I-195 commission agrees to cover up to $2M in pedestrian bridge costs

PICTURED IS Parcel 42, a 1.08-acre sliver of land that fronts Parcel 4, the proposed 5-acre district park that is the downtown landing for the pedestrian bridge. / COURTESY I-195 DISTRICT COMMISSION
PICTURED IS Parcel 42, a 1.08-acre sliver of land that fronts Parcel 4, the proposed 5-acre district park that is the downtown landing for the pedestrian bridge. / COURTESY I-195 DISTRICT COMMISSION

PROVIDENCE – The I-195 Redevelopment District Commission agreed Monday to spend up to $2 million to help the state finance construction of a pedestrian bridge over the Providence River to connect its development parcels.
The bridge project is the responsibility of the R.I. Department of Transportation, which had set aside $13.2 million for the span. But bids for the work came in significantly higher than the estimated amount. They ranged from $16.9 million to $21.7 million, according to a DOT spokesman.
The I-195 District Commission, which has repeatedly described the pedestrian bridge as being of critical importance to the marketing and development of the former highway lands, agreed to step in with its own funds to help fill the gap.
The funds provided by the commission will come from two sources, according to a resolution approved by commission members. One would involve an assessment paid by the purchaser of Parcel 42, a 1.08-acre sliver of land that fronts Parcel 4, the proposed 5-acre district park that is the downtown landing for the pedestrian bridge.
The second option could require the future purchaser of Parcel 42 to pay for park improvements, which would otherwise be covered by the commission, according to Chairman Joseph F. Azrack.
The resolution does not identify Parcel 42 by name, but expressly limits the potential assessment to the “abutters” to the Parcel 4 park site. This would exclude Wexford Science & Technology, a company that has proposed a multi-phased bioscience and mixed-use development on two prime parcels of I-195 land.
The $25 million available for attracting significant development to the district also is not a part of the proposed financing, said Stefan Pryor, the state’s Commerce Secretary.
Responding to questions from commission members, who expressed concern about additional cost overruns on the bridge construction, both Pryor and Azrack said they expected the final contract with the builder would be a “guaranteed maximum price” agreement, in which any cost overruns would be absorbed by the builder.
The commission could also provide the gap funding for the bridge after its completion, said Azrack, speaking with reporters after the meeting. He said that no developer is currently in negotiations for Parcel 42, and he said he could imagine that the property might be sold and developed after the first phase of the Wexford project is completed.
In that scenario, the commission could reimburse the state for the funds needed to bridge the financing gap and complete the bridge, he said.
The pedestrian bridge is critical for the I-195 development plans, he and other commission members asserted, essentially an extension of the park.
Initially expected to be finished in 2013, the pedestrian bridge has been beset by delays and redesign issues for several years.
“If we aren’t able to deliver this bridge, the whole marketing plan fails,” said commissioner Robert C. Davis.
Baltimore-based Wexford remains in negotiations with the commission on its purchase of the two parcels, along with CV Properties LLC of Boston.
The agreement was signed by the companies in January, but has not yet been executed. The commission remains in active discussions, said Azrack.
“It’s very important to all of the developers we’ve been talking to,” said Azrack, of the bridge completion. “We know it’s important to Wexford.”
News that the pedestrian bridge would move forward, with I-195 commission help, was reassuring to some advocates of the span and the proposed park at Parcel 4. But they were concerned about the wording of the resolution.
The phrasing specified the funds for the bridge could come through “a) an assessment against the purchaser(s) of land abutting the P4 park and/or b) causing portions of the P4 park to be constructed by the purchasers of land abutting the P4 park.”
To Sharon Steele and Olin Thompson, leaders of a nonprofit corporation that wants to develop programming for the new park, the B option sounded like it would allow a developer to build on part of the parkland. “It’s pretty difficult to determine what they really mean,” Thompson said, outside the meeting room. “We would like this to be much tighter so the public knows what is their plan to finance this.”
When asked about the phrasing, Azrack said the term “constructed” is meant to imply development of the park features. The park will not be developed, and will remain public space. “The park is inviolate,” he said. “The park is the park.”
In other business, the commission listened to an update of conception programming for vacant land across from One Ship Street, a building that is proposed to be a part of the Wexford purchase.
The programming could include a pop-up restaurant with outdoor seating, something intended to create excitement about the area and begin to develop a sense of location for the Wexford project.
The conceptual plans were developed by Tim Love of Utile Design, the same company that created the “Lawn on D” in South Boston, which attracted scores of people to a recreational area that featured futuristic oblong swings.
The commission agreed to deliberate on the ideas, and could potentially issue a request for proposal in the future.

No posts to display