On July 16, Mayor Gavin Buckley issued a “fact sheet” on the City Dock Plan to clarify the ongoing confusion and controversy on the objectives, costs and funding of the biggest public works project in city history. Unfortunately, the fact sheet confirms that the current City Dock Plan is misguided where it deviates from its resiliency objectives. Buckley continues to suggest the current plan reflects the will of the citizens expressed through the City Dock Action Committee, which last met in 2021.
His fact sheet fails to mention that the 2021 City Dock Action Committee Report does not recommend a new Maritime Welcome Center on the water in a treacherous flood zone, a luxuriant splash fountain or the resort-style amenities that now comprise the City Dock Plan. Some might recall the Capital Gazette reported in 2022, quoting former DPW Chief David Jarrell, that the cost for the City Dock Plan was $42 million. It included the raised park on Dock Street, flood barriers, storm water pumps and removing the Harbor Master Office.
No splash fountain or welcome center was identified as part of the plan. Now, the total updated estimate is $90 million with the park, amenities, Maritime Welcome Center and the related and essential City Dock Compromise Street resiliency work. Resiliency work is $18 million of the $90 million estimate.
The increase in the City Dock Plan from $42 million in 2022 to at least $90 million in 2024 largely relates to the amenities and unnecessary Maritime Welcome Center. There is no information on how the new building and amenities will be maintained and at what cost. A cost estimate that is off by at least $48 million is gobsmacking.
A project that does not plan for ongoing and future maintenance is municipal malpractice. But the mayor is not taking any questions, thank you. The city’s 2022 FEMA grant application asks for $30.
98 million, arguing that severe flooding at the City Dock will increase with continued catastrophic flood surges at water’s edge. There is no disclosure in the FEMA grant application that an oversized, multipurpose welcome center with spa-quality bathrooms is also planned at the same location where severe flood surges are identified. The FEMA grant for resiliency has not been awarded yet, but the plan amenities are now underway with public funding and construction that might begin this year.
This is what the mayor really means when he says that things need to “move fast.” The project is moving as fast as the cost estimates are changing. On July 9, the City Council approved a first reader bond bill — public financing to fund the Maritime Welcome Center for $10.
55 million. Just a month earlier, internal City Hall figures provided to Alderwoman Elly Tierney show the Maritime Welcome Center cost figures to be $20 million — or $10 million — the number seems to depend on who you ask at City Hall. Now, the mayor’s updated fact sheet represents the cost at $8.
6 million. Going from $20 million to $10 million to $8.6 million in a few weeks is quite a budget feat, especially when the building size, various public and commercial purposes and amenities all remain unchanged from what was presented to the public in May 2024.
The math is fuzzy and all over the place. Though the fact sheet indicates 94% of the funding is secured, including the yet unawarded FEMA grant, one important clarification missing is that the $24 million Hillman Garage concession payment is a bond, which means public debt financing. Calling the bond a concession might confuse the public into thinking it is getting something from the parking company or developer, but the public is financing the welcome center and related park amenities.
Notably, these publicly funded add-ons to the resiliency objective would make no sense even if they were free. You can trust your life experience here. And, yes, public debt financing does impact the opportunities and resources the city will have now and in the future to address far more compelling city needs.
These include addressing infrastructure, crime, the public housing debacle or even the ambitious Public Water Access Plan. Getting resiliency right for the entire downtown area should be the primary objective of the project and not a mayor’s legacy to brand the Annapolis City Dock with a personal entertainment vision. The entire project is shrouded in doubt as to adequate resiliency, cost and funding.
The current plan could easily revert to what the City Dock Action Committee recommended in 2021 — resiliency measures for the entire downtown flood area and an attractive green park without luxuriant amenities. If a new visitor welcome center is truly needed, the city could explore more fiscally and resiliency appropriate locations, including the now available iconic Stevens Building. Cheerleading aside, the City Dock Plan is revealing some significant weaknesses in our local governance.
Basic urban planning should prohibit new public buildings on the water’s edge in a severe flood area anywhere in Annapolis. It’s just common sense. No climate change expertise or Netherlands excursion is needed to understand the right path for the public interest.
The mayor and other city officials might not be taking your questions, but you can still let them know how you feel about the project with a simple email. Addresses are available at www.annapolis.
gov and then scroll to “Contact Elected Officials.” Katie McDermott is an Annapolis resident..
