Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout121 95 œ: (;5 id-I~-<15 STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson IN THE MATTER OF PRIORITIZATION OF PROJECTS FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY TO WASHINGTON COMMUNITY ECONOMIC REVIT ALIZA TION TEAM (W A-CERT) ¡ RESOLUTION NO. in -95 WHEREAS, the Economic Adjustment Initiative is a partnership of the United States and the State of Washington; and, WHEREAS, the Washington Community Economic Revitalization Team (WA- CERT) is accepting pre-applications for FFY96 funding of Economic Adjustment Initiative projects; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of Jefferson County has reviewed information about applications for proposed projects within Jefferson County; and, WHEREAS, Jefferson County has developed criteria for establishing a numerical priority listing of said projects and has applied that criteria to project applications; . NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following projects be assigned prioritization as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Qui1cene Community Well Jefferson County Community Services Port of Port Townsend Enhanced Haulout Port of Port Townsend Magnet Center (Partially funded FFY95) Port Townsend School District Parks Improvement (AmeriCorps) Jefferson County Public Works Qui1cene Community Center & Park Jefferson County Public Works Port Townsend Marina 2002 PTM2002 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Commissioners hereby approve the above listed projects in said order. APPROVED this /1';1:::: day of December, 1995. +. -" .þ' JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS \'~ ')1 . u~ '" r r'.,,- 0 1363 -- JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Agenda Item FOR WEEK OF: DECEMBER 18, 1995 DAVID GOLDSMITH/S VAN HOOVER SUBMITTED BY: I. DESCRIPTION -- a brief description of the agenda item: Please include project, road, contract, grant, etc. number if one is available for the Commissioners' Index. RESOLUTION FOR PRIORITIZATION OF PROJECTS WITHIN JEFFERSON COUNTY FOR WA-CERT (Washington Communi ty Economic Revi talization Team) ASSISTANCE II. ISSUES -- a short outline of the major issues or areas that should be given particular attention: December 20, 1995 is a deadline for WA-CERT Pre-applications for FFY96 Assistance. PTM2002 wishes to submit an application for consideration: PORT TOWNSEND TRANSIENT MARINA - A feasibility study for the construction and operation of a $6 million, 150 boat transient marina and breakwater on Port Townsend's waterfront to determine economic, engineering, environmental, financing and organiza- tional factors. Representatives of PTM2002 wish to speak to the Board regarding their project. The Washington Community Economic Revitalization Team requests that each County in the State submit its prioritized listing of projects within its jurisdiction. It is requested that the Board adopt a Resolution identifying those projects as prioritized according to the matrix developed to measure economic revitalization criteria. III. ACTION -- what is the nature of the action the Board is being asked to take (discussion, approval of a contract, support for a grant, etc.)? You may also want to express the department's position or recommendation. Request approval of Resolution to Prioritize Projects (incorporating the proj ect of PTM2002 into list of Jefferson County proj ects previous- ly submitted to WA-CERT). WA-CERT APPLICATION PRIORITIZATION Applications for funding (from cities, counties, tribes, port authorities, economic development organizations, private industry councils, non-profit organizations and businesses) through the President's Economic Adjustment Initiative for 1995 must be prioritized. Once they are assigned priorities the County Commissioners must pass a resolution of support endorsing this prioritization. The following is a suggested criteria and rating system for assigning priority: Maximum The project addresses long term economic status of County citizens, 40 Points individual businesses or businesses directly affected by the decline in the timber industry. 20 points Project is ready to be implemented as demonstrated by existing plans, engineering or feasibility studies or proposes such studies as a clearly phased first step. 20 points Project supports long term diversification of the County economy. 10 points Project has regional impact or can leverage other funding sources. 5 points The project has a high level oflocal commitment as demonstrated by direct involvement of other agencies. 5 points Awarded for exceptional merit in terms of the above criteria or any other criteria deemed significant by reviewer (i.e. how this project fits the goals of the EM for job creation and economic diversification.) For example: Using a maximum point value of 100, applying these prioritization criteria for the projects in Jefferson County could result in the following: Project Long Term Ready for Long Term Regional Local Exceptional Total Economic Implementation Diversification Impact Commitment Merit Maximum Points 40 points 20 points 20 points 10 points 5 points 5 points Quilcene Community 23 17 12 6 4 3 65.00 Center & Park Qui1cene 40 18 20 8 5 5 96.00 Community Well Parks Improvement 22 20 10 8 4 3 67.00 Projects (Ameri Corps) Heavy Haulout 40 17 20 10 4 3 94.00 Magnet Center 38 19 20 10 3 2 92.00 Port Townsend 22 13 15 6 2 I 59.00 Marina 2002 WASHINGTON COMMUNITY ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION TEAM (WA-CERT) ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT INITIATIVE PRE-APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE Applicant: PTM2002 County: JEFFERSON Contact: Dave Udell c/o P.O. Box 1910 Port Townsend, W A 98368 360 385-6212 name address city, state, zip phone # Signature and position of person authorizing submittal: 1.00 Project Title: Port Townsend Transient Marina Total project cost: $Approx. 6 million Amount raised to date: $N / A Is this a phased project? Yes X No- Project Type: (check all that apply) busmess and industry -X community and infrãstructure -workers and families = ecosystem investment Is your request a funding gap? Yes No What are you requesting now? $60,000 - If yes, how many phases? 3 phases over 7 years. Phases: 1) Preliminary feasibility study - completed 7/95 2) Profeuional feasibility study/economic analysis - this phase 3) Design/Construction 1.01a Briefly describe your project. When did you start work on it? Who is involved? What is the scope of the project? The proposed project is a feasibility study for the construction and operation of a $6 million, 150 boat transient marina and breakwater on Port Townsend's waterfront. Work on the concept started in 1993 by concerned citizens as a community- service effort with contributed professional expertise. The scope of this phase of the project includes the determination of economic, engineering, environmental, financing and organizational factors. 1.01b How does the project satisfy, in whole or in part, your economic diversification strategy? The marina would strongly support economic diversification by increasing employment in marine trades and tourism in response to timber cutbacks and reduction in paper mill employment now threatened by decreasing wood chip availability. 1.02 Is this [feasibility study] a docwnented county-wide NUMERIC priority? x Yes. It ranks in our county-wide prioritization process. It is also a priority in our plan. Is the [feasibility study] endorsed by your County Commissioners? Yes - No- 1.03 Summarize efforts you've taken to-date regarding the project in tenus of: A) Is this project part of a plan (capital facilities, economic development, business, etc.) The marina is consistent with and encouraged by Port Townsned's Comprehensive Plan. It directly addresses the top five goals of the Shoreline Master Program which are economic development, public access, circulation, recreation and appropriate shoreline use. B) What engineering and feasibility reports have been prepared, and when? A preliminary feasibility report was completed in July, 1995 which covers physical specifications, environmental impact, construction costs, fmancing, marketing and organizational considerations. C) Have you secured funds for this project from other sources? Specify sources, includi~ local match and amounts. If there are conditions attached to any of these secured funding sources, please specify. We raised approximately $27,000 in contributed professional services to produce the preliminary feasibility report. D) Are there other efforts you have made that are unique to this project? We are in the process of gathering specific support from appropriate governmental agencies, community organizations and affected industries; however, PTM2002 has taken the project about as far as possible without a thoroughly conducted professional feasibility study. 1.04 What are the anticipated benefits of this project in tenus of the criteria below? QUANTIFY INFORMATION WHERE POSSIBLE. SHORT-TERM LONG-TERM JOBS CAPIT AL F ACCILmES We are applying for funds to conduct a feasibility study of the marina. Our preliminary report indicated the following economic impacts could result from its construction and operation: . 54,000 visitor-days per year. . $2.7 million per year in additional revenues to downtown businesses. HUMAN INVESTMENT . 4,000 - 8,000 additional boats per year as potential customers of marine trades and suppliers. . Approximately $5 million in construction jobs. LOCAL CAPACITY 1.05 Are there other factors significant to this project that we should be aware of, such as compliance orders, emergency declarations, ere? The Port Townsend paper mill is experiencing a significant wood chip shortage and its long- term viability is by no means assured. (Total number of jobs presently at the mill: approximately 280.) Port Townsend is an extremely desirable destination and stopover point for pleasure craft traveling to and from Puget Sound. An attractive moorage facility dedicated to servicing that traffic would take advantage of this underdeveloped resource at a time when timber, fishing and, quite possibly, mill jobs are declining. 1.06 What quantifiable outcomes are you going to track to measure the success of this project? Our preliminary feasibility study indicated that the marina would make a major contribution to our economy without the undesireable side effect of increasing traffic in the downtown area. The feasibility study wilI provide hard cost estimates, a financial plan, identification of funding, engineering configuration, community economic impacts, preferred long term organizational structure, identification of environmental issues and permitting requirements and a time schedule. The study wilI be the basis for building broader community support for the project. BHO""'N & BF;AlTF'AIT, P. S. Attorneys at Law 914 WASHINGTON STREET. SUITE 6 PORT TOWNSEND. WASHINGTON 98368 TELEPHONE (360) 385-2516 FACSIMILE (360) 385.2535 MARK S. BEAUFAIT Mr. David Goldsmith Deputy Director of Public Jefferson County P. o. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 services :tt",',,"'," ':, ;, -:".' , ... I ' , " '. [E'if ;': ..~: . i ¡""j ,,- ¡ r ,. - 1?~ ~ ~:~ ¿; "i ~; tV..' NO\ll ~j 1995 November 13, 1995 JEFFEf1SC:N ('O:f'::/ r'r,'¡'r'~--' ""." "", ,." '0, j,r'f'~lfI."('-""",,('r". .~-;'",~' L', ,_.'_I\,,');.;::,~',...:-::" Re: PTM2002 Dear David: As we discussed, enclosed is the WA-CERT loan pre- application form to cover a feasibility study for the Port Townsend downtown marina. The WA-CERT pre-application form must be submitted in early December, 1995, by Jefferson County. We request that this matter be put on the Jefferson County Commissioners' agenda for approval and submission. You stated that, so far as you knew, there are no other prospective applications on the drawing board at this time. As we have discussed with you, and with the commissioners, a downtown visitor's marina would be a very positive economic development for Port Townsend and Jefferson County. PORT TOWNSEND MARINA 2002 (PTM2002) We are requesting support for funding a feasibility study for the construction and operation of a transient marina on Port Townsend's downtown waterfront. We call the marina concept PTM2002. This is also the name of the nonprofit corporation dedicated to developing the concept. The goal of PTM2002 is to assist in diversifying the area's economy by encouraging more waterborne tourism, thereby substantially increasing the clientele available to the local marine trades industry (boat servicing and repair, etc.). It would also help support the downtown general retail stores needed by residents as well as visitors. The purpose of the feasibility study is to conduct a thorough investigation of the economics, engineering and environmental considerations of the project. ""', / Mr. David Goldsmith November 13, 1995 page - 2 There are a number of questions which must be carefully answered before a project such as this can proceed. These questions include: "Will the boating public actually use the facility to the degree necessary to make it pay operating expenses and pay back the investment?" "Can the environmental regulations be satisfied without making the project cost prohibitive?" "What kind of breakwater is feasible in this location?" "Does the project complement the community's circulation plan?" The purpose of the proposed study is to answer these questions. Consistency with Plans and Policies The PTM2002 concept is consistent with and encouraged by the City of Port Townsend's Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program. For example, it directly addresses the first five goals in the Shoreline Master Program which are economic development, public access, circulation, recreation, and appropriate shoreline use. Commitment to the Project Numerous people from the community have been involved in developing the PTM2002 concept, collecting data, and gathering support. Included have been members of the business community, city government, county government, port authority, and economic development council. Many other people have expressed support for the concept. Most organizational support is awaiting the outcome of the feasibility study. Ready to Proceed preliminary feasibility work has indicated the PTM2002 marina would have a very positive, wholesome, effect on the economy by infusing considerable outside money into the local economy and complementing the existing economic base. The preliminary study has also served to outline the scope of the work which needs to be done in a more formal and thorough feasibility study which will prove, disprove, or refine the preliminary conclusions. Mr. David Goldsmith November 13, 1995 page - 3 . Once funding has been obtained, PTM2002 is ready to proceed with the selection of a contractor qualified to undertake the study and produce a report on which future decisions can be based. Project Feasibility PTM2002 has investigated the costs of performing the tasks required in the professional study, and has been advised the study itself would be feasible at a funding level of $60,000. Indirect Employment Although the project at hand is to determine the economic and environmental impacts of PTM2002, our preliminary findings indicate the following very positive economic impacts: . 54,000 visitor days per year. . $2.7 million annual revenues to downtown businesses. . 4,000 - 8,000 boats per year as potential customers of marine trades and supplies. . Approximately $5 million in construction jobs. Experience of the Team The core of the PTM2002 support team consists of the following personnel: Bernie Arthur - Boatbuilder (retired) Mark Beaufait - Attorney Renie Bergstrom - Bank Vice President Dale Bonar - Marine Biologist Al Elliott - Community Development Specialist Del Graham - Land Title Investigator (retired) Paul Harder - Industrial journalist Bill Plice - Marine Software Developer Jay Spearman Professional Engineer with expertise in waterfront projects - Mechanical Engineer (retired) Dave Udell CONCLUSION This project is needed to help diversify the local economy. It fits well into the community. A formal feasibility study is necessary to build local partnerships and commitments for implementation. Mr. David Goldsmith November 13, 1995 page - 4 We appreciate the County Commissioners' consideration of this proposal, and look forward to submittal of the grant pre- application. Enclosed for your and the Commissioners' reference are draft pre-application forms and copies of our July, 1995 feasibility report. I believe the Commissioners may have already seen our report. Please give me a call after you have had an opportunity to review these materials, so we can discuss scheduling and submittal of the application. Thank you for your help. MSB:jkc Enclosures cc: Commissioner Glen Huntingford (wjencl.) Commissioner Richard Wojt (wjencl.) Commissioner Robert Hinton (wjencl.) WA-CERT (wjencl.) PTM2002 Directors (wjo encl.) jkc\asbSbO8d.1tr Port Townsend Transient Marina PTM2002 Feasibility Report by The PTM2oo2 Committee July, 1995 -;. oJ . '.. ... . .. ... '.L'-' ... -... .. (1) PTM2OO2 Feasibility Report 7/95 I. Project Description PTM2002 proposes the building of a new "transient" marina, specifically for visitors, to be located on the downtown Port Townsend waterfront and to be in service by the year 2002. This marina is intended to augment, not in any way supersede, additional permanent moorage which is needed for City and County residents. It is suggested that this is a proper project for the Port of Port Townsend to implement through its long-range planning; however, this is not strictly necessary as other entities could bring the project to fruition. Community Service PTM2oo2 is a community-service effort led by several Port Townsend residents. Those of us who are involved in this effort believe that building a new transient marina attached to the downtown waterfront will affect the community in a very positive and beneficial way. In order to develop and communicate this concept, Mark Beaufait, Bill Plice and Dave Udell began holding regular meetings early in 1994. The name PTM2002 was adopted for this committee and for its marina-development project. None of the members of the PTM2oo2 committee have prospects of financial gain as a result of this project. We are not merchants who stand to benefit from the spending-oriented visitors it will draw to Port Townsend, nor are we involved in any of the marine trades which will benefit from increased vessel traffic. We have no business in the design or construction of marinas, nor are we hoping to gain political credit for helping bring about such an improvement. We simply see an undeveloped potential which has the rare promise of enhancing our environment while improving the economics of our fellow citizens. If there is any noteworthy thing which we bring to this effort, other than a dèsire to serve our community, it is the perspective of yachtsmen who have not always lived in Port Townsend but who have experienced coming to town as visitors -- not by car, but on the water. Why a New Marina? Port Townsend, without doubt, occupies an eminent location from the perspective of the water. We believe this location is one of our primary resources. It is only natural that the town have good facilities for servicing the plentiful pleasure-vessel traffic which is in this area: doing so is in keeping with the spirit of being a Port -- that role which our town played so well in its early years. Perhaps we can go a long way toward restoring that spirit. (2) PTM2oo2 Feasibility Report 7/95 Though it may come as a surprise to those who have not approached Port Townsend from the water, the town is not well-prepared to meet the needs of visiting pleasure vessels and their crews. This deficiency is not the result of any fundamental lack of know-how or shortage of resources; it is merely a case of an underutilized potential. We believe that the essential element required to make use of this potential is one very proper development, viz. an ample marina catering to visitors and located on the central downtown waterfront. Point Hudson provides this function to a limited degree; but alone it is inadequate. We need the capacity to serve as a rendezvous destination for the many clubs and associations of boaters which regularly hold such events. We need a capacity such that a visitor is able to rely on finding protected moorage, and can reasonably hope to find dock space close to downtown, even on a summer weekend and even when arriving well after noon on a Friday. We believe it is a mistake to assess the demand for transient moorage by measuring the occupancy rates of the space currently reserved for transients at Point Hudson and the Boat Haven. The fact that these facilities are not always full and overflowing does not indicate that additional moorage would not draw additional patrons. Fundamentally there are two problems with out present setup. First, the Boat Haven is too far from restaurants, shopping and supplies to be very attractive. It lacks the atmosphere of a transient marina where friends and groups can moor next to each other. Second, Point Hudson is not large enough to provide for groups or even to offer moorage to a single vessel on a reliable basis during the summer. Increasing the capacity of the Point Hudson marina to the degree required has not been found to be desirable or even feasible. It is very important when a skipper plans his or her route that moorage be available at certain ports-of-call. Port Townsend is one of those ports because of its proximity to the Strait of Juan de Fuca where bad weather can require waiting when going north: Due primarily to the geography, there is a lack of alternative protected moorage in this area. Because our facilities are inadequate, the alternate route, east of Whidby Island by way of Oak Harbor, is often preferred . To the extent that a new emphasis on catering to waterborne visitors comes into being, our downtown area will become less dependent and less driven by the drive-in visitors who fill up our very limited downtown parking. The marina may help to justify diverting visiting automobile traffic to the park-and-rid,e lot. It will help create a freer, quieter and cleaner downtown for everyone. What People Think The PTM2002 committee has interviewed dozens of people, both residents and nonresidents. (3) PTM2oo2 Feasibility Report 7/95 We have talked to government officials, engineers, scientists, business operators, marine trades people, visiting boaters and many others. We have made the PTM2002 presentation at a Rotary meeting and written about it in the Leader. In all of the feedback from those meetings and communications, no negative response has been received. The unanimous response has been that this is an idea worth pursuing. Naturally, there have been questions about how it can be accomplished and concerns about obstacles such as storm-proofing, financing, parking and environmental impact. It is the purpose of this report to address these questions. Everyone recognizes the value of people working together to achieve a goal. It has often been observed that the spirit of a community is healed when a physical disaster strikes, forcing people to cooperate. We hope that this project can serve in lieu of a disaster to bring many in our community together in support a common goal. This is a real opportunity for us to pull together to improve our environment while moving closer to our historical roots and improving our economic stability. Recognition of Contributors The feasibility study represented by this report has been accomplished through contributions of time, effort and money on the part of not only the PTM2oo2 members but many others who have seen the merits of the project and wished to participate. Special thanks are in order to Jay Spearman, a Professional Engineer in Kirkland for his donation of time in developing a preliminary layout and providing breakwater and float construction cost data. Special thanks also to Al Elliott of Mountlake Terrace for sharing his expertise in project development, fund raising and administration. Russ McComb of Bainbridge Island contributed much of the time required to produce the beautiful drawing of the marina. Dale Bonar and Bill Plice conducted a preliminary eel grass survey while Bill and Judy Plice surVeyed the depths at the proposed site. The original committee members have, on many occasions, been joined by Paul Harder, Del Graham and Dale Bonar as we sorted out ideas and planned the next step. Thanks are also due to Bernie Arthur, Rennie Bergstrom, Barbara Blowers, Lloyd Cahoon, Chuck Champlin, John Clise, Frank DeMore, Don Hoglund, Jim Norris and Sue Sidle for advice and encouragement. (4) PTM2oo2 Feasibility Report 7/95 II. Physical Specifications Breakwater Requirement The location on the downtown waterfront requires a breakwater. Without a breakwater the security of the moorage is severely compromised. Without floating docks (which require a breakwater for protection) we believe the convenience of any substitute moorage facility would be reduced to the point where it would fail to compete with the standards set by marinas in virtually all other locations throughout the Pacific Northwest. Without a breakwater it is unlikely that the facility would be used enough to justify even its much lesser cost. Capacity The profitability of a marina is generally sensitive to the amount of moorage it provides. One reason for this is that the breakwater dominates the construction cost. The moorage capacity afforded by a given breakwater cost tends to be maximized by increasing the dimension of the marina perpendicular to the breakwater. Marina size is limited primarily by the demand for moorage and the physical constraints and costs of the available site. In order to meet its objective, the marina must be large enough to have a significant positive impact on the town. It must also be large enough to be a reliable destination in terms of moorage space availability. Since some of these factors have not been quantified it is impossible at this stage to calculate an optimum capacity. For the purposes of this study, a capacity of roughly 100 to 150 vessels has been selected. (The exact number of boats which can be accommodated depends on the specific mix of vessel sizes.) This would approximately triple the amount of transient moorage available on the downtown waterfront. (Point Hudson as it is now configured can hold up to about 90 vessels but less than 50 transient spaces are actually available on a regular basis.) Location For a transient marina to have a broad appeal, it must be adjacent to restaurants, shops and theatres; i.e. downtown. Along the downtown waterfront the best location appears to lie between the ferry terminal and Union wharf. This area affords usable depths with little or no additional dredging (part of the site was dredged when the Plaza was built). Thanks to the Plaza fill, depths are usable quite close to most of this shore. (5) PTM2002 Feasibility Report 7/95 The size of this area, while not ideally ample, is workable. Shoreline and tideland ownership is a mixture of public and private lands. The concept of the marina has been presented to the adjoining landowners. Environmental Impact The layout of breakwater and floats has been designed to avoid areas where eelgrass exists. Most of the area covered by floats has depths at low water greater than 15 feet and so does not conflict with potential eelgrass sites. Since very little of the facility would actually contact the shoreline, shading or disturbance of spawning habitat would be slight. If the entire breakwater is not of the floating type, at least the ends perpendicular to the shore will be floating in order to allow the natural tidal currents to flow and to avoid interference with fish migration. The breakwater will be accessible to pedestrian traffic, greatly enhancing the public's access to the waterfront in this area and affording excellent views of the water, the town and the boats. Very little automobile parking would be required by this marina since all of its customers would arrive by boat. But by bringing a significant number of visitors without cars directly to the downtown area, the net effect of the marina would be to reduce the average number of cars per visitor. At some point, the city will have to deal with the problem of tourist traffic downtown (which is already repelling many residents) by instituting some form of parking control. But the marina patrons are not part of that problem and will hi fact substantially offset any negative effect on downtown business created by the eventual necessity of placing restrictions on downtown parking. (6) .:.o:' \, \'" I\). ~ ,~ ~ ~ N 'I. N î ~ ").} \.! t" il , ..,-.,. .,..-.-.,-- --.. .¡ . c' '-'-- -. r~~' ~ I ~ 1 c:s -::Þ ..... ..~ t1 '~ (f1 ~ Cl) "{' b' " ~ ~ 'C :v Cr¡ "- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ""{ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ 111'iI~ t m F~;~iIitY Report : "I~~, I~ ~ 1/1. ~ ¡ \)0 " ~ ~ìij " i'I~I" ~" ~ i !~I " . . ~liU I --- 0 . t ¡ ~ , ' ~ D ~ -" \I "- ,r, i't. . , b \~ ~ (" iii I ~ ~ " ~ /' ~ " .-1>' r, 1'1 PI 't J I f' F££,.ey T£EAI/~AL ~ , U,{¡IO.<./ ,~ ".. fF}'£Æ: ' /' 'IJ ( I ;;: ,/ " . .'\ ~ '" / / ~1 / I í~ 'i;. / :':ft / II . I :.... / I ,'" / II :'t¡ I ii, , I' I /\1 / ~ " " \/ I I ~,' I '.J . I I , ~ I~ ~~ ' ~ : '\ ' (\)~ ~ (\ ~ ' b' , '" . " , , , ~ r \ ) r/ I ,...' j \ PTM2oo2 Feasibility Report 7/95 III. Construction Cost Several breakwater technologies are available, each having its own merits and costs. For the purposes of this feasibility study, three types have been considered and the construction cost of each has been calculated for the proposed marina layout: Breakwater type Floating Rubble Mound Sheet Pile Cost $2,410,000 1,950,000 5,670,000 Because of its greater impact on the environment and the fact that it cannot itself be used for moorage, we assume the rubble mound to be less attractive in spite of its low cost. The sheet pile, though it would perform better than the floating breakwater may be unnecessarily expensive in this application. A properly-designed floating breakwater is effective in protecting the harbor from damaging waves. Perfect wave attenuation is not as important for transient moorage as it is for permanent moorage since its greatest use will be in the summer when heavy weather from the south is uncommon. A floating breakwater also has the advantage of flexibility, allowing expansion at relatively little cost. For the purpose of this study, the floating breakwater is assumed to be the best choice. Breakwater: $2,410,000 Other elements of the construction cost for which data has been obtained are as follows: Floats Piles (timber) Electrical Other utilities Mobilization insurance: $1,727,000 321,000 350,000 75,000 202,000 -------- Total: $2,675,000 (8) PTM2002 Feasibility Report 7/95 The remaining elements of the construction costs are rough estimates: Engineering: Permits: Property acquisition: Upland improvements: Administration: $ 200,000 100,000 250,000 250,000 200,000 -------- Total: $1,000,000 Total Construction Cost: $6,085,000 It is assumed that facilities to provide fuel, laundry, ice, etc. which are located within the marina facility will be self-supporting and self-financing. Only moorage, electricity, water, pumpout facility and restrooms are being considered in this study. (9) PTM2002 Feasibility Report 7/95 IV. Construction Financing The marina will fully support its operating expenses through moorage fees. In addition, this income will cover a substantial part of the capital financing. Grants It is expected that some grant money will be available through public and/or private sources. The amount of money sought through grants or donations will be such that the remaining capital can be raised with an excellent prospect of being able tò cover its financing and repayment out of operating income. Sources of possible grants include Community Development Block Grants, Local Development Matching Fund matching grants, Community Economic Development Strategies Fund, Transportation Funds, private foundation grants and direct legislative appropriation. With roughly half of the construction financing being supported directly by the facility, the prospects appear to be good for obtaining some kind of community development grant for the remainder. Securities It is expected that bonds or stock will be sold to cover most of the cost of construction. The interest or dividends will become part of the cost of operation. With a purely public form of organization, tax-deductable contributions and tax-exempt bonds would be possible. An effort to sell bonds to those most interested in the marina; i. e. Port Townsend residents and boat owners of the region would help to foster a community spirit through community ownership and thereby contribute in many small ways to the success of the marina. Another possibility is a non-profit or limited-profit community corporation which would issue securities for financing. The English Channel Tunnel is an example, though on a much larger scale, of a project being partially financed using this method. It gives those who are concerned about the facility a means of participating in the ownership. For the purposes of this study it is assumed that the debt will be fully retired before replacement or major restoration is required due to wear. Funds for replacement are to be accumulated from operating revenue after the debt is paid. (10) PTM2oo2 Feasibility Report 7/95 V. Marketing While Port Townsend is well-known among boaters of all types, the fact of a much-improved moorage facility will not immediately be well known. Therefore an appropriately-timed marketing campaign would help to maximize income during the first two or three years of operation or until Port Townsend becomes more habitually included in the itineraries of those traveling to and from Puget Sound. Unique location The basis of our market appeal is location. This is an ideal stopover point and has little competition in the immediate area. In addition, the many tourist attractions currently in place, the restaurants and shops downtown, the marine repair and construction services nearby are unsurpassed. The excellence of Port Townsend's assets can be seen by comparing it with its three nearest marina competitors: Port Hadlock, Port Ludlow and John Wayne Marina at Sequim Bay. While some of these have reasonably good moorage facilities, none have as convenient a location as Port Townsend and none begin to approach what Port Townsend has to offer in amenities and services. Competitive rates Rates for overnight moorage should be set at or near the competition, giving Port Townsend no disadvantage in that respect. Publicizing An appeal can be made to yacht clubs and boating associations, offering special rates if necessary for groups. Visibility at boat shows and similar events is available through the Economic Development Council. Ads in magazines will make the new marina known to an even wider audience. Updates to cruising guides and even the Coast Pilot will place Port Townsend back on the map as a highly desirable and practical port of call. (11) PTM2002 Feasibility Report 7/95 VI. Profitability Income The income projection is based on a moorage rate of $O.60/footlday and an avera~e extra electricity-hookup charge of $0.05/foot/day. The moorage capacity is assumed to be 5,535 feet which is 90 % of the 6,150 feet provided by the preliminary layout (derated to account for moorage being charged by vessel length not slip length). Average summer (4 months) occupancy is assumed to be 72% and average winter occupancy 20%. This gives an average occupancy of 37.4% for the year. Annual moorage fees: 37.4% x 5,535 ft. x $0.65/ftlday x 365 days = $491,000 Operating Expense Maintenance would be budgeted at 1.0% of the construction cost which would amount to spending half as much as the cost of the original construction over 50 years. Operating expenses further assume property insurance at 0.5 %, $2M liability insurance and $60,OOO/year employee expenses. Annual Operating expense: Maintenance Insurance $ 61,000 51,000 60,000 20,000 10,000 Employees utilities Advertising ------- Total $202,000 This leaves $289,OOO/year for capitat financing. At 7.2% interest with a 30-year payback this finances $3,514,000, leaving $2,571,000 to be raised through grants. At these levels, the amount needed in grants is quite sensitive to the average rate of occupancy: a one percentage point increase in the occupancy rate decreases the grant requirement by 7.1 %. It is impossible to know how much grant funding is required without precisely knowing the occupancy rate. (12) PTM2oo2 Feasibility Report 7/95 Since the occupancy rate is subject to a multitude of variable factors, there is no certain answer to this question. We feel that the rate used above is attainable and possibly could be higher. How well the marina is promoted, managed and complimented by the community clearly will influence the occupancy rate. This is something which the community has some control over and is one of the reasons that strong community approval and participation is important. Assuming the level of grant funding suggested above, a one percentage point increase in the occupancy rate would increase the return on the investment by 5.2 % . This is one reason why investment by people in the community is very desirable. Assuming a life of 50 years before major renovation, the 20-year period after payback would allow the accumulation of $9,756,000 out of operating expenses in a renovation fund earning 2 points less interest than assumed for the financing. Community Income In addition to the direct income from moorage fees, visiting vessels bring people who can be expected to spend several times what a drive-in visitor spends. This is due primarily to three factors: 1) competing supplies and services are at a much greater distance by boat; 2) resupplying will be taking place as a rule rather than as the exception; and 3) people traveling on boats tend to have more money to spend. Assuming an overall average of 50 vessels per day in the marina with three people per vessel yields 54,440 visitor-days per year. Using a conservative estimate of $50/person/day brings $2,722,000 per year in spending to the downtown businesses. If 4.2 % of this could be returned to help finance the marina it would reduce the grant requirement to about $1,000,000. If 6.8% were returned, it would eliminate the grant requirement. . Increased business for the marine trades in the area is an additional benefit to be expected; however no attempt to estimate that income has been attempted in this study. While a thorough economic analysis is beyond the scope of this report, it is easy to see that the benefits of the marina would touch every corner of the community. The beauty of this investment is that it is paid for by the users who come to help support our economy in a healthy way, leaving no negative impact, while enhancing the maritime flavor and helping to maintain the heritage of our Port City. (13) PTM2oo2 Feasibility Report 7/95 VII. Organizational Structure In order to build and operate the marina, either an existing business organization must be used or a new one formed. Existing organizations which may consider adopting this project are the Port of Port Townsend, the City of Port Townsend or perhaps some private developer. The Port obviously is already in the marina business and would be the logical choice. However the City is close to the concerns of this particular marina since it is tied to the essential downtown environment. We feel that it is unlikely that a purely private development would be acceptable to the people of this community. It is possible that the City and/or the Port could create a Public Development Authority (FDA) specifically for the purpose of building and operating this particular marina only. Since this marina has a distinct purpose and a special location, a special PDA may be the most suitable alternative. The following is excerpted from information provided by Mr. Spearman and Mr. Elliott: A PDA is a tool that any [Washington State] City or County [or Port Authority] may adopt by ordinance to undertake public projects. PDA's can be recipients of government and private grants and can issue tax-exempt debt. A PDA is an independent legal entity authorized under state law (RCW 35.21. 730) and local municipal code. It is chartered by a municipality to help upgrade the general living condition provided by that municipality. PDA's allow accomplishment of public purpose without becoming themselves regular functions of municipal government. Liabilities of PDA' s. must be satisfied from their own assets, without recourse to their charterer. A PDA can receive and administer federal funds, own and sell real and personal property, enter into contracts, loan and borrow funds, perform community services and allow for wide-ranging community participation in its activities. Relevant limitations of a PDA are: 1) it cannot levy taxes; and 2) it does not have the power of eminent domain. A PDA is governed by an unpaid board of directors which is responsible for managing and overseeing the affairs of the organization. The size of the board may vary from 8 to 18 members. Directors are usually appointed three- or four- year terms by the chartering municipality. A PDA operates under a corporate charter and corporate by-laws which spell out the rules and regulations of its operations. These by-laws may be unique to the nature of each individual PDA. . (14) PTM2oo2 Feasibility Report 7/95 Vill. Conclusion and Recommendation It appears to be feasible and desirable that a downtown marina be constructed and made operational be May, 2002. The PTM2oo2 committee recommends that the Port and the City of Port Townsend use the PDA as a means of moving ahead with further study and implementation of this project. The PDA would have the important advantages of disentangling the transient marina project from other projects, keeping its liability separate from the City and the Port and providing clear accountability. The charterer of the PDA, whether it be the City, the Port or both, would appoint the board of directors which could include Port Commissioners and City Council members. (15) PTM2oo2 Feasibility Report 7/95 IX. Project Scheduling A. Feasibility Report PTM2oo2 committee and other volunteers June, 1995 B. Community Review of Feasibility Report Port - Manager, Commissioners City - Mayor, City Council EDC - Director County - Planning Commission State - DNR, Fisheries Funding Sources Public Main Street Newspapers Service organizations August, 1995 C. Update Feasibility Report Incorporate data & commentary from Community Review Review direction & funding September, 1995 D. Go-ahead Decisions Port? - long-range planning PDA? Community Corporation? Fall, 1995 E. Grant Funding and Financing Preliminary design and permitting 1996,1997 F. Final Design and Permitting 1998,1999 G. Construction 2000,2001 H. Opening Day May 1, 2002 (16) PTM2oo2 Feasibility Report 7/95 X. Community Support This is very much a community-based and directed project. We solicit and need all and any inputs from interested individuals and groups. Your cooperation and help are absolutely essential if the project is to succeed. We can create a new downtown marina, for the benefit of our community, if we choose to do so. Slowly and surely we are moving in that direction. Respectfully submitted, PTM2002 Steering Committee ~~ Bill Plice A/ a-u... ~ Dave Udell ~k.5~ Mark Beaufait (17)