Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-02-25 Harbor Commission Packet - TAMS proposalFebruary 25, 1983 TO: Kenai City Council FROM: Kenai Advisory Harbor Commission SUBJECT: Contract for Proposal Kenai Small Boat Harbor Financial Analysis and Outline Design /Tippetts Abbett- McCarthy Stratton, A Professional Corporation A copy of the proposal is attached Submitted at the request of Chair jl At the regular meeting of the Kenai Advisory Harbor Commission, it was voted unanimously to recommend to the Kenai City Council and Administration that the contract as outlined in the proposal by TAMS be entered into CITY OF KENAI P. 0. 80X 580 KENAI, ALASKA 99611 TELEPHONE 183 7535 YRUPUbAL KENAI SMALL BOAT HARBOR FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AND OUTLINE DESIGN TAMS Engineers TIPPETTS ABBETT- McCARTHY- STRATTON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Anchorage, Alaska TABLE OF CONTENTS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 1. INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH 2. METHODOLOGY STATEMENT 3. DELIVERABLES AND REPORTING 4. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING 5. PROJECT SCHEDULE AND COST ESTIMATE TAMS TI F FETTS A BBETT Mc CARTHY- STRATTON A JtOfESSIONAL COJUt RA7JQN ENGINEFJ?S Mr. William J. Brighton, City Manager City of Kenai P.O. Box 580 Kenai, AK 99611 Dear Bill: February 15, 1983 Subject: Small Boat Harbor Financial Analysis and Outline Design We are pleased to submit herewith our proposal for the financial analysis and outline design phase of the small boat harbor project. The study as proposed will consist of an analysis of the commercial and recreational demand for a harbor in Kenai; development of design alternatives and selection of a preferred alternative; and a detailed analysis of construction and operating costs as well as potential economic benefits. A separate environmental review will identify potential impacts created by the harbor, and will be the first step of an ongoing process of consultation and cooperation with concerned state and federal regulatory agencies. The summary report will be distributed to interested citizens as well as the state officials who will determine funding. The total estimated cost of the study is $135,600. Our staff is available to commence work immediately after notification to proceed, and based on the enclosed schedule can complete the proposed work by late August of this year. This will allow time for final design and permit acquisition prior to the 1984 construction season. We appreciate this opportunity to submit our proposal and look forward to continuing our service to the City of Kenai. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, TIPPETTS ABBETT McCARTHY STRATTON Philip Perdichizzi, P.E. President 4791 BUSINESS PART: BOULEVARD, SUITE ONE ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 TELEPHONE (907) 5G2 -2822 PART 1 1. INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 During the past year TAMS has worked closely with the City of Kenai throughout the bluff erosion and river sedimentation studies and the design of interim small boat harbor facilities. To continue to move toward the goal of developing a modern, cost effective small boat harbor in Kenai, allocation of state funds must be justified. Therefore, we propose to undertake for the City a study to determine the potential demand and the financial feasibility of the project, and to prepare alterna- tive conceptual designs leading to selection of a preferred harbor plan. The proposed study consists of the following major tasks: A. Demand Analysis and Facility Inventory. B. Harbor Functional Requirements. C. Environmental Review. D. Formulation of Conceptual Harbor Alternatives. E. Selection of a Preferred Alternative. F. Financial /Benefit Analysis. The study approach will involve close cooperation with state and federal regulatory agencies which will facilitate permit acquisition and funding. We have also found it to be useful to hold public meetings in order to enlist comments and support from local citizens. To this end, we propose an inception meeting during the fourth week of the study to allow those interested to become involved at the outset. As well, another public hearing will be scheduled toward the end of the fourth month to review and critique alternative designs. We will publish working papers following major tasks which will serve as chapters in a draft report. Then, after a five week review period, a final report and executive summary will be prepared which takes into account comments from the public and the Harbor Commission. 1 1 1 1 1 The following pages describe our proposed study methodology, staffing and scheduling, and estimated cost of services. We are pleased to have the opportunity to submit this proposal and hope to continue our service to the City of Kenai. PART 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2. METHODOLOGY The overall project flow chart, which indicates the timing and interrelationship between tasks, is shown in the accompanying figure. Each of these tasks is discussed in greater detail below. A. Demand Analysis Commercial fishing boats will be the principal users of the proposed small boat harbor facility. Some additional usage by recreational craft may also occur. In order to specify the mix, number and size of slips, separate demand analyses will be undertaken for these two classes of vessels. The demand for moorage and upland facilities by commercial vessels will be projected using the following three step process. First, the Cook Inlet fishery resource will be examined and likely future developments noted, which will include: Analysis of historical trends of harvests, landings and value to fishermen. Analysis of likely annual harvests in Cook Inlet. i Evaluation of the biological state of the resources as indicated by optimal yield (0Y), maximum sustained yield and the like. e Evaluation of probable enhancement projects. 0) 0 0 0 4-• c 0) Ct. 0 c a) 3 E.9 c o 0 CC 1 0 1> (1) 0 0 0 0 ;r c 0 c 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 This step establishes the fishery resource base available to commercial fishermen wishing to moor in Kenai. The next step is to project the number and type of vessels required to harvest and land these fish, achieved by: o analyzing historical trends of fleet size and composi- tion by home port. o assessment of constraints imposed by the limited entry program. o evaluation of likely future vessel trends. This step establishes the details of the moorage market in Cook Inlet. The final step includes projecting the market share likely to be captured by the Kenai Harbor, as indicated by: o proximity to fishery resource o proximity to processing equipment o proximity to distribution networks o competition from other harbors. Discussions with fishermen and local and state officials and professional judgment will guide our efforts. The end product of this step will be a projection of the number of slips at the proposed harbor for each type of vessel in five year incre- ments. Demand for recreational moorage is controlled by the quality and safety of the adjacent waters, slip rates per lineal foot, proximity to the population base, demographic and income characteristics of the market population and other factors. The projected number of recreational users will be established as follows: First, Cook Inlet recreational boating market trends will be specified by econometrically correlating the growth of recrea- tional vessels with socioeconomic variables in the study area. The demand for wet and dry moorage requirements will be speci- fied by analysis of the existing mix of wet and dry moorage as adjusted for future trends. Next, Kenai's potential market share will be estimated by considering the existing and planned capacity of competing boat harbors, their rate structures, proximity to the population base and the perceived quality of the recreational experience. The end product will be an estimate of recreational vessels likely to require wet or dry moorage in Kenai for each five year period through the turn of the century. B. Aarbor Functional Requirements The analysis of functional requirements is necessary to deter- mine the facilities and services needed to accommodate the anticipated fleet. Primary design considerations include minimum operating draft, slip size, number of slips and berth configuration, onshore parking and access, and the provision of support facilities. Such facilities might include: o boat lift system fish unloading dock, cargo hoist e ice machine e dockside utilities is oil /bilge water and sanitary waste disposal tidal repair grid o launch ramp 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 fuel float onshore facilities (restrooms, office building, conces- sions, motor repair shop, net yard, etc.). The review of facility requirements will be based on TAMS' extensive experience in designing boat harbors throughout Alaska as well as comments received during the proposed public hearings to be held in Kenai. The result of the analysis will be a list of the necessary and desirable harbor elements to be included in the preparation of the conceptual design alter- natives. C. Environmental Revie The development of the proposed harbor site will entail some disruption of the local environment. To ensure that the disturbances are minimized, and to develop a suitable working relationship with the affected regulatory agencies (Corps of Engineers, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, etc.), an environmental analyst will conduct a site inspection and introduce the project to the various state and federal organizations. We have been successful on previous projects in obtaining the necessary permits and approvals in a timely and orderly manner by working closely with interested agencies from the beginning of a project. By identifying potential sources of environmen- tal concern at an early stage of the project the harbor design can be readily modified to minimize the negative impacts. D. Formulation of Conceptual Harbor Alternatives Based on the results of the sedimentation analysis and the definition of functional requirements, several conceptual designs for the harbor will be developed. The alternatives 1 1 a 1 1 a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 will consider varying basin and berthing configurations, onshore access, and support facilities, to determine the most efficient, attractive and cost effective harbor plan. A major consideration in planning the harbor will be the evaluation of the harbor entrance channel. Alternatives to be reviewed include: full tide entry sedimentation sill (half -tide entry) lock system Final conclusions from the sediment study, along with a review of the construction and operating costs associated with each alternative, will be used to determine the most appropriate harbor entrance. Sediment deposition will significantly influence the design of the boat basin as well. The study will use the computer model of the river, developed under our existing contract, to analyze various basin configurations and other means of reducing sediment deposition. As the boat harbor will be frozen during the winter, marine structures such as piling and floats must be protected against ice damage. Kenai is in a transition zone between the rela- tively ice -free waters of Homer and the significant icing problems of the Anchorage area. Some local installations have had no major ice problems, while others have suffered damage. Typical concerns include ice induced stresses on cross bracing and timber piles, as well as ice buildup on pilings and dock structures. In northern harbors the following systems have been employed to Prevent ice damage to marine structures: removal of floats (and timber piles) each winter e permanent, sheet pile systems Recently a number of float manufacturers have suggested that systems using floats designed to be pushed vertically upwards by thermal ice forces may be left in place during the winter months. We will examine this design concept and its relevancy to the proposed harbor. Methods to prevent ice damage will be evaluated for long term reliability, initial cost, annual operating and maintenance expense, and convenience for harbor users. E. Selection of a Preferred Alternative Criteria involved in the selection process will include but not be limited to: suitability of ground conditions, potential for expansion, cost of site preparation and development, operations and maintenance costs, revenue potential, environmental accept- ability, onshore access and conflict with adjacent property owners. Based on comments received from the Harbor Commission and members of the community, a preferred harbor plan will be selected. During the second public hearing, the conceptual harbor designs and recommended alternative will be presented. Suggestions received at the meeting for modifications or additions to that plan will be carefully considered. The completed plan will then serve as the basis for final design efforts, and will be used to initiate the permit acquisition process. F. Financial /Benefit Analysis The boat harbor will be evaluated with regard to its expected financial performance as well as to the additional benefits that may accrue to local and state residents as follows: First the cash flow from expected revenues and costs will be evaluated. Potential revenue sources include moorage rates, fees, leases and the like. Capital costs will be affected by the source of financing, since the amortization schedule depends upon whether financing comes in whole or in part from grants, revenue bonds, general obligation bonds, or private preferential use agreements. Preferred methods of finance will be recommended. Since operations and maintenance costs are likewise sensitive to organizational structures and contractural agreements, an analysis of cost structures resulting from different regimens will also be undertaken. Several options are possible. The City could choose to own and operate the facility or lease or sell the complete operation or any component (i.e., repair facilities, concessions, etc.). Attention will be given to the manpower, equipment, administrative and other variable costs associated with each type of organization and contract. In addition, harbor configurations will be examined to minimize maintenance dredging which is particularly important given possible future user charges associated with Corps of Engineers projects. That system which provides the least cost /highest return, has the greatest probability of success and best meets client needs will be recommended. The estimated annual revenue will be compared to annual opera- tion and maintenance expenses and capital cost debt retirement to determine financial feasibility, as indicated by net present value, internal rate of return and payback period. Financial feasibility alone, however, is not always a true indication of the feasibility or true worth of a project of this nature. Therefore, we will also examine additional economic benefits and costs that may occur as result of con- struction and operation of the harbor facilities, such as: s additional employment opportunities s reductions of transportation costs to major distribution networks s reductions of waiting time by fishermen and consequent improved quality of product e provision of safe harbor facilities. In sum, our economic analysis will consider both direct and indirect benefits and costs, and the related trade offs, that may develop as a result of the construction of the proposed facility. PART 3 c t c 8 I 1 1 1 3. DELIVERABLES AND REPORTING We will produce a series of working papers as indicated below. These working papers will be presented to the Harbor Commission for review and comments. It is our intent that each working paper will be a chapter in the draft report which will be submitted on the 16th week of the project. Working Paper Due Date Demand Analysis and Facility Inventory Harbor Functional Requirements Environmental Review Conceptual Design Alternatives Preliminary Cost Estimates 8th week 10th week 15th week 15th week 15th week Following a public hearing and review period, an executive summary outlining the basic elements of the study and a more comprehensive backup document will be presented during the twenty- fourth week. 1 1 1 1 PART 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 4. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING The organization of the study team is documented in the accom- panying figure. All work will be performed under the overall direction of the Principal -in- Charge with detailed execution of the project carried out under the Project Manager. Resumes of all team members follow the Project Organization Chart. Principal-in- Charge Philip Perdichizzi, President of TAMS, A Professional Corpora- tion, will continue to be the principal -in- charge of the Kenai project and will be responsible for all work performed. Project Manager Mike Horton will be continuing his assignment as the Project Manager, being responsible for coordination of the study team and for the successful completion of all deliverables. Project Engineer' Jay Lyman will serve as project engineer for this study and will be responsible for day to day project leadership. Follow- ing his participation in the Kenai River sedimentation analysis he is well aware of the nature of the project. Recent efforts include design studies for proposed small boat harbors in Nome and Juneau, and port engineering and planning assignments for the Port of Anchorage and the Port of Tacoma, Washington. Resumes of TAMS personnel follow. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FACILITY PLANNERS DEMAND ANALYSTS Gary Schneider Paul Sorensen Bill Bunselmeyer Jay Lyman MARINE /STRUCTURAL GEOTECHNICAL ANALYST ENGINEERS Tetsu Yasuda Mike Raymond Ross Fenton ECONOMICS AND FINANCE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER Paul Sorensen Scott Emery COASTAL ENGINEERS Armando Balloffet Mike Tumulty Deva Borah PROJECT ORGANIZATION CHART KENAI SMALL BOAT HARBOR PRINCIPAL -IN- CHARGE Philip Perdichizzi PROJECT MANAGER Mike Horton PROJECT ENGINEER Jay Lyman Tom Bobal PART 5 5. PROJECT SCHEDULE AND COST ESTIMATE Project Schedule Completion of the study is anticipated by the 25th week after project commencement. This schedule allows a six week review period between presentation of draft and final reports. The work program is illustrated on the following page and includes dates for submittal of reports and public hearings. Cost Estimate The total estimated cost of both the financial and outline design studies is $135,600. The cost breakdown indicated in the accompanying table includes all professional services, travel to and from the project location and out of pocket expenses directly attributable to the work. Task Estimated Cost 1. Demand Analysis and Facility Inventory 2. Harbor Functional Requirements 3. Environmental Review 4. Conceptual Design Alternatives 5. Preliminary Cost Estimate 6. Financial /Benefit Analysis 7. Analysis of Preferred Alternative 8. Report Production Total Project Cost $18,700 8,000 11,000 36,600 8,500 20,100 15,400 17,300 $135,600 We are able to perform the work either under a lump sum con- tract or on a "cost not to exceed basis" whichever may be more convenient to the City. 1 1 1 1 z 0 co co 11 CC 0 4 U us CO 0 0 o u) <0 w< 1 1 4 1 1 C c Ill la 0-1 0 a, 0 M 4.3 N C U N H C C C C (1) 4 E ro C r-1 1� H la E U A c C) rt La G ca ro U v m a C 4 N W 1n O N CU C) C Q V1 C/ N >1 CO 44 CU .a u 0 Rj -.-1 in y r-I 0 C4-4 Cv r0 CO U) C)4 44 0) -HI 4.4 H .H -r, S, I a C E 0 0 0 0 4 C v Ls •,-1 E C >v Cl S.! 0 C1 HI •H Ill HI r- 1-- C) C4) v+0 C m ro v,. O r 14 N •H C C La r w