2012

Weaver’s Cove ReuseTask Force

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ i

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Mission Statement ................................................................................................................................ 1

3 Site Characteristics and Constraints ..................................................................................................... 1

3.1 Zoning............................................................................................................................................ 1

3.2 Environmental ............................................................................................................................... 2

3.2.1 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ................................................................. 2

3.2.2 Oil and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................. 2

3.3 Wild and Scenic River Designation ................................................................................................ 3

3.4 Designated Port Area .................................................................................................................... 3

3.5 Ownership ..................................................................................................................................... 4

3.6 Deed Restrictions .......................................................................................................................... 4

4 Public and Task Force Input .................................................................................................................. 5

4.1 SouthCoast Rail ............................................................................................................................. 5

4.2 Public Input ................................................................................................................................... 5

4.3 Committee Input ........................................................................................................................... 6

4.3.1 Kris Bartley: ........................................................................................................................... 6

4.3.2 Joe Carvalho: ......................................................................................................................... 7

4.3.3 John Keppel: .......................................................................................................................... 8

4.3.4 Mike Miozza: ......................................................................................................................... 9

4.3.5 Tom Paterson: ..................................................................................................................... 10

4.3.6 Michele Paul: ....................................................................................................................... 11

5 Evaluation and Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 12

5.1 Evaluation Criteria and Methodology ......................................................................................... 12

5.2 Detailed Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 12

5.2.1 Short Sea Shipping .............................................................................................................. 13

5.2.2 Resort-Style Casino ............................................................................................................. 13

5.2.3 SouthCoast Rail Layover ...................................................................................................... 13

5.2.4 SouthCoast Rail Commuter Station..................................................................................... 14

5.2.5 Amusement Park ................................................................................................................. 14

5.2.6 Residential ........................................................................................................................... 14

5.2.7 Commercial ......................................................................................................................... 15

5.2.8 Office Space ........................................................................................................................ 15

5.2.9 Recreation ........................................................................................................................... 15

5.2.10 Mixed Use ........................................................................................................................... 16

5.3 Evaluation Summary ................................................................................................................... 16

5.4 Funding Options .......................................................................................................................... 16

5.4.1 Short Sea Shipping .............................................................................................................. 17

5.4.2 Resort Style Casino .............................................................................................................. 17

5.4.3 SouthCoast Rail Layover ...................................................................................................... 17

5.4.4 SouthCoast Rail Stop ........................................................................................................... 17

5.4.5 Amusement Park ................................................................................................................. 17

5.4.6 Residential ........................................................................................................................... 18

5.4.7 Commercial and/or Office Space ........................................................................................ 18

5.4.8 Recreation ........................................................................................................................... 18

5.4.9 Mixed Residential/Office Space/Commercial/Recreation .................................................. 18

5.5 Designated Port Area .................................................................................................................. 18

5.6 Zoning.......................................................................................................................................... 19

5.7 Acquisition of Site ....................................................................................................................... 19

Tables Table : Evaluation of Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 16

Appendices Appendix A .............................................................................. Reuse Task Force Meeting Agendas/Minutes

Appendix B .............................................. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Documentation

Appendix C ........................................................... City Correspondence: Waterfront Improvement Funding

Appendix D ........................................................................................................... Designated Port Area Map

Appendix E ................................................................................................................. Assessor’s Information

Appendix F ........................................................................................................... City/Hess Correspondence

Appendix G ......................................................................................................................... Deed Information

Appendix H .................................................................................................. Public Input Session Attendance

Appendix I ...................................................................................................................... Written Public Input

Appendix J ......................................................................................... Evaluation Criteria – Raw Scoring Data

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force: Councilor Eric Poulin, Chair

Kris Bartley

Joseph Carvalho

Lynn Creamer

Congressman Barney Frank, represented by Lisa

Lowney

Representative Patricia Haddad

John Keppel

Congressman James McGovern, represented by

Patrick Norton

Councilor Michael Miozza

Tom Paterson, representing the Fall River Mill

Owners’ Association

Michele Paul

Senator Michael Rodrigues, represented by

Pedro Amaral

Representative David Sullivan

Patricia Tod, PhD

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report Page i May 2012

Executive Summary

In June 2011, Weaver’s Cove Energy LLC withdrew its intention to locate a Liquefied Natural Gas Import

Regasification facility on the roughly 70-acre Weaver’s Cove site. Mayor William A. Flanagan

subsequently identified a Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force and charged it with collecting information to

evaluate potential future use of the site and development of recommendations for such use.

The Committee met twelve times between September 2011 and April 2012 to gather site information,

discuss options, and also held a Public Input forum in January 2012 to solicit ideas and opinion. Local

and subject experts provided the committee with information on site characteristics and constraints

including zoning, site contamination and cleanup status, NPDES1 permit status, implications of the

Taunton River’s Wild and Scenic designation, and current deed restrictions. Weaver’s Cove is a

Designated Port Area (DPA) and as such, site use is currently limited to vessel-related activity associated

with water-borne commerce, shipping, and marine transportation.

Following review of the site background and current status, the committee discussed several visions for

the site. These ideas were developed with consideration to the abundance of information gathered

throughout the process. Since the site’s inclusion in the DPA precludes virtually all substantial change in

use, the committee concurred that the evaluation should be completed with the assumption that the

City would pursue excluding the site from the DPA boundary.

The committee then turned its focus to evaluating these proposals toward selecting a recommended

preferred alternative. End uses were identified as follows:

Short Sea Shipping

Resort-Style Casino

South Coast Rail Layover Facility

SouthCoast Rail Station

Amusement Park

Residential

Commercial

Office

Recreation

Mixed Use (residential/office/commercial/recreation/transportation)

Evaluation criteria included environmental and economic sustainability, feasibility relative to identified

site constraints (other than its DPA status), and the anticipated timeline required for the end use to

come to fruition.

1 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report Page ii May 2012 The Committee assigned scores relative to each criterion for each alternative based on a scale of 1 to 5

with a score of 5 signifying “high,” 4 signifying “moderately high”, 3 signifying “moderate”, 2 signifying

“moderately low”, and 1 signifying “low”. The committee acknowledged the need for objective scoring

regardless of personal preferences.

The committee’s discussion resulted in the following ranking from highest to lowest score:

1. Mixed Use (Residential/Office/Commercial/Recreation) ....... 3.88

2. Commercial ............................................................................... 3.83

3. Office Space............................................................................... 3.78

4. Short Sea Shipping .................................................................... 3.63

5. Recreation ................................................................................. 3.22

6. Residential ................................................................................. 3.10

7. South Coast Rail Stop ................................................................ 3.04

8. Amusement Park ....................................................................... 3.02

9. South Coast Layover Station ..................................................... 2.97

10. Resort-Style Casino ................................................................. 2.91

The Committee also evaluated acquisition scenarios including private purchase, purchase by the

Commonwealth, and the City’s taking by eminent domain. The Committee expressed its preference

that, if practical, the City work with Hess to find a buyer for a private party sale in which the buyer

follows the recommendations of the committee.

Costs required for environmental remediation may be offset depending upon ownership transition.

Costs bourne by a private developer for additional environmental remediation may be eligible for a

Brownfield Redevelopment Tax Credit. Should the City take ownership through eminent domain, state

and federal grant funding should be sought through EPA, MassDEP, and MassDevelopment.

If a private developer ultimately purchases the site from Weaver’s Cove, the City, or another

intermediary, the City should take an active role in coordinating a meeting with the Executive Office of

Housing and Economic Development and project proponents to maximize awareness of and potential to

obtain funding that will give the project the best opportunity for sustainable success.

At present, Weaver’s Cove constitutes one of three underutilized DPAs in Fall River. The committee is of

the opinion that:

Weaver’s Cove represents substantial potential for economic development: however this

development is not consistent with its continued designation as a DPA;

Use of Weaver’s Cove consistent with DPA provisions would likely require substantial dredging

of the Taunton River which would likely result in adverse effects to the Wild and Scenic Taunton

River; and

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report Page iii May 2012

State Line Pier and the two DPAs south of State Line Pier more than provide for uses intended

by the establishment of DPA legislation.

The Committee therefore recommends that the City begin the process of requesting a review by CZM

toward the de-designation of the site as a DPA as soon as practicable. The Committee further

recommends that Weaver’s Cove be included in the Waterfront Transit-Oriented Development (WTOD)

Overlay District.

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report Page 1 May 2012

1 Introduction The property referred to as the “Weaver’s Cove Site” includes Fall River Assessor’s Parcel Numbers T-01-

0038, T-02-0001, and T-15-0033, totaling just over 66 acres1. In June 2011, Weaver’s Cove Energy LLC

announced that it was withdrawing its application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to site a

Liquefied Natural Gasification facility on the Weaver’s Cove property.

In September 2011, Mayor William A. Flanagan identified a Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force and

charged it with collecting information to evaluate potential future use of the site and development of

recommendations for such use. The Committee met twelve times between September 2011 and April

2012 to gather site information, discuss options, and also held a Public Input forum in January 2012 to

solicit ideas and opinion. Agendas and minutes from each of the Task Force meetings are presented as

Appendix A.

2 Mission Statement The mission of the Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task force, as voted on December 5, 2011 is:

“To evaluate the potential future uses for the Weaver’s Cove site toward reaching consensus on

the most appropriate and beneficial re-use. With consideration to public input, compatibility with Fall

River’s other districts along the water, and outreach to the property owner, the Weaver’s Cove Reuse

Task Force will create an opportunity for Greater Fall River to proactively shape the future of this asset

while generating dialogue with stakeholders.”

3 Site Characteristics and Constraints The committee began discussion and quickly concurred that before overall assessment or

recommendations for any proposals regarding the future use of the site could be made, the committee

needed to know what site issues and constraints would impact future use. The following subsections

summarize these findings.

3.1 Zoning The property is currently zoned for industrial use. Current industrial zoning limits use, allowing

processing, manufacturing, assembly and some biotechnology uses. A change in zoning would

potentially make the land more valuable. Should the Waterfront Transit-Oriented Development Overlay

District be extended to the Weaver’s Cove site, zoning would allow residential and commercial

development as well.

1 Information currently available at the Fall River Assessor’s office indicates that the area of the three lots is 66

acres. The deed from Fall River Marine Terminal to Weavers’ Cove LLC included 60 acres. Weaver’s Cove LLC has indicated that the area under its ownership is 73 acres. The actual acreage must be verified through a title search.

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report Page 2 May 2012

3.2 Environmental

3.2.1 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

A National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit was issued to Shell in 1978 and was

subsequently transferred to Jay Cashman, Inc. and then to Weaver’s Cove. Documentation relating to

the site’s status of NPDES is included as Appendix B. The U.S. EPA will be holding a public hearing on the

NPDES permit on May 23, 2012.

3.2.2 Oil and Hazardous Materials

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has assigned several Release

Tracking Numbers (RTNs) to the site relative to the release of oil and/or hazardous materials (OHM) on

the site as required by MassDEP’s Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup. Petroleum had been observed on the

Taunton River adjacent to the Shell distribution facility in 1971. In response, Shell contracted for the

installation of a number of groundwater monitor wells and extraction wells in the 1970’s. Remediation

continues to remove separate phase petroleum (otherwise known as non-aqueous phase liquid or NAPL)

from the surface of the water table. Shell is responsible to continue this remediation at least until a

“permanent solution” can be demonstrated relative to soil and groundwater for industrial use on the

site with one or more Activity and Use Limitation(s). The primary RTN for the site is 4-0749.

MassDEP assigned another RTN to the site in April 2005 due to the presence of arsenic and beryllium

above reportable concentrations. Shell subsequently argued that the presence of arsenic was not the

result of a release of material at the site but rather a background condition. MassDEP also lowered the

standard for beryllium based on a documented decrease in toxicity of the metal. As a result, neither

beryllium nor arsenic is required to be addressed as a contaminant of concern.

In April 2010 and June 2011, a petroleum sheen was observed in the Taunton River in the vicinity of a

stormwater outfall on the Weaver’s Cove site. Shell is listed as the potentially responsible party relative

to RTN 4-22552 and both Shell and Weaver’s Cove Energy LLC were issued Notices of Responsibility for

the June 2011 RTN 4-23361. Conditions that resulted in the release of petroleum through the outfall

continue to be monitored.

MassDEP’s Bureau of Waste Site cleanup staff indicated that the current remedial alternative was not an

aggressive approach and that “closure” in the foreseeable future was unlikely under the current plan. In

January 2012, MassDEP issued a Notice of Audit Findings and Notice of Non-Compliance to Shell Oil

Products USA based on MassDEP’s finding that the remediation program may not be feasible to achieve

a permanent solution. MassDEP also determined that due to the presence of NAPL across the site and

due to the continued observations of intermittent sheens on the Taunton River adjacent to the site, that

the source(s) of petroleum have not been eliminated or controlled. MassDEP requires that a Post-Audit

Completion Statement be submitted to MassDEP by June 30, 2012 that either supports the continuation

of the remedial alternative in progress or terminates the current remedy which must then be modified.

MassDEP will then determine whether the response by Shell is adequate to support the site’s return to

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report Page 3 May 2012 compliance or whether additional measures will be required of Shell or undertaken by MassDEP. The

City may take this opportunity to address MassDEP regarding concerns about the status and growing

timeframe for cleanup.

Future use of the property will require additional remediation of soil and groundwater to conditions that

meet MassDEP’s cleanup standards with applicable Activity and Use Limitations. Future use for

industrial purposes may allow for a lesser degree of remediation but require more stringent Activity and

Use Limitations. Higher level uses would require a greater degree of remediation and/or mitigation to

allow for more relaxed Activity and Use Limitations. In order for the property to achieve “closure” with

no Activity and Use Limitations, site soil would need to meet the most stringent (S-1) standards and

groundwater would need to meet at least GW-3 and perhaps GW-2 standards. Remediation expert

David Peter expressed that remediation is realistic if a developer is willing to make the investment.

3.3 Wild and Scenic River Designation Jamie Fosburgh from the National Park Service presented opportunities and constraints posed by the

Wild and Scenic River designation from the standpoint of the National Park Service. The designation

requires National Park Service sign-off on any federal permit acknowledging that no adverse affects to

the river under its current conditions and development will be incurred. Projects are not reviewed from

the standpoint of the river in its natural wild and scenic state but from its current state. Projects that

impact the waterway require National Park Service review. Land based projects do not unless they

impact the waterway. Existing federal channel and uses are permittable. “Significant new expansion is

more problematic.” The Wild and Scenic River designation is not seen as a constraint for port oriented

businesses given the current uses. However, no one can develop the waterway without approval.

A question was asked if the clean-up of Weaver’s Cove as a Brownfield required review under the Wild

and Scenic River designation. Sign off is needed only if it impacts the water. The EPA is overseeing the

current permit and discharge.

In December 2011, Mayor William A. Flanagan requested funding through the National Park Service for

the planning and implementation of waterfront activities along the Wild and Scenic Taunton River. This

request and associated correspondence are included as Appendix C.

3.4 Designated Port Area The site is within the Designated Port Area (DPA) as determined by the Coastal Zone Management (CZM)

Program. The eleven DPA’s in the Commonwealth have been identified as geographic areas of

significance to commercial fishing, shipping, and other vessel-related activities associated with water-

borne commerce and production reliant upon marine transportation. The Commonwealth’s DPA

regulation (301 CMR 25.00) states that:

“Because economic, environmental, and social factors now virtually preclude further

development of such an intensive nature, what remains of the industrialized coast should

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report Page 4 May 2012

be preserved to the maximum extent practicable in order to meet the long term

cumulative space needs of water-dependent industries which these areas are so well-

suited to accommodate. As a matter of state policy, it is not desirable to allow these

scarce and non-renewable resources of the marine economy to be irretrievably

committed to, or otherwise significantly impaired by, non-industrial or nonwater-

dependent types of development which enjoy a far greater range of local options.”

In order for the Weaver’s Cove site to be redeveloped for non-conforming use, the boundaries of the

DPA would require modification to exclude the site, as illustrated on the partial boundary map included

as Appendix D. This process would require that the City, site owner, or any ten citizens of the

Commonwealth submit a written request for a review of the DPA by CZM. In general, any substantial

change in site use would necessitate a project proponent’s petitioning CZM for site exclusion.

3.5 Ownership The site is presently owned by Weaver Cove Energy, LLC, a subsidiary of Hess. In order for the City to

have complete control of future development it would either have to purchase the property in a

traditional transaction or pursue eminent domain. In either case, substantial funding would be required

and environmental liability for cleanup beyond that for which Shell is currently responsible must be

clearly evaluated. Should an independent party desire to purchase the site, the City will need to insert

itself as an active partner, and should look to develop agreements to that end. Assessor’s information

obtained on-line is included as Appendix E. In February 2012, Mayor William A. Flanagan wrote to

Gordon Shearer, Senior Vice President of Hess, to inform Hess of the formation of the reuse committee

and to offer assistance in identifying a potential buyer for the site. This correspondence is provided as

Appendix F.

3.6 Deed Restrictions A number of development restrictions were attached to the deed that transferred the property from

Shell to Jay Cashman, Inc. in December 2000. Deed information pertaining to site transfer and deed

restrictions from 2000 to the present are included in Appendix G. These same restrictions were

transferred from Fall River Marine Terminal to Weaver’s Cove; however in December 2007, Shell and

Weaver’s Cove agreed to a modification specifying the following criteria:

1. The use of the Premises must comply with all applicable federal, state and municipal statutes,

rules and regulations relating to the pollution, preservation, remediation or protection of the

environment, including without limitation (a) and statute or regulation pertaining to the

treatment, storage, disposal, transportation or generation of hazardous substances, hazardous

materials, or hazardous waste, (b) groundwater or soil contamination, or (c) the release or

threat of release of hazardous substances, hazardous materials, or hazardous waste;

2. The use of the Premises must comply with all applicable provisions of the Massachusetts

Contingency Plan (“MCP”), 310 CMR 40.000 et seq., as may be amended; and

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report Page 5 May 2012

3. The use of the Premises must be evaluated by a Licensed Site Professional (as such term defined

in the MCP), and said LSP must determine that the use of the Premises is not inconsistent with

(a) the requirements of the MCP, or (b) maintaining on the Premises a condition of No

Significant Risk (as defined in the MCP) in accordance with the requirements of the MCP.

The above restrictions remain in place by deed.

4 Public and Task Force Input

4.1 SouthCoast Rail Jean Fox, MassDOT’s SouthCoast Rail Project Manager and consultant Rick Carey from VHB, Inc.

presented a conceptual proposal for a SouthCoast Rail layover facility on the former St. Vincent’s

property, now part of Weaver’s Cove. The layover facility will allow SouthCoast Rail to perform pre-

operation responsibilities with a minimum of deadhead miles (miles traveled with no passengers). The

optimum location for such a facility is at the end of a line. Nineteen potential sites were evaluated and

the list was narrowed to two, one in Fall River and one in New Bedford.

The proposal would involve South Coast Rail purchasing three parcels totaling about 18 acres but would

require use of only 8 to 9 acres. The actual footprint required by the facility would be about 200 feet by

1,100 feet. The remaining property would serve as a buffer for security and noise mitigation. There

would also be a 4 to 5 hour gap from the last train arriving at night to the first train leaving in the

morning where there would be little to no crew oversight.

4.2 Public Input The task force facilitated a public input session at the UMass Dartmouth Advanced Technology and

Manufacturing Center (ATMC) on January 17, 2012. Public notification was made through WSAR and

WHTB radio stations, The Fall River Spirit, The Spectator, The Herald News, and O’Jornal. In addition,

notice of the meeting was made to the Coalition for the Responsible Siting of LNG by task force member

Joseph Carvalho, and to the Neighborhood Associations by Neighborhood Outreach Coordinator Perry

Long.

The attendee sign-in sheet for the public input session is provided as Appendix H. All were invited to

speak and were asked to list their name to be recognized. Task Force Committee Chair provided a brief

introduction of the committee and its mission. Three people provided oral input after which the rest of

the group was once again invited to speak. An e-mail address was provided on screen and all were

invited to contribute ideas by e-mail or regular mail by January 31, 2012. Written comments received

following the public input session are provided as Appendix I.

Public input included general support for a mixture of uses including development of a civic center, an

amusement/theme park, recreational facilities, commercial and office space, restaurants, residential

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report Page 6 May 2012 area, marina and water use, incorporation with SouthCoast Rail, and entertainment. Al Lima of Green

Future’s presented a proposal for a mixture of hotel/convention center, apartments, walking paths, a

marina, shops, recreational fields and beach area. Pricilla Chapman of the National Audubon Society

noted the importance of future use creating public access and being consistent with the Wild and Scenic

River designation.

Two participants submitted opposition for short-sea shipping use and/or other uses that might require

dredging due to concerns about environmental impact.

Private development representative Thomas Ahern offered that he has development clients that have

expressed interest in the site for mixed use including commercial and entertainment. He was not able

to meet with the committee or provide specifics as his firm is currently in communication with Weaver’s

Cove Energy, LLC.

4.3 Committee Input Although MassDOT’s proposal for a layover facility elicited mixed opinions among committee members,

the consensus was that it might provide additional opportunities for the site. When the Davol Street

SouthCoast Rail Station was selected, it appeared likely that Weaver’s Cove would be the site of an LNG

terminal. With the future use of the Weaver’s Cove site under consideration, there was much interest in

the possibility of moving the Davol Street Station north to the Weaver’s Cove site. This could be done in

conjunction with the layover facility and might allow for the “buffer area” to be used for parking and

other ancillary uses.

Discussion among committee members revolved around mixed use including commercial, residential,

recreational, transportation, and entertainment uses. There was general consensus that the site should

provide an opportunity for tourism in conjunction with other developments along the waterfront. The

Fall River Mill Owners’ Association (FRMOA) also urged inclusion of the area adjacent to Weaver’s Cove

just south of Route 79 in use consideration. The MOA believes there could be substantial synergy in

redevelopment of the two areas toward a single vision. Specific recommendations by committee

members are presented in the following subsections.

4.3.1 Kris Bartley:

Kris Bartley envisions a development that would incorporate a mixed-use environment that supported a

number of industries, both commercial and recreational that resulted in increased tax revenue and

provided for improved quality of life in the city.

The development would include the following:

Hotel;

Convention Center;

Performing Arts Center;

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report Page 7 May 2012

Retail Shops;

Indoor/Outdoor Restaurants and Cafés;

Outdoor Concert Stage;

Outdoor Recreational Areas – Park, Picnic, Etc.;

Marina;

Beach;

Large “Cruise Ship” Docking Area;

Small Docking Area;

Commuter Rail Station; and

Walking/Bike Path.

The development would have to have the ability to be marketed to achieve critical mass in order to

draw people to the site for long periods of time. The design of the site must reach a level of visual and

interactive continuity that would generate excitement and interest from patrons locally, throughout the

state, and beyond. It may be an advantage to the site's development to include a themed or

architectural styling that would be the main focus of the area. Considering Fall River's history, a period

look emphasizing the characteristics of a past historical era may be a catalyst to the area's success.

4.3.2 Joe Carvalho:

Joe Carvalho supports the Green Futures plan for the Weaver’s Cove site that is projected to create

1,670 new jobs, result in $1.5M in tax revenue, and add significantly to the quality of life in the city.

Ownership of the site should ideally be with the City of Fall River, so that the city will have complete

control of how the site is developed.

This plan would include:

372,000 square feet of office space for R&D businesses that would employ 1,600 persons;

Conference Center/Hotel and Marina (jobs: 60);

200 studio and one-bedroom apartments marketed to the single employees who would work on-site (jobs: 10);

Commuter rail station;

Waterfront promenade, with outdoor cafes;

Four soccer fields;

Two football fields;

Four basketball courts;

A network of on-site waterfront and other paths---for walking, jogging and bicycling---that would interconnect with regional path systems;

A family park and arboretum;

A new family beach;

A scenic waterfront area with a bandstand for summer band concerts;

A waterside family picnic area; and

Bandstand for concerts.

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report Page 8 May 2012 Green Futures proposes that the project be funded by District Improvement Financing (DIF). The cost of

public improvements on the site (roads, utilities, parking structures, recreational fields, paths and parks)

would be funded by a bond issue, with the bond being paid off from the new tax proceeds provided by

the new private development. The DIF would create a new taxing district, where the new private

investment would pay for the public improvements required to realize that new private development.

There would be no impact on the city’s current taxes, positive or negative. When the bond is paid off,

the new tax revenue would start going into the city’s general fund.

Meditech built on the Fall River site and had proposed to build on the Freetown site because (among

other reasons) they are both on the water and provide beautiful views from their buildings. High tech

industries consider quality of work experience an important consideration in the siting of their facilities.

The Green Futures plan creates a prime location for the siting of new R&D facilities in Fall River. The

Green Futures plan assumes that the site would accommodate two facilities the size of the Meditech

building that was proposed for Freetown.

The Green Futures plan presumes that Shell will have cleaned up the site to DEP standards within four

years and that the condition of the parcel after cleanup will allow the siting of uses such as recreational

fields and similar uses.

4.3.3 John Keppel:

John Keppel supports the idea of a commuter rail station at the Weaver’s Cove site in conjunction with a

development plan similar to that provided by Green Futures. The commuter rail station at Weaver’s

Cove would be instead of the currently proposed Davol Street site. Given a development plan similar to

the Green Future’s plan, the Weaver’s Cove site provides the opportunity of having a wide variety of

accessible commercial and community interests, ample parking, and easy highway access. The current

plan of a rail stop by Anawan Street with another stop only a mile away at Davol Street seems

redundant.

John does not support a commuter rail layover station at the Weaver’s Cove site. The use of waterfront

property for storing trains until they are needed seems to be a gross underuse of the Weaver’s Cove

parcel’s potential.

John suggested that Tom Paterson’s presentation to the committee of combining the Green Future’s

initiative or a similar multi-use plan for the Weaver’s Cove parcel with the Mill Owner’s Association idea

of including the four Border City Mills to create the “critical mass” necessary to draw large numbers of

people to the area is compelling. Such a “critical mass” idea is similar to that expressed in the Herald

News by the Director of Battleship Cove earlier this year. The combined projects would create an area

with enough diversity to be a “destination.” There would be sufficient options for living, lodging, eating,

drinking, entertaining, browsing, engaging in activities, and shopping etc. that people from significant

distances would come to visit, much like they currently do in Bristol or Newport, RI.

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report Page 9 May 2012 John Keppel further suggested that Kris Bartley’s idea of a consistent theme or architecture has been

used successfully in many other areas. A turn of the century (1900) theme is consistent with the

architecture throughout Fall River and would make a nice tie in with the current Highlands Historic

District and any future plans to develop mills or rehabilitate old architectural marvels such as the old

water works. An example of that period of architecture was successfully given to a revitalization effort

was at Riverplace in Minneapolis (http://www.riverplacemn.org/photos/).

John is concerned about the financial reality of using eminent domain. The use of the site for a

commuter rail station provides the potential and/or opportunity for the state to use its resources to off-

set some of the cost of gaining control of the property and the financial plan outlined in the Green

Futures’ presentation seems to provide promise in that direction as well. John suggested that once a

reuse vision is selected, a design competition be offered for firms with all the resources necessary to

execute the design, financing, construction, and implementation of the city’s vision. Firms participating

in said competition would need to have not only design skills, but also the necessary contacts with

developers to make the designs a reality.

4.3.4 Mike Miozza:

Mike Miozza has been a proponent of taking the land by

eminent domain for years. He supports the Green Futures

plan with a convention center and hotel for business

meetings. He said in mayoral campaigns there has been

support for Waltzing Waters® Musical Fountains along the

waterfront (http://www.waltzingwaters.com/). Miozza

suggests The Liquid Fireworks® Series, which is their top-of-

the-line series. The Liquid Fireworks sets the world standard

for musical fountain productions. It

features a patented array of

individually articulated nozzles,

creating a dazzling display of

extraordinary effects. Illuminated

with stunning colors, these

spectacular performances can easily

keep audiences entertained for a

half hour or more. A self-standing Liquid Fireworks show offers such high visual impact, additional

effects such as lasers or water screen projections are not needed. The waltzing water could have themes

that would be multi-seasonal, multi-cultural and would give Fall River an identity; much like Providence,

Rhode Island is identified with Water Fire. This cost of this water attraction is approximately $7.5

million. It is a concept for which sponsorship could be sold and would be one piece of the development

puzzle, somewhere on the waterfront. This would be the first water attraction on the East Coast to

merge water, fire, light and music and would draw thousands of people to the Fall River waterfront.

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report Page 10 May 2012 4.3.5 Tom Paterson:

Tom Paterson and FRMOA believe that Weaver’s Cove

is a natural asset that can be brought back into use by

the residents of Fall River, and it should be self-

supporting as a place that is accessible to the public.

They endorse some of the ‘Green Futures’ concept

for a mix of a private R+D facility, residences, marina,

and recreation fields that could provide the financial

foundation for a park-like setting on the Taunton

River.

FRMOA states that Weavers Cove LLC is probably not

disposed to sell it to Fall River under any

circumstances, given their contentious past

relationship , and a taking of the property through

eminent domain would certainly mean a long, and

costly, legal process. The MBTA/Commonwealth of

Massachusetts wants the site as a layover yard and is

willing to buy the land from the current owner. The

rail sidings will cover about 25% of the Weaver’s Cove

parcel; the remaining land could be sold to Fall River

for a nominal amount. FRMOA contends that the

MBTA, which has great resources and is currently

negotiating their right-of-way with many entities, should acquire the land and make it available to the

city.

Once the City of Fall River has title to the property it can produce a package to be shown to likely

developers who can see the possibilities, and profits, in the improvement of the Weaver’s Cove

property. This might take the form of an RFP.

Ultimately, FRMOA recommends strongly that the development of Weaver’s Cove be linked to and

coordinated with the proposed improvement of the Border City Campus just across Route 79. These two

resources, perhaps tied together with an MBTA station, can represent a significant and ongoing return

on investment, both in job creation and robust commercial activity. Where abused land and neglected

legacy mills now stand, Fall River can have a vital district, in two parts, that is a destination to be enjoyed

by both residents and visitors.

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report Page 11 May 2012 4.3.6 Michele Paul:

Michele Paul supports a mixed use development that includes retail, office, residential, transportation,

and recreational use. The area should be developed as a destination in order for any commercial use to

be sustainable. Baltimore’s Inner Harbor

(http://baltimore.org/about-

baltimore/inner-harbor) has about 25

acres that includes open space, a visitors’

center, retail shops (similar to Quincy

Market) (http://www.harborplace.com/),

water taxi, and paddleboats. Baltimore

has numerous attractions and

destinations within walking distance

including the Oriole’s Camden Yards,

Raven’s Stadium, the National Aquarium,

the Maryland Science Center, and a

convention center. Incorporating office

space and residential units together with

retail and restaurants creates some

clientele for commercial use. Providing

multimodal transportation amenities such as commuter rail, water taxi, and parking will make the site

more accessible and will also encourage exploration of other Fall River attractions.

Michele suggests development of a multi-use community center to provide an additional destination to

support commercial use on the site. Fall River’s Community Development Recreation (CD-Rec) utilizes

the antiquated Bank Street Armory for its programs. A new community center could house CD-Rec and

also provide meeting space and a small convention center-type of facility. In addition to outdoor

recreation space that could include soccer and/or baseball and softball fields, indoor space can be

utilized for basketball courts, a walking track, and even one or more ice rinks. This type of development,

similar to one in constructed in Hyannis recently, can provide opportunities for tournaments year-round

that would draw participants from all over New England and beyond.

Although MassDOT’s proposal for a layover facility on a portion of the site does not appear to be the

highest and best use of a waterfront location, if development of the layover facility would provide the

leverage for locating commuter rail at Weaver’s Cove and perhaps financial leverage as well toward

purchase of the site, it may be an appropriate strategy for overall development.

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report Page 12 May 2012

5 Evaluation and Recommendations

5.1 Evaluation Criteria and Methodology The Committee ranked each option according to four general evaluation criteria: sustainability,

feasibility, and timeline. Since the site’s inclusion in the DPA would preclude virtually all substantial

change in use, the committee concurred that the evaluation should be completed with the assumption

that the City would petition CZM to exclude the site from the DPA boundary. Assigned rankings were

based on a scale of 1 to 5 with a score of 5 signifying “high,” 4 signifying “moderately high”, 3 signifying

“moderate”, 2 signifying “moderately low”, and 1 signifying “low”. The committee considered each of

these criteria as follows:

Sustainability – This criterion included environmental as well as economic sustainability.

Environmental sustainability took into account environmental impacts such as carbon footprint,

renewable resources, and the potential for the project to achieve LEED certification. Economic

sustainability considered marketability and the ability of the project to achieve self-funding for

continued operation. Scores for each of the two sustainability categories were averaged to

determine an overall sustainability score.

Feasibility – This criterion considered the proposal’s compatibility with the five constraints

identified during the committee’s review. These constraints became the five subcategories

under feasibility.

o Zoning – Projects that would not require a zoning change were assessed a higher score

than those that would require a zoning change and/or substantial variance.

o Wild & Scenic – Projects that would not require National Park Service evaluation and

acceptance received a higher score than uses requiring such review and approval. Uses

that were considered by the Committee to be incompatible with the Wild & Scenic

designation were assessed a lower score than apparently compatible uses.

o Contamination – If the project can be implemented with the site “as is” it would receive

a higher score than if additional cleanup is required. The higher the degree of cleanup

required, the lower the score. Although this scoring assignment may seem

counterintuitive, the committee agreed that it was appropriate relative to feasibility.

o Ownership – single ownership would result in less public control and a lower score – the

more difficult the desired ownership scenario, the lower the score as well.

o Deed Restrictions – use that conforms with deed restrictions receives a higher score

while lower scores are assigned to a non-conforming use.

Timeline – the less the time for the project to likely come to fruition, the higher the score

5.2 Detailed Discussion The options carried forward for evaluation and ranking by the committee per the above described

methodology were:

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report Page 13 May 2012

Short Sea Shipping;

Resort-Style Casino;

SouthCoast Rail Layover;

SouthCoast Rail Commuter Station;

Amusement Park;

Residential;

Commercial;

Office Space;

Recreation;

Mixed Use (res/office/com/rec/trans)

Ranking each of these options generated discussion as summarized in the following subsections and

generated overall scores presented herein. Please note that the site’s designation as a DPA would only

allow for short sea shipping use without CZM review and exclusion of the site from the DPA.

5.2.1 Short Sea Shipping

The committee scored Short Sea Shipping low relative to economic and environmental sustainability.

Remediation required would likely not be any more than would have been required under the current

use, resulting in a low score for environmental sustainability. The committee also believed that

although there was a substantial likelihood of economic success, there was too high a dependence on a

single use to rank economic sustainability higher.

The committee ranked Short Sea Shipping fairly high relative to feasibility. The committee

acknowledged that the use was compatible with existing zoning, existing contamination, and deed

restrictions, but also recognized that there would likely be review required by the NPS under the Wild

and Scenic designation. Short Sea Shipping would also be compatible with the site’s DPA designation.

The committee was however concerned that with only one projected owner, the City would have

minimal control or input regarding ongoing usage.

The committee agreed that the timeline for the site to be used for Short Sea Shipping would likely be

relatively short and awarded a high score for this element.

5.2.2 Resort-Style Casino

In general, the committee offered moderate marks for a Resort-Style Casino from a sustainability

perspective. Development of this type would likely result in some remediation in addition to that

already required and would certainly have the ability to be implemented in a sustainable way for the

long-term. The City would need to stay involved in the planning to ensure environmental sustainability.

There was notable variation in economic sustainability scores by individual committee members.

The committee ranked a Resort-Style Casino fairly high in most subcategories regarding feasibility. The

notable exception was relative to ownership, as this use would likely involve one ownership entity with

little ongoing control by the City.

The committee agreed that the timeline for the site to be used for a Resort-Style Casino would likely be

moderate.

5.2.3 SouthCoast Rail Layover

The committee scored use as a SouthCoast Rail Layover facility fairly low relative to sustainability, as it

would require little more remediation and generate no real economic activity

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report Page 14 May 2012 The committee ranked SouthCoast Rail Layover usage fairly high relative to feasibility. This use appears

compatible with existing zoning, existing contamination, and deed restrictions. It would also not require

review by the NPS under the Wild and Scenic designation. State ownership might also allow for the City

to be more involved in additional site usage.

The committee agreed that the timeline for the site to be used for a SouthCoast Rail Layover facility

would likely be moderately long term.

5.2.4 SouthCoast Rail Commuter Station

The committee scored use as a SouthCoast Rail Commuter Station higher than for a layover facility

relative to sustainability. It would likely require somewhat more remediation and would result in

indirect economic development relative to area real estate and quality of life benefits.

The committee ranked SouthCoast Rail Commuter Station high relative to feasibility. This use appears to

be compatible with existing zoning, existing contamination, and deed restrictions. It would also not

require review by the NPS under the Wild and Scenic designation. State ownership might also allow for

the City to be more involved in additional site usage and would provide for taking an active role in land

use in the surrounding area.

The committee agreed that the timeline for the site to be used for a SouthCoast Rail Commuter Station

would likely be fairly long given the funding outlook for the project.

5.2.5 Amusement Park

The committee assigned a moderate score for Amusement Park development relative to sustainability.

While this use would require a higher quality of environmental cleanup, location of an amusement park

along the river in the coastal northeast calls economic sustainability into question.

The committee ranked Amusement Park development moderate regarding feasibility. There appear to

be relatively small hurdles relative to zoning with inclusion in the Waterfront Transit Oriented

Development (WOTD) Overlay District. Residual contamination would require a combination of

additional cleanup and ongoing management. This use should also not require review by the NPS under

the Wild and Scenic designation. Single ownership would likely not allow for City involvement in long-

term use.

The committee agreed that the timeline for the site to be used for an Amusement Park would be

moderate.

5.2.6 Residential

The committee assigned a moderately high score for Residential development relative to sustainability.

This use would require a higher quality of environmental cleanup, but would likely not result in ongoing

economic development with the exception of temporary construction jobs.

Residential development received varying scores relative to feasibility. While zoning changes would

likely be achievable and Wild and Scenic designation would not require review, existing contamination

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report Page 15 May 2012 would require a high degree of cleanup for single family development. Multi-family and/or

condominium type development might allow for more institutional control management with a lesser

cleanup threshold.

The committee agreed that the timeline for the site to be used for most types of residential

development would be long given the environmental constraints.

5.2.7 Commercial

The committee assigned a high score for Commercial development relative to sustainability. This use

would require a higher quality of environmental cleanup, and would likely result in ongoing economic

development. A mix of commercial uses rather than one single use (big box) would be considered more

favorable.

In general, Commercial development received consistently high scores relative to feasibility. The

committee did acknowledge that additional cleanup would certainly be required for Commercial use.

The committee agreed that the timeline for the site to be used for Commercial use would be moderate.

5.2.8 Office Space

For the most part, the committee evaluated Office development much the same as the commercial

discussion above. As with commercial development, multi tenant use would be considered more

economically diverse and sustainable, lessening the concern of a single entity shutting down and leaving

the area vacant.

Office Space development received consistently high scores relative to feasibility; again acknowledging

that additional cleanup would certainly be required for Commercial use.

The committee agreed that the timeline for the site to be used for Office Space use would be moderate.

5.2.9 Recreation

The committee offered consistently high marks for environmental sustainability that would be achieved

through Recreational development. There was less confidence that total recreational use would

provide economic sustainability, however the overall sustainability category received a fairly high score.

Feasibility evaluation generated variability among the subcategories. While Recreational use would be

easily compatible with zoning (assuming adoption of WOTD) and Wild and Scenic, deed restrictions and

existing contamination were obvious hurdles. These would both require a high degree of cleanup, strict

institutional controls, or a combination of both. If the City were to acquire the site for Recreational use,

it would likely be responsible for management of residual contamination once Shell met its obligations.

The committee agreed that the timeline for the site to be used for Recreational use would be long.

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report Page 16 May 2012 5.2.10 Mixed Use

Mixed Use could include components of the recreation, residential, transportation, commercial, office,

and other uses described above. It would allow for each of these features to be located on the most

use-appropriate areas of the site. The committee consistently awarded the highest scores for

environmental and economic sustainability relative to Mixed Use given the diversity of development.

Although Mixed Use will still require additional cleanup and institutional controls, location and timing of

project components can be strategically designed and implemented to minimize use constraints.

The committee agreed that the timeline for the site to be used for Mixed Use would be moderate,

however with a range of end uses, development can occur in stages.

5.3 Evaluation Summary The tabulated results of the evaluation described above are summarized as follows, ranked from highest

to lowest overall score:

Table 1 – Results of Evaluation Criteria Scoring

Use Alternative Sustainability Feasibility Timeline Overall Score

Mixed-Use 5.00 3.84 2.80 3.88 Commercial 4.40 4.08 3.00 3.83 Office Space 4.30 1.04 3.00 3.78 Short-Sea Shipping 2.10 3.80 5.00 3.63 Recreation 4.10 3.36 2.20 3.22 Residential 4.30 3.00 2.00 3.10 SouthCoast Rail Stop 3.60 4.52 1.00 3.04 Amusement Park 2.90 3.56 2.60 3.02 SouthCoast Rail Layover 2.40 4.52 2.00 2.97 Resort-Style Casino 3.00 3.32 2.40 2.91

The raw data generated by the evaluation are presented In Appendix J.

5.4 Funding Options Costs required for environmental remediation may be offset depending upon ownership transition.

Costs borne by a private developer for additional environmental remediation by may be eligible for a

Brownfield Redevelopment Tax Credit. Should the City take ownership through eminent domain, state

and federal grant funding should be sought through EPA, MassDEP, and MassDevelopment.

If a private developer ultimately purchases the site from Weaver’s Cove, the City, or another

intermediary, the City should take an active role in coordinating a meeting with the Executive Office of

Housing and Economic Development and project proponents to maximize awareness of and potential to

obtain funding that will give the project the best opportunity for sustainable success.

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report Page 17 May 2012 5.4.1 Short Sea Shipping

This option, if pursued, would likely be funded at the expense of a private developer. However, if the

developer’s job projection numbers for this type of usage appear healthy, the city and/or state may

want to seek funding through the state Seaport Bond Bill or through other such mechanisms to assist

with turning the area into a “working port.”

5.4.2 Resort Style Casino

A “resort style casino” typically refers to a facility with not only gaming amenities, but also restaurants,

shops/retail, and/or a convention center, hotel and other surrounding or “wraparound” establishments

that would serve the casino and provide patrons with lodging or additional shopping, dining and

entertainment options. If a Native American tribe has not entered into a “compact” with the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts by the end of July, Southeastern Massachusetts would be open to

other commercial interests that may be interested in pursuing a casino. This option, if pursued, would

likely be funded by either a lone developer with casino gaming experience or through a development

partnership with a number of commercial/private interests putting up the necessary funding.

5.4.3 SouthCoast Rail Layover

This option, if pursued, would be funded through the SouthCoast Rail Project, which will likely consist of

a mixture of state and federal funding. It is unclear whether the entire site or just a portion of the

property would be acquired under this option. The Committee does not recommend use of the

Weaver’s Cove site as a SouthCoast Rail Layover Facility.

5.4.4 SouthCoast Rail Stop

Although the Weaver’s Cove Reuse Committee recommends that the Mayor reject the notion of a

layover facility, it is in favor of exploring use of the site as an actual commuter rail stop. The stop at the

site may be substituted for the stop planned on Davol Street. An actual stop at the site, as opposed to a

layover, may attract private funding to enhance overall development. For example, if a developer is

developing retail, restaurants or other types of uses at the site whereby the desire may be to bring

consumers with disposable income from the Boston area and beyond to the location, there may be an

incentive in this regard for the developer to invest in assisting the site with becoming a transportation

hub. Use of a portion of the site as a SouthCoast Rail connection may also allow the developer access

to funding associated with Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) programs.

5.4.5 Amusement Park

This option was suggested at a public hearing that the committee held to engage the public and to get

their feedback on ideas for the site. A private developer that would be interested in the site for such

would likely pursue this option, and it would be funded at their expense. As noted above however,

there may be incentives associated with inclusion of a SouthCoast Rail stop and through a Brownfield

Tax Credit.

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report Page 18 May 2012 5.4.6 Residential

Residential development would be funded through the developer and/or through state and federal tax

credits and other types of programs designed to assist with the creation of housing. Private developers

experienced in projects of this size are generally well-informed about state and federal incentives that

might be available in addition to the Brownfield and TOD incentives.

5.4.7 Commercial and/or Office Space

Office Space/Commercial development would be facilitated through private funding/a private developer

alone or as part of a public/private partnership whereby the local, state or federal government might

assist. For example, the city could offer a potential employer a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) agreement

in exchange for their locating on the site. State agencies such as MassDevelopment might also assist in

this type of endeavor if approached by the city and/or the developer(s) to augment other programs

including Brownfield and TOD incentives.

5.4.8 Recreation

While a private developer might be willing to fund/put up some of these types of amenities in exchange

for being allowed to develop other parts of the site, this option may require city funding through the

Park Department budget or through Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) monies that are

managed by the Fall River Community Development Agency (CDA). The state Department of

Conservation and Recreation (DCR) might also be approached to provide funding/grants or the National

Park Service due to the proximity of the site to a designated “Wild and Scenic River.”

5.4.9 Mixed Residential/Office Space/Commercial/Recreation

This option provides the widest array and variety of uses for the site, allowing for different types of uses

to be located on the most appropriate areas of the parcel relative to constraints. This option would also

allow for the potential to maximize use of multiple funding streams. Private funding, and/or local, state

or federal assistance in terms of tax incentives or grants may be available to fund these various uses.

5.5 Designated Port Area As discussed herein, the Committee completed its evaluation and discussion with the underlying

assumption that the City would successfully petition CZM to exclude the Weaver’s Cove site from the

current DPA boundary. There are three additional areas along the Taunton River in Fall River that are

within the DPA boundary. State Line Pier, an active working port and an integral piece of the city’s

economy, is within the DPA. Two other DPA areas, both largely vacant, are located further south along

the river. At present, Weaver’s Cove constitutes one of three underutilized DPAs in Fall River. The

committee is of the opinion that:

Weaver’s Cove represents substantial potential for economic development: however this

development is not consistent with its continued designation as a DPA;

Use of Weaver’s Cove consistent with DPA provisions would likely require substantial dredging

of the Taunton River which would likely result in adverse effects to the Wild and Scenic Taunton

River; and

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report Page 19 May 2012

State Line Pier and the two DPAs south of State Line Pier more than provide for uses intended

by the establishment of DPA legislation.

The Committee therefore recommends that the City begin the process of requesting a review by CZM

toward the de-designation of the site as a DPA as soon as practicable.

5.6 Zoning The committee recommends that Weaver’s Cove be included in the Waterfront Transit-Oriented

Development (WTOD) Overlay District. The WTOD Overlay District allows for redevelopment and use of

property for many of the discussed elements including:

Store/retail;

Professional business offices;

Bank/financial institution;

Restaurant;

Hotel;

Theater, auditorium, museum, stadium, sports or convention complex, legalized gaming;

Cabinet, carpentry, and art/craft studios;

Public/semi-public building or use;

Intermodal transportation facilities;

Expansion of industrial uses already in existence;

Multifamily residence;

Landscaped pedestrian parks, plazas, and bicycle trails;

Water-dependent uses such as

o Fish and seafood receiving, shipping, handling, and storage;

o Boat building and repair;

o Marinas;

o Shipping;

o Passenger and cargo terminals;

Shared or public parking facilities; and

Accessory uses.

5.7 Acquisition of Site The committee also discussed acquisition options for the site, listed below in order of preference:

1. The City would work with Hess to find a buyer for a private party sale in which the buyer follows

the recommendations of the committee.

2. The Commonwealth would purchase the entire parcel for commuter rail purposes and would

then sell or give the remaining property not used to the city. The City would then work with

developers to implement committee recommendations.

Weaver’s Cove Reuse Task Force Report Page 20 May 2012

3. The City would pursue eminent domain, asserting that the property’s value is as a contaminated

industrial site. Once purchased, the City would pursue private investment to recover the

purchase price.

4. The City would designate a Business Improvement District (BID) for waterfront stakeholders that

would be utilized to facilitate purchase of the property.

5. The City would explore holding an international design competition for either the Weaver’s Cove

property or the Weaver’s Cove property in conjunction with the Border City Mills Complex. The

design competition would require stakeholders to include not only design, but also

implementation of funding, construction, and management plans for the site. The winner of the

design competition would have a vested interest in this “critical mass” destination.