Witchduck and Thoroughgood Dredging Project…… At What Cost?

“An informed citizenry is the bulwark of a democracy”

                                                  Thomas Jefferson

• The number and the positioning of channels near properties are the primary reasons. By examining the 7 May plan, Exhibit B, and the cost of each channel (3 dredgings) one can see many of the channels have to be dredged 3.5 – 4.0 feet deep. As drawn, the channels approach (to tens of feet) to many properties, thus significantly reducing their need for driveways, and out of pocket expenses. This shifts the burden to the rest of us in the form of the SSD. At $34.13 per cubic yard plus 20% engineering costs, these totals mount up and demonstrate a lack of cost consciousness by the plan designers. Also, the channels at the back reaches of the coves are 15 – 20 feet wide, which are excessive and contributes to the high costs.
• Potential options:
• Eliminate most channels such that no channels are closer than 200 feet to properties or cross property lines. See Exhibit C, Option A, where the SSD would be 23.40 cents.
• Make the dredge plan totally equitable by ensuring all properties get a channel near their properties and reduce their need for costly driveways. See Exhibit D, Option B with SSD of 59.76 cents.
• Break up the project into four separate coves where each cove decides its own requirement and pays their own expenses. See Exhibits E – I, Option C, SSDs costs would range from 45.06 cents to 73.34 cents.
• Reduce widths of smaller channels from 15 – 20 feet to 8 – 10 feet and reduce some depths by a foot.
• Extend the city spur to include channel 6. For other dredge projects, the city has contributed to over 20%. By including channel 6, the city’s share would increase to 10%.
• Ideas from above can be combined for a more affordable and equitable plan. The recently defeated SSD of 24 cents for Thoroughgood Cove is probably a more reasonable cost.

• Why do our properties not get a neighborhood channel within 200 feet? By the city’s own definition channels serve two properties.
• Why should we pay for dredging to other properties so deep into the coves, and we do not get the same benefit?
• Who made these decisions and on what basis of fairness?
• To ensure owners make informed decisions of their total estimated costs, the city needs to provide owners an estimated cost of their driveways before voting.

• Increases the SSD cost 3.7%.
• Is gerrymandering and creates a double standard. The city informed us in a meeting on 23 September these properties would not benefit as they are 200 feet from the channel. We pointed out the obvious that the aforementioned properties cited above are 200 – 300 feet away from the channel and should have the same “get out” clause.

• There are three properties valued at $1.768M that receive tax relief (all yes votes). These properties pay no SSD, increase the SSD 2.8%, and pass the costs onto the rest of us.
• There are 5 undeveloped properties and many homes significantly below the average cost of $749K. All the undeveloped properties have channels near to those properties.
• The long term consequences of this decision will last at least 16 years and can cost many owners much more than $120K (Exhibit J). Most of us have much higher priorities in our lives to spend our hard earned money, as opposed to exorbitant and unnecessary dredging. Based on the region’s slow economic recovery and correlation with defense spending, are we willing to risk getting locked into such a costly investment with so much uncertainty. Keep in mind many other waterfront communities do not have SSDs, and certainly none as expensive as our proposed 51.5 cents—the highest in the city. See Exhibits J – K for projected costs for properties of varying values and comparison of other SSD rates. The numbers are staggering.