What a Difference a Plan Makes Master Planning and Realignment of Marinas

1. What a Difference a Plan MakesMaster Planning and Realignment of Marinas Pacific Coast Congress April 13, 2006 Julie Bassuk, AICP, partner, MAKERS Paul Sorensen, principal, BST Associates

2. Isn’t master planning risky?

3. Case Study • Oak Harbor Marina Master Plan • An unexpected solution • Saved the community millions • Built political will to fund marina reconstruction • Generated broad-based community support • Will result in a first class marina & long term community asset

4. Orientation • Northeast side of Whidbey Island • 90 miles north of Seattle • 5 upland & 24 in-water acres

5. History • Formerly a Navy base & seaplane ramp • Site transferred to City of Oak Harbor • Marina built in 1974 with the promisethat no City funding would be used • Dave Williams, a former Air StationCaptain, is the current harbormaster

6. The Marina Today • 350 permanent tenants, • 24 – 50 foot slips • 130 covered slips • Breakwater dock w/ 50 transient slips • Boat ramp, monorail, fuel dock • Constrained upland • Wedged between Navy, Yacht Club, & boat repair yard • Contains a small harbormaster’s office, storage sheds, auto & trailer parking, a small park….

7. The Problem • Oak Harbor Marina is a community asset in danger of becoming a liability • Slip mix does not meet demand • There is no capital replacement fund

8. The Core Team Edmonds Marina Master Planning Experience: • PND: 25 years • MAKERS: 35 years • BST: 30 years Fishermen’s Terminal Blaine Harbor CapSante, Anacortes Des Moines

9. Achieving Success • Balancing objectives • Thorough backgroundresearch &independent analysis • Exhausting alternate solutions • Building support

10. Balancing Objectives:The Harbormaster • Address critical maintenance issues • Dredge • Upgrade electric • Repair existing docks • Reconfigure slips to meet market demand • If you can, • Expand the marina

11. Balancing Objectives:The City • Increase community activity & the value of the marina to the community • Improve a key site of the City’swaterfront redevelopment program

12. Balancing Objectives:The Stakeholders • Address in-water facilities first • Retain covered moorage • Increase slip sizes to meet market • Provide a separate multi-use / fishing float • Improve link to downtown • Include boater services

13. Research & Analysis:Hydrographic Survey

14. Research & Analysis:Existing Conditions • After over 30 years of service, floats are nearing the end of their useful life • Siltation is causing float damage at low tide • Electric service is at capacity & many service connections/pedestals are in poor condition • Many structural elements are in poor condition • Fire protection system is not code compliant

15. Research & Analysis:Market Analysis • Competitive Assessment • Demand Forecasts • Existing performance • Existing market area • Waitlist trends • Demand forecasts • Industry & Tenant input • Capture rate • Iterative process to select optimal slip mix

16. Market AnalysisCompetitive Assessment • Too many small slips, too few large slips 17% - 25% more small slips than other area marinas

17. Market AnalysisVacancy Rate – Small Slips Vacancy Rate for small slips has been growing each year.

18. Market AnalysisVacancy Rate – Large Slips Vacancy Rate for large slips (36 and up) has been stable.

19. Market Analysis Waitlist Waitlist at 104 boats, strongest in longer slips.

20. Market AnalysisLocation of Current Tenants About 80% of owners from Whidbey Island, 12% from Central Puget Sound, rest from other parts of Washington state and outside the state.

21. Market AnalysisDemand Forecast New boats in Washington State • Based on Regression Analysis

22. Market AnalysisDemand Forecast New boats likely to be captured by Oak Harbor

23. Exhausting Alternative Solutions • Analysis revealed • Retaining existing docks increases maintenance expense & vacancies • Spending less now means spending more later • Building fewer slips reduces bond capacity • Eliminating covered moorage & public facilities reduces costs, but, does not meet tenant needs & reduces community benefits • Building a solely market-based slip mix does not accommodate many existing tenants

24. Research & Analysis:Developing a Recommended Slip Mix • Market analysis, existing tenant profile, and stakeholder input used to develop a recommended slip mix total slips covered slips

25. Summary:Existing In-Water Facilities Issues

26. In-Water Facilities Recommendations

27. Cost Estimate • $18.6 M for in-water projects • Plus $3.5M – $4.5M in upland improvement projects Reality Sinks In!

28. Marina’s Funding Capability • The Oak Harbor Marina has been self-sustaining since its construction in 1974 • No capital replacement fund is available • Primary funding source is revenue bond • RevenueBond Capacity: $ 8.1 M(with existing moorage rates) $ 9.7 M(with increased rates) • Project Cost: $ 18.6 M(in-water elements only) • Shortfall: $ 10.5 M with existing rates $ 8.9 M with increased rates • Assumptions: • 25 year bond • Interest rate at at 4.5% • Debt service coverage factor of 1.25

29. Building Support • To make finding additional funds a City priority, the Team: • Emphasized community benefits & meeting of City goals • Minimized costs where possible • Identified potential additional funding sources • Focused on the positive Effective communication is critical!

30. Building Support:Community Benefit • New slip mix generates approx. $5.2 M per year in direct revenue = $156 M in revenue over 30 years • Includes public access elements • Supports community programs • Creates a signature waterfront destination * Estimate based on surveys of permanent and transient boaters conducted in 2005

31. Building Support:Minimizing Costs • Builds in a single construction phase • Pursues partial grant funding • Eliminates “band-aid” costs • Reduces dredge volume by accounting for varying vessel drafts (power boats vs. sail boats) • Allows for clamshell dredge (vs. hydraulic) • Removes creosote piles and sunken barges (debris barrier), which may also be considered as mitigation

32. Building Support:Identifying Alternate Funding Sources • General obligation bonds and / or other city funding • Grant funding for public use dock or public access improvements • Park impact fees for park improvements • Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) • Interfund loan • New revenue producing uses (long term)

33. Building Support:Focus on the Positive • Generates approx. $5.2 M per year in direct revenue • Improves the waterfront per the City’s plans • Ensures the marina remains an asset • Meets market demand • Minimizes cost • Builds a quality facility • Benefits the community

34. The Result of Planning • A well received plan thatis City’s top priority • An unexpected solution that • Saved the community millions • Built political will to fund marina reconstruction • Generated broad-based community support • Will result in a first class marina and long term community asset

35. Master Planning and Realignment of Marinas THANK YOU! What a Difference a Plan Makes Pacific Coast Congress April 13, 2006 Julie Bassuk, AICP, partner, MAKERS Paul Sorensen, principal, BST Associates