.

The applicants are expected back before the CDC May 9 at 5:30 p.m. at City Hall, to discuss how local, state and federal regulations affect use of the pier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top