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: