EAST PROVIDENCE — Should the city take the lead in sourcing the financing to connect East Providence's waterfront district with Interstate 195 via the construction of new interchanges?

That was the question at the heart of a discussion during the City Council meeting held Tuesday night, April 5.

City Manager Richard Kirby and Senior Planner Jim Moran broached the topic of how the administration should move forward in its attempt to gain the monies necessary for the long-standing project. What they received was mostly tepid, skeptical push-back.

The interchange project, which was previously approved and supported by all recent incarnations of the Council and was backed by the Rhode Island Department of Transportation, has been on the books for the better part of a decade. The current design plans and cost analysis date back to 2009.

Then, the price tag of the project to build ramps off 195 leading northbound and southbound to the waterfront was estimated to be approximately $40 million.

Since, the plan stalled for a variety of reasons, most recently due to cash flow and a stuttering Rhode Island economy. The Federal Government is allocating less money to the states now and the DOT, through the recently implemented "RhodeWorks" initiative, is focusing on rebuilding or replacing existing structures and roadways as opposed to financing projects for new or additional components.

Last Tuesday, Mr. Kirby and Mr. Moran urged the Council to keep the plan on the front burner by allowing the administration to engage investors with the notion of entering into a TIF (Tax Increment Financing) arrangement to form a public-private partnership for the construction. If such a partnership could be fostered, they said, it would be more likely DOT would consider giving the project a funding boost.

Mr. Kirby noted the biggest obstacle in building out parts of the Waterfront District was the lack of the interchanges. "What constrains it is access," he added.

Mr. Moran said the "ramp structures are absolutely critical to the waterfront."

"We're looking for ways to keep the project viable," he continued, adding later his presentation to the Council was about seeing if the administration could make the public-private arrangement work to which he said "we believe we can."

Ward 4 Councilor Tim Conley, while touting his support of the Waterfront District, expressed his reservations about the project's viability if the DOT was not involved. He downplayed the prospect of finding a developer with deep enough pockets willing to assist in getting the interchanges built, adding the administration's attempt "borders on being incredibly unrealistic."

In response, Mr. Moran said "you have to have a party willing to invest in the city" while he also admitted finding such a partner through a TIF agreement was a "long shot, but it's better than having no options."

Mr. Moran told the Council modifications to existing designs as well as the elimination of the proposed reconstruction of the Potter Street bridge, which connects Warren and Taunton Avenues, could save in the range of $9-$10 million and bring the initial price tag down to approximately $30-$31 million. He said the project could be done in phases, further spreading out the costs. And that any changes to the existing plan would have to be presented to the public before they could be implemented.

Ward 1 Councilor Bobby Britto, himself a professional in the building industry, was dubious about using the 2009 figures, saying the costs could potentially double if the project was done now or in the near future.

The project's lead design consultant Joseph Giordano, of the Providence-based engineer firm Gordon R. Archibald Inc., said while the costs would expectedly be higher currently he "was not sure they would double." He added costs always fluctuate depending on the scale of the project and on the activity of the construction market.

Mr. Giordano added the DOT has put "expansion" projects like the interchange on hold, but that the Council should "consider what it can do to help move it along" or it will likely languish in the planning stage and cost even more if it ever came to fruition in the long term.

For their part, the administrators said they were not seeking formal Council approval at the moment, nor were they requesting to spend any more resources on the plan.

"We're bringing this to the Council's attention not necessarily to approve the project, but to signal the DOT we're willing to move the project forward at a lower cost to the city and the state," Mr. Moran said.

The administrators hope that by streamlining the plan it will not only shave off costs but also intrigue potential developers.

"What we we're trying to accomplish is to lay the groundwork," Mr. Kirby said after the meeting. "Obviously, the Waterfront District is primed for additional development and is the economic development engine of the city moving forward. But not having proper ingress and egress continues to be a problem, particularly on Waterfront Drive north of 195. At some point we'd like to go before the Council with a resolution which expresses their support so we can approach developers with a show of good faith.

"We want to do this in the open. We don't want to surprise anybody. At some point we would like to go before the Council and have them approve a resolution supporting the plan."