On Oct. 6, 2004, Warwick and the General Services Administration signed an agreement that turned over the Conimicut Lighthouse to the city.
Since then, there have been various …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
|
On Oct. 6, 2004, Warwick and the General Services Administration signed an agreement that turned over the Conimicut Lighthouse to the city.
Since then, there have been various proposals on how best to preserve the light while making it accessible to the public for tours and educational purposes, although not a dime of city funds has been spent on maintaining the structure that continues to be a major navigational aide to commercial and recreational vessels in Narragansett Bay.
It’s not for a lack of effort that nothing has happened. Now the concern being raised is whether, if nothing continues to happen, the GSA might find the city in violation of its agreement and take back the light. Presumably, it would then sell the light at auction.
Those concerns don’t appear to be founded at this time.
Bonnie Halda, chief of preservation assistance at the National Park Service, said last week that there is no time limit for the city to take actions to preserve the light.
“We want to work as closely as possible with the steward [the city],” she said. She said her office would assist the city in working through problems, which could include partnering with other entities.
“The ultimate goal is the preservation of a resource,” she said.
Soon after the city took possession, the lighthouse was targeted to receive about $560,000 in federal funds as allocated by the Rhode Island Department of Transportation. It looked like the city would have the money to preserve the light while initiating programs and events opening it to the public. But other projects took priority, and now, according to principal planner Richard Crenca, the chances of the light being earmarked for a slice of federal funds appear slim, if that.
It would also appear that the proposal of leasing the light to a company that would undertake improvements so as to use it for a bed and breakfast for a fee, as well as provide public access on a limited basis at no cost, is off the table.
Mayor Scott Avedisian advanced that plan after meeting Nick Korstad more than two years ago. Korstad owns the Borden Flats Lighthouse offshore from Fall River. Korstad visited Conimicut Light with the mayor, Director of Public Works David Picozzi, and other officials in November 2013, and in the months following made an offer to lease the light.
Ward 4 Councilman Joseph Solomon questioned if Korstad’s offer was the best the city could do. The city administration then advertised for proposals, receiving one from Korstad that basically followed his initial submission, and a second from John Gauvin.
Gauvin also planned to offer rentals of the light, but his estimate on the cost of renovations was much higher than Korstad’s. He put the cost of renovations at $729,000, while Korstad listed $50,000 for materials in his bid with no estimate for labor.
But the council never got to consider either of the proposals. On Oct. 24 Gauvin emailed Crenca advising him that he was retracting his proposal to lease the light. Gauvin said he would be interested in purchasing Conimicut Light and told Crenca he planned to bid on the Butler Flats Light in New Bedford, which like Conimicut is a sparkplug lighthouse. It was built in 1898. He also said he didn’t want to get caught in the middle of city politics over the lease.
He said he was “taken back by being stood up” by Solomon when the city scheduled a meeting to discuss his proposal prior to it coming before the council.
Solomon said he knew of the meeting, but a pressing matter came up at the last minute and he couldn’t attend. As he was unable to attend the meeting with Gauvin, he said he did not think it fair to only hear Korstad’s proposal and therefore didn’t attend that.
In an interview last week, Solomon said he read both proposals, but he never talked with either of the bidders and wouldn’t know either of them “if I met them.” Solomon was not invited when the mayor and Korstad visited the lighthouse two years ago.
Solomon has issues with the lease anyhow.
“The city wouldn’t have made anything. The taxpayers weren’t getting a dime,” he said.
Reminded the city wouldn’t be paying for renovations, either, Solomon pointed out that Korstad’s proposal relied partially on grant funding that he hoped to obtain with city assistance. He questioned why the city should assist Korstad when he would be renting the lighthouse to those wanting that experience.
“Betsy Ross’ home shouldn’t be used as a Motel 6,” he said to make an analogy to rentals in a historic lighthouse built in 1883.
But it goes deeper, although Solomon wouldn’t elaborate.
“If I have to ask for investigation of what transpired and nexus between parties, I will,” he said.
At the Dec. 14 meeting, the administration dropped Korstad’s proposal from the council docket. Generally, as a courtesy, council members follow the lead of the council member whose ward is the site of a project. Rather than have Korstad’s proposal rejected for a second time, the bid was pulled from the docket.
Solomon says recent developments don’t dampen his passion to preserve the light. He called on the state’s congressional delegation to secure funding. He said, “Sights have to be set” on preserving the light.
“I’m moving on to preserve it,” he said.
Under the terms signed in 2004, it would seem the city has failed to make the light “available for education, park, recreation, cultural or historic preservation purposes for the general public at reasonable times and under reasonable conditions.” No rehabilitative efforts have been undertaken as also stated in the agreement.
The city has been submitting biennial reports to the National Park Service as required.
Asked how he envisions the lighthouse being used, Solomon said he would like to see a “passive” use. He said he could see boat tours to the light where people would learn of its history and its importance. He has issues with tours of the light because of the liabilities faced with disembarking from boats.
Asked about the possibility of the light reverting to the GSA because for more than 10 years the city has not taken action to preserve it, Solomon angrily said, “I’m not going to let anyone take it away from us. They’re not going to do an end run to take it away from the taxpayers of Warwick.”
Asked his position on the future of the lighthouse, Mayor Avedisian said in an email, “I was hopeful that there would be a bidder that would be acceptable to the Council for the Conimicut Lighthouse. I will work with any group that suggests a way to restore and renovate this landmark into an educational asset for the city.”
5 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
JohnStark
Priceless. Solomon heads a 'Lighthouse Utilization Committee' for 12 years and meets a total of.....zero times. The mayor entertains bids but also has to battle with Solomon. Solomon battles with the bidders while the city council engages in Advanced Navel Gazing. And Voila, you have yet another shining example of why informed businessmen stay miles and miles away from RI.
Tuesday, January 12, 2016 Report this
lighthousekeeper
I have a special interest in my old home. From 1958 until sept 1961, I was the Engineman and assistant officer in charge of Conimicut Light Station. I have watched as the physical structure decays,caisson plates fall away, Watchroom door falls off, rain gutters rot from accumulated debris, railings corrode, plate seams rust and water has entered the structure and rotted the sleepers supporting the wooden floors. There is no excuse for the City of Warwick to ignoring their responsibility for the property. What happened to the "Friends of Conimicut Light" ?
I fully realize the logistical problems involved in maintenance of an off shore lighthouse and more especially a tank or spark plug configuration. I also understand how much effort was diverted to the Rocky Point Project over the years. I am willing to do whatever I can to prevent the destruction of this symbol that is used by the city on its vehicles, street signs and other places.
But the clock is ticking and it is a dooms day clock!
Tuesday, January 12, 2016 Report this
patientman
I don't know councilman Solomon. Could somebody tell me if he is as dumb as he seems from this article?
Wednesday, January 13, 2016 Report this
JohnStark
lighthousekeeper: I paddle my kayak around the lighthouse in the warm weather and often wonder about the history of the place, which I've observed for over 50 years. It is truly a gem for the city. Too bad it's left to the hands of local pols, which is never a good thing in Warwick. Thank you for your service.
Wednesday, January 13, 2016 Report this
Johngauvin
The truth be told is this. As a Bidder we were exercised.
The reporter who wrote the previous articles had my contact info but did not contact me for this article to asked the pointed questions. I stumbled across this follow up article. "Biggest lies are told in silence". Things people know but do not pass the info along.
As one of the bidders I requested a copy of the proposed bid that the gentleman from MA provided the City of Warwick. The City provided it to me.
The following due diligence of ours was passed on to the City officials and they are well aware of the following facts. That's why I believe they pulled it.
1). We found that that bidder from MA never followed EPA standards in removing asbestos and the lead paint from the two lighthouses he has already worked on in the Bay.
2). That he was not licensed to perform the remediation a in RI or M A.
3). That he is not the principle in the company that submitted the bid that he offered and that he misrepresented himself as being the owner.
4). That the most he was willing to take out of his pocket in total was $55,000 for restoration.
5). That the City of Warwick never placed in the bid that the bidder who operated the lighthouse had to provide transportation to / from the lighthouse for the visitors.
6). That the City of Warwick never took into consideration that in their requirement to allow school kids to visit how would the City address the issues of those who require special assistance climbing up the ladder etc.( physically challenged ).
7). That the bidder from MA submitted fraudulent paperwork which actually illustrated that he received bids for the remediations from the gentleman who was submitting the bid with me.My partner claims a "cut and paste" using my partners letterhead.
I , along with a restoration company who restored many of the lighthouses in the Bay we spent well over 100 hours preparing our bid.
We were both insulted that one of the biggest critics and the councilman who lives steps away from the lighthouse blew us off in a planned meeting and never called to apologize . We are businessman. Time is money.
After receiving our proposals the City followed up by requesting to know about our personnel funding ( I own an Industrial Park, Stone Quarry and Hydro plant.). But yet they did not offer to show us the City's books.
Not living in the City I looked into the Cities books and discovered that the City is upside down big time with their pensions. If like Central Falls the City of Warwick went belly up and filed bankruptcy the person in charge would start liquidating assets to balance the books and who's to say they would not sell off the lighthouse we invested $750,000 into?
The City offered no way for us to secure our investment and that is one if the reasons I retracted my bid.
The other reason is I have a bad taste in my mouth for politics. I had very bad experiences ( CT) with dealing with local governments and the way they conduct business. In Connecticut I am assisting in an investigation in which 4 town officials are expected to be arrested soon by the FBI for RICO violations, Inverse Condemnation as well as Color of Law Violations.
This bid process was not properly thought out and the City needs to sell it off and let the private sector perform the required work before it is destroyed beyond repair. The City does not need the liability.
Monday, February 15, 2016 Report this