What a Difference a Plan MakesMaster Planning and Realignment of Marinas

Pacific Coast CongressApril 13, 2006Julie Bassuk, AICP, partner, MAKERSPaul Sorensen, principal, BST Associates

architecture urban design

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 promise

that no City funding would be used Dave Williams, a former Air Station

Captain, 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

Blaine Harbor

Marina Master Planning Experience: PND: 25 years MAKERS: 35 years BST: 30 years

Cap Sante,Anacortes

Fishermen’s Terminal

Edmonds

Des Moines

9

Achieving Success

Balancing objectives Thorough background

research &independent analysis

Exhausting alternate solutions

Building support

10

Address critical maintenance issues

Dredge Upgrade electric Repair existing docks Reconfigure slips to meet market

demand If you can,

Expand the marina

Balancing Objectives: The Harbormaster

11

Increase community activity & the value of the marina to the community

Improve a key site of the City’swaterfront redevelopment program

Balancing Objectives: The City

12

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

Balancing Objectives: The Stakeholders

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

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

Research & Analysis: Market Analysis

16

Market Analysis Competitive Assessment

Too many small slips, too few large slips

0%

25% 25%

17%

23%

1%

7%

0% 0% 0%0% 0%

35%

14%

31%

4%

12%

0%3%

1%1%

8%

29%

10%

29%

6%9%

0%

6%

2%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Lessthan 20

feet

21 to 25feet

26 to 30feet

31 to 35feet

36 to 40feet

41 to 45feet

46 to 50feet

51 to 55feet

56 to 60feet

Morethan 60

feet

Oak Harbor Skagit County Northern Sound

17% - 25% more small slips than other area marinas

17

Market Analysis Vacancy Rate – Small Slips

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2001 2002 2003 2004

Vacancy Rate for small slips has been growing each year.

18

Market Analysis Vacancy Rate – Large Slips

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2001 2002 2003 2004

Vacancy Rate for large slips (36 and up) has been stable.

19

Market Analysis Waitlist

05

1015202530354045

32 36 40 50

Length of Slip

Num

ber o

f Ves

sels

Covered Open

Waitlist at 104 boats, strongest in longer slips.

20

!

!

!

!

!

B e l l i n g h a m

A n a c o r t e s

O a k H a r b o r

C o u p e v i l l e

E v e r e t tM a r i n a O w n e r s

N o O w n e r s 1 o r 2 O w n e r s 3 t o 5 O w n e r s 6 t o 1 0 O w n e r s 1 1 t o 2 0 O w n e r s 2 0 + O w n e r s

Market Analysis Location 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

Year 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 Over 60' TotalPrimary & Secondary Markets2004 10,809 4,771 2,539 1,977 1,040 517 187 101 159 22,100 2020 13,102 5,783 3,745 2,916 1,684 837 322 174 392 28,956 CAGR 1.2% 1.2% 2.5% 2.5% 3.1% 3.1% 3.5% 3.5% 5.8% 1.7%Other Washington2004 10,960 5,239 1,993 1,392 567 132 60 18 33 20,394 2020 14,103 6,741 2,759 1,927 857 200 98 29 61 26,775 CAGR 1.6% 1.6% 2.1% 2.1% 2.6% 2.6% 3.1% 3.1% 3.9% 1.7%Washington Total2004 21,769 10,010 4,532 3,369 1,607 649 247 119 192 42,494 2020 27,266 12,538 6,498 4,831 2,531 1,022 417 201 411 55,716 CAGR 1.4% 1.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2.9% 2.9% 3.3% 3.3% 4.9% 1.7%Other (Outside Washington)2004 132 199 125 82 25 15 4 2 3 587 2020 165 249 179 118 39 24 7 3 6 791 CAGR 1.4% 1.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2.9% 2.9% 3.3% 3.3% 4.9% 1.9%Total2004 21,901 10,209 4,657 3,451 1,632 664 251 121 195 43,081 2020 27,432 12,787 6,678 4,948 2,571 1,046 423 204 417 56,506 CAGR 1.4% 1.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2.9% 2.9% 3.3% 3.3% 4.9% 1.7%

New Boats 5,531 2,578 2,021 1,497 939 382 172 83 222 13,425

New boats in Washington State

Based on Regression Analysis

22

New boats likely to be captured by Oak Harbor

Market AnalysisDemand Forecast

23

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

Exhausting Alternative Solutions

24

Research & Analysis: Developing a Recommended Slip Mix

Market analysis, existing tenant profile, and stakeholder input used to develop a recommended slip mix

covered slips

total 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

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 ratesAssumptions: • 25 year bond• Interest rate at at 4.5% • Debt service coverage factor of 1.25

Marina’s Funding Capability

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

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

Building Support:Community Benefit

31

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

Building Support:Minimizing Costs

32

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)

Building Support:Identifying Alternate Funding Sources

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

What a Difference a Plan Makes

Pacific Coast CongressApril 13, 2006

THANK YOU!

Master Planning and Realignment of Marinas

architecture urban design

Julie Bassuk, AICP, partner, MAKERSPaul Sorensen, principal, BST Associates