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

2. 2 Isn’t master planning risky?

3. 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. 4 Orientation Northeast side of Whidbey Island 90 miles north of Seattle 5 upland & 24 in-water acres

5. 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. 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. 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. 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. 9 Achieving Success Balancing objectives Thorough background research & independent analysis Exhausting alternate solutions Building support

10. 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. 11 Increase community activity & the value of the marina to the community Improve a key site of the City’s waterfront redevelopment program Balancing Objectives: The City

12. 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. 13 Research & Analysis: Hydrographic Survey

14. 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. 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. 16 Market Analysis Competitive Assessment Too many small slips, too few large slips 17% - 25% more small slips than other area marinas

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

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

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

20. 20 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. 21 Market Analysis Demand Forecast New boats in Washington State Based on Regression Analysis

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

23. 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. 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. 25 Summary: Existing In-Water Facilities Issues

26. 26 In-Water Facilities Recommendations

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

28. 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 Revenue Bond 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 Marina’s Funding Capability

29. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 34 The Result of Planning A well received plan that is 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. What a Difference a Plan Makes Pacific Coast Congress April 13, 2006 THANK YOU! Master Planning and Realignment of Marinas Julie Bassuk, AICP, partner, MAKERS Paul Sorensen, principal, BST Associates