Vienna waterfront plan town of Vienna, Maryland

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

WATERF N PLAN
VIENNA, MARYLAND

roll,
:4 -N

411

HT
168
-M3
V54
Ro

T
63
M3
54
1983
CREVELING ASSOCIATES'

VIENNA WATERFRONT PLAN
Town of Vienna, Maryland

May, 1983

Town Commissioners
Dewey E. Blades, President
Winfield Bell
Wm. Mark Dennis
Harold Richardson (former Commissioner)

Consultants
Kenneth Creveling Associates
Fairfax, Virginia

Site Design: John J. Gattuso, ASLA
Conceptual Sketches: Robert P. Winthrop, AIA

Q5,v-z-qjq OSD jo Aalado-td

Funds for this study and plan were provided by the Maryland Department
of Natural Resources, Tidewater Administration, through a grant from the
Federal Coastal Energy Impact Program.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Paqe

I. INTRODUCTION I

Relation to Town Comprehensive Plan 1
Source of Funding 1
Scope of Waterfront Studies and Plans 2

II. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3

Existing Conditions 3
Design Concept 7
Major Elements of the Plan 8

III. IMPLEMENTATION 14

Cost and Phasinq of Development 14
Financina 15
Recommenae'd Initial Actions 19

IV. POTENTIAL MARKET SUPPORT FOR WATERFRONT RESTAURANT 22

Background 22
U.S. 50 Traffic 24
The Local Food Service Industry 28
Projected Local Market Area Expenditures for
Eating Out 32
Potential Market Capture and Sales 34

APPENDIX A.

Vienna Waterfront Plan Construction Cost Estimate A-1

APPENDIX B.

Delmarva Power & Light Company Estimate for
Relocating Overhead Utility Services (Correspondence) B-1

APPENDIX C.

Supplemental Market Support Tables C-1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Paae

1. The Vienna Riverfront 4

2. Character of Water Street Homes 6

3. Vienna Waterfront Plan (fold out) 9

4. An Aerial View 10

5. A View Up The Nanticoke 13

6. Riverfront Restaurant and Boardwalk 23

7. Trends of Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)
on U.S. 50 Near Vienna, 1971-1981 25

8. Monthly Variations in Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
on U.S. 50 Near Vienna, 1981 27

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Ownership and Assessment Data for Waterfront Properties 5

2. Potential Phasing of Implementation of Town Projects
Included in the Vienna Waterfront Plan 16

3. Recent Trends in Taxable Sales at Restaurants and Other
Food Service Establishments, Maryland Eastern Shore
Counties, FY 79-82 29

4. Recent Trends of Taxable Sales at Food Service Establish-
ments With and Without Alcoholic Beverage Licenses in
the Vienna Market Area 31

5. Potential Expenditures for Eating Out by Residents of
the Vienna Market Area, 1980-1995 33

6. Potential Food and Beverage Sales at Vienna Waterfront
Restaurant 35

A-1. Vienna Waterfront Plan Construction Cost Estimate A-1

C-1. Variation of Traffic Flow on U.S. 50 Near Vienna by
Day and Month, 1981 C-1

C-2. Average Number of Vehicles Per Hour (VPH) During Lunch
and Dinner Periods by Month on U.S. 50 Near Vienna,
1981 C-2

C-3. Characteristics of Eating and Drinking Establishments
in Maryland Eastern Shore Counties, 1977 C-3

1. INTRODUCTION

Relation to Town Comprehensive Plan

The 1981 Vienna Area Comprehensive Plan proposed the redevelopment of
the Town's Nanticoke River waterfront as a place for public use and
compatible commercial activity. Under this'proposal, the appearance and
accessibility of the waterfront would be improved to benefit Town resi-
dents and to stimulate local economic growth through tourism.

Waterfront redevelopment will have a significant role in promoting local
tourist trade, in revitalizing the Town's old business area, in attract-
ing future residents, and in preserving the Town's historic character.
Vienna Heritage Days, an annual crafts and entertainment festival, and a
budding "bed'n breakfast" industry are indicative of local interest in
the Town's growth and of its potenti al.

Source of Funding

After completion and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the Town applied
for a grant from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Tidewater
Administration to prepare detailed plans for its waterfront area. Funded
under the Federal Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP), the grant was
awarded to the Town in 1982. At the time of application, CEIP funds were
available to communities impacted by coastal energy facilities and offshore
energy-related development programs. An important objective of waterfront
redevelopment in Vienna is to offset visual and other impacts associated
with the existing Delmarva Power & Light Company power plant and its pro-
posed major expansion on lands immediately adjacent to and upriver from
the Town.

Scope of Waterfront Studies and Plans

A consulting firm, Kenneth Creveling Associates of Fairfax, Virginia was
retained in September., .1982 to prepare detailed studies and plans on
behalf of the Town, as follows:

* Preliminary and final site plans for the waterfront area, defined
as the all lands generally between Water Street and the Nanticoke
River downriver of the U.S. 50 bridae.

0 Construction specifications and cost estimates for proposed im-
provements.

The following documents have been prepared, submitted to, and approved
by the Commissioners of Vienna:

* This Waterfront Plan report which describes and illustrates water-
front redevelopment proposals, discusses phasing and implementation,
assesses the potential market support for a waterfront restaurant,
and presents construction cost estimates.

0 Sketch renderings mounted for display purposes.

* A 14-sheet set of final plans at 1"=20', covering demolitions and
removals, grading, site development, and planting, and associated
construction details for such features as decks and bulkheads. A
set of 1'=50' preliminary plans was also prepared and submitted.

0 Construction specifications in booklet form.

* A topographic base map of the waterfront area Drepared by aerial
photogrammetric means at 1'=50" with a two foot contour interval.

-2-

11. DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Existing Conditions

The waterfront redevelopment area extends approximately 1,300 feet along
the Nanticoke River on the downriver side of the U.S. 50 bridge. Depth
of this area varies from 80 to 180 feet between the shoreline and Water
Street, which is the landward boundary of.much of the redevelopment area.

Nine properties make up this area, as shown in Figure 1. Three are already
owned by the Town of Vienna, including the site of the historic Customs
House, the old Coast Guard station site, and a boat ramp, which once
functioned as a ferry slip before the bridge was built over the Nanticoke
River. Owners, assessed values, and other information for the nine proper-
ties are listed in Table 1.

The character of Vienna's historic district and views of and from the fine
old homes lining Water Street are diminished by unsightly conditions along
the waterfront. Once a thriving and vital location for water transportation
and industry, the old steamboat berth, cannery, and granary exist today
only as foundations, vacant or inactive buildings, and other remnants.
Where it exists, timber bulkheading has deteriorated, and the area generally
shows neglect.

Meanwhile, the potential of the waterfront area is reflected by the row of
18th and 19th Century homes along Water Street. These homes are repre-
sentative of the historic character and quiet charm of Vienna and provide
a handsome backdrop for waterfront redevelopment, as Figure 2 reveals.

-3-

Private Properties Included in
Waterfront Improvement Project -B,C,E,FH&I

Town - Owned Properties
A - Customs House
X
0 - Coast Guard Station
G - Boat Ramp

go
1J

X -Y

FIT /D

N A N T I C 0 K E R IV I- R
F-71

Scale in Feet

25 50 150
FI-F-1-1-L-J THE VIENNA F
so 0 "a "o

Table I

OWNERSHIP AND ASSESSMENT DATA FOR WATERFRONT PROPERTIES

Property Owner of Tax Map/ Assessed Value M Site Area Comment or
Designation Record Deed No. Land ImDrovements Total (square feet) Present Use

A Town of Vienna 177/435 3,000 1,000 4,000 4,360 old Customs House

B C. Calvert Evans
and Dorothy D. 209/259 14,000 5,000 19,000 13,964 residence; old steam-
boat berth (part)

C Deborah W. Guinta
and Linda Gorman 221/705 41,090 13,710 54,800 41,100t old cannery site

D Town of Vienna 217/636 10,500 33,820 44,320 9,649 old Coast Guard station

E Ann W. Denniston et al
(formerly Nellie M.
Webb) 224/669 6,130 - 6,130 26,180 undeveloped

F Roland E. Trego
& Sons, Inc. 177/562 30,650 350 31,000 30,649 old granary site
G Town of Vienna 156/252 5,200 7 500(2) 12,700 5,500 boat ramp; old ferry
slip
H Herman L. & part of (3)
Katherine E. Bradley 205/3135 1*500t - 1,500� 4,500t undeveloped; part of
residential property
I Trego Construction, Inc. 201/164 42,570 20,570 63,140 42,360 (4) marine contractor's
yard

(1) As designated on FiguFe-_l.
(2) Nature of improvements is not clear.
(3) Portion of property included in waterfront improvement project is approximately 4,500 s.f. above water line; land valuation
) estimate for this portion is proportional to assessed value for total land area of property.
(4 Measured area of property is greater than as shown in County tax records.

Source: Dorchester County tax assessors office; and Kenneth Creveling Associates.

Ell

VIA*
la(lA

Figure 2
Character Of Water Street Homes

Design Concept

The Vienna Waterfront Plan reflects these design objectives:

Improvement of the appearance of the riverfront area to make it
and the Town more attractive to residents, potential investors,
and tourists.

Provision of access to and use of the riverfront primarily by
Town residents.

* Reinforcement of the maritime history of the riverfront and Town
of Vienna.

* Preservation of natural shorelines and creation of natural amen-
ities on presently disturbed sites.

* Provision of opport unities for beneficial and compatible commercial
development in prescribed riverfront sections.

Toward these ends, the Vienna waterfront would be redeveloped primarily
as a public open space for passive enjoyment by Town residents, rather
than as an active recreation a-rea. Commercial development would be limited
to only those riverfront properties which also front on U.S. 50. No public
access to commercial properties would be provided from Race or Water Streets.

Existing buildings, except the historic old Customs House, and other
structural features would be removed. After removal of structures and
some re-grading, most of the waterfront area would be seeded with grasses
and planted with trees and shrubs appropriate to the coastal environment.
Landscape treatment would be designed for low maintenance and to produce
an attractive riverfront setting for the Town. Use of natural materials
would be reinforced by constructing pathways of crushed oyster shells.

-7-

Wooden boardwalks wo uld extend along and cover existing bulkheads to accom-
modate pedestrian enjoyment of the riverfront and improve shoreline appear-
ance. Existing timber bulkheads would be repaired and stabilized, as
needed, and natural shoreline sections would remain generally undisturbed.
A section of boardwalk will link the Town park with a proposed riverfront
restaurant (commercial development), so that restaurant patrons may also
enjoy nearby sections of the waterfront during their visit. Tie-ups and
moorings would be provided along the waterfront for boats owned by resi-
dents and for visitors to Vienna.

Overhead electric and telephone services along Water Street would be re-
located underground. Street lighting would be provided instead using
poles and fixtures in keepina with the nautical and historic character
of Vienna. In addition to the existing old Customs House at the Church.
Street intersection with Water Street, the old ferry tender's office
would be re-established adjacent to the boat ramp (old ferry slip) at
the foot of Race Street to add historic interest in the waterfront area.

The Vienna Waterfront Plan is shown in Figure 3. An aerial perspective on
the Plan is provided by Figure 4. Major elements of the Plan are described
further below.

Major Eelments of the Plan

Old Customs House. The old@Customs House, which dates to 1768, is a reminder
of the days when Vienna was a leading port of entry on the Eastern Shore.
The small three-level brick and frame structure is being-carefully restored
by the Town. Removal of nearby waterfront structures and the introduction
of new plantings and other landscaping improvements will enhance the setting
of and access to this historic symbol of old Vienna.

-8-

PLAN ELEMENTS
1 Customs House Restoration
2 Open Shelter/Coast Guard Sta. Site lmprvt.
3 Boat Ramp /Relocated 'and Restored
Ferry Tender s Office I old Town Hal I
4 Riverf ront Restaurant (private development . .....
5 Fishing Pier (Rt.:50 stub)

ul-, @,j
LU

_7,

T
DE

WATER STRE'E.T

;7:
-A
A,

WALK 11;11: !AYIP !;:@1;011111

NANTICOKE R I V E R

FISHING'IPIER

Figure 3
VIENNA WATERFRONT PLAN
Scale In Feet
VIENNA MARYLAND.
25 so 150

so 0 100 200 Kenneth Creveling Associates

SCALEIN FEET
John J. Gattuso, ASLA

mum M M M M M MM

Figure 4
An Aerial View

Open Shelter/Boat Dock. The old Coast Guard station site would be redevel-
oped as the centerpiece of th e passive park area. Existing structures and
pavements would be removed and replaced by natural grasses and shrubs, wood
decking on the existing pier, and an open-sided shelter at the head of the
pier. The latter would provide a place for relaxed enjoyment of the water-
front park and river views in a shaded environment.

Boat Ramp/Ferry Crossing. F-xisting Town property and the public boat ramp
at the foot of Race Street will be improved as both a recreational feature
and historic site. The ramp itself needs resurfacing and repair and sta-
bilization of side walls. Some approach channel dredging may also be
necessary. A small (3-5 cars) off-street parking area for motor vehicles
and boat trailers adjacent ot the ramp'is recommended as an additional
convenience to ramp users largely to prevent or minimize parking along
Water Street. The existing portable toilet should be removed entirely
or., at minimum, relocated to the nearby firehouse property, where most
parking for ramp users is provided.

Long before becoming a recreational facility, the ramp site served an
important water tran sportation function, linking Vienna with communities
to the south. Ferry service across.. the Nanticoke River was discontinued
in 1931 when the existing U.S. 50 bridge was opened. The small ferry
tender's office was moved to a site on Race Street and until recently
served as the Town Hall. Now vacant, it is fitting to relocate this
structure back to the boat ramp site as an historic feature of the water-
front. Old photographs of Vienna show the ferry tender's office located on
the upriver side of the ramp.

Filling and bulkheading adjacent to the ramp will be necessary to create
land for siting this structure. To add to the historic character of the
ramp site, aquisition and restoration of an old river ferry of the type
which once crossed the Nanticoke is recommended highly. There are a few
remaining local ferry operations on Eastern Shore waterways from which-an
old unused vessel might be obtained.

Waterfront Restaurant. Vienna offers an exceptional opportunity for private
investment in developing and operating a restaurant on an established tourist
travel route, and in an attractive old Eastern Shore waterfront settinq.
Upper Eastern Shore communities such as St. Michaels, Chestertown, and
Chesapeake City provide examples of the possibilities in Vienna.

The Waterfront Plan makes provision for an approximate 200-seat restaurant
on the site presently occupied by Trego, Construction, a marine contracting
firm. Parking for some 80 cars is shown on the Plan. Information and
analyses supporting this waterfront restaurant proposal are presented in
Section IV of this report.

Fishing Pier (U.S. 50 Bridge). The Maryland State Highway Administration
is preparing plans for the relocation of U.S. 50 around Vienna and con-
struction of a new high span bridge upriver from the existing bridge. When
construction of the bypass route will take place is indefinite, but some.
progress is reasonable to expect around 1990. The new route and River
crossing will render the existing drawbridge obsolete and subject to closure
and dismantling by the State.

We recommend retaining the existing bridge as a local route to/from Vienna.
If this option is not possible, however, at the very least the Vienna end
of the bridge should be left in place for use as a,local fishing pier, as
shown in the Waterfront Plan (Figure 3). Parking for fishing pier users
can be provided near the foot of the bridge.

-12-

----------

Figure 5
A View Up The Nanticoke

111. IMPLEMENTATION

Cost and Phasing of Development

Acquisition. Redevelopment of the waterfront area will require acquisition
of five (5) private properties by the Town. Their current combined assessed
value is $93,500, according to Dorchester County tax records. Assessed
value is not necessarily indicative of market value. We expect that most
properties can be acquired based on appraisals and negotiated purchase
prices. In some cases, use of Town eminent domain powers may be necessary.

Site Development. Clearance, regrading, and development of the waterfront
area (excluding the restaurant site) will involve eight (8) properties,
three of which are already Town-owned. A cost of W5,000 (1982-83 dollars)
is estimated for work specified in the detailed site plans, including.a 15
percent contingency for presently unforseen costs. A detaile d construction
cost estimate is provided in Appendix A.

In addition, underground relocation of existing overhead electric and
telephone services on Water Street would cost in the order of $70,000.
Estimates of utility relocation costs prepared by the Delmarva Power &
Light Company are presented in Appendix B.

In the unlikely event that the Town would want to acquire and prepare the
restaurant site for eventual sale to the private sector, basic improve-
ments would cost approximately $82,000 (1982-83 dollars), including contin-,
gency. This estimate is also itemized in Appendix A.

Phasing. Vienna's waterfront improvement project is not large in relation
to those in other communities. All acquisition and development (excluding
the restaurant site) can be achieved for under $700,000 (1982-83 dollars).
For a community as small as Vienna, however, implementation of the entire

-14-

project will take several years. We have identified several possible
increments or phases of acquisition and development, summarized in Table 2.

The two private properties between the old Coast Guard Station and boat
ramp sites should be acquired first in order to permit eventual redevelop-
ment of the waterfront between and including the Town-owned properties.
First priority for development should be given to the Coast Guard Station
site, costing an estimated $66,500, including contingency.

It should be possi ble, though not efficient and cost effective, to phase
most development by property segment. Underground relocation of overhead
utilities is an obvi-ous exception that should take place at one time.

Financing

Funding for property acquisition and development may be available from.one
or a combination of several Federal and State of Maryland financial aid
programs. Leading possibilities are reviewed below.

Program Open Space. Administered by the Capital Programs Administration
of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Program Open Space
(POS) provides funds for site acquisition and development of outdoor
recreation areas and facilities. POS funds will finance 100 percent of
acquisition costs and 75 percent of the costs of development.

POS is the principal non-local source of financial assistance for these
purposes in Maryland and has supported numerous county and local Darks
and recreation projects, including those related to waterfront redevelop-
ment. Chestertown and Salisbury are examples of Eastern Shore communities
which have used POS funds for waterfront improvement projects in recent
years. POS funds have financed a number of local projects-in Dorchester
County, including the Vienna tennis courts.

-15-

ml@www' mom

Table 2

POTENTIAL PHASING OF IMPLEMENTATION OF TOWN PROJECTS
INCLUDED IN VIENNA WATERFRONT PLAN

Land Acquisition Site Development
Properties(,) Assessed (2) Properties(,) Estimated (3)
Phase Involved Value($) Involved Cost($)

1 E & F 37,000 D 66,500

2 H 1,500 E & F 98,000

3 B & C 55,000 G & H 117,000

4 - A, B & C 161,500
Other (4) - 42,000

$93,500 $485,000

Underground
utility relocation - All 70,000�

$555,000

Note: Phasing and costs of restaurant site are not shown in this table as they will depend primar-
ily on private sector initiative.
(1) Properties are as identified in Figure 1.
(2) Assessed values are from Dorchester County tax records and are rounded. Values are not
necessarily reflective of market values.
(3) Estimates reflect 1982-83 constant dollars and are rounded. A 15 percent contingency is
included in all figures except undergound utility relocation costs,
(4) Boardwalk connection from restaurant site to land on northern side of U.S. 50 bridge.

POS funds come from two basic sources: State of Maryland transfer tax rev-
enues and the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Allocations
of available funds are made each fiscal year to all 23 counties and Balti-
more City. Local projects are then funded under these annual allocations
and any unused balances carried over from prior years.

The local share of revenues from the LWCF has declined from a high of $3.6
million in FY 79 to only $700,000 in FY 83. Similarly, the local share of
State transfer tax revenues declined from $14 million in FY 79 to an esti-
mated $8 million for FY 84. Declines in LWCF monies can be traced to
changes in Federal revenue sources and budget policies, while Stat6_funds
face increasing competition from the State's Agricultural Land Preservation
Program for transfer tax revenues. The outlook for future funding of POS
activities is, therefore, uncertain.

Current apportionments from these POS fund sources for Dorchester County
are as follows:

Percent of Total
POS Fund Source in State Apportionment($)

LWCF 2.00 14,000 (FY 83)
State Transfer Tax 0.44 35,280 (FY 84)

As of 6/l/83, State DNR records indicate an unobligated POS State fund
balance of $168,000 for.Dorchester County for land acquisition and a zero
balance for development. These balances are inclusive of FY 84 allocations
of State transfer tax funds to the County. In addition to these unused
State funds, approximately $88,000 of LWCF monies for acquisition and/or
development were unobligated as of 6/l/83, according to the DNR. Thus,
up to $256,000 may be currently available to local jurisdictions in the
County for various outdoor recreation projects, including redevelopment of
the Vienna waterfront.

-17-

Before a grant application is submitted to and aDproved by DNR, a local
project first must receive county approval and reservation of funds from
its unobligated balance. Once these have been obtained from the county,
the award of funds from DNR will normally take 60 days after recei.vt of
an application from the locality.

To be considered eligible for funding, local projects must be incl.uded in
the county comprehensive recreation and open space plan. Counties were
requested to prepare these plans by 1/31/82 in order to maintain funding
eligibility for county and municipal projects. In addition, counties sub-
mit annual plans for use of their POS funds by July of each year, although
modifications can be made at any time.

Waterway Improvement Fund. The Waterway Improvement Division of the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources administers this assistance program.
The Fund was created by the State Boat Act and can be used to finance various
projects, including the construction of marine facilities such as bulkheads
and related shoreline structures, boat ramps, and other facilities which
benefit boating. At any one time, up to $25,000 can be made available as
a grant to help finance an individual project or project se.gment,

In the recent past, the Fund has been undersubscribed, which increases the
probability of awards to Vienna. Potential uses of the fund include repairs
to the boat ramp, bulkhead stabilization, and boardwalk construction, all
of which will benefit boating. Pocomoke City, for example, has made gener-
ous use of the Fund on,several occasions to help finance waterfront improve-
ments, including a boardwalk structure of the type proposed in Vienna.

Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP) and Successor Coastal Programs. Admin-
istered by the Coastal Resources Division of the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources, the CEIP provides funds for planning and implementina
(including acquisition and construction) projects which are designed to
ameleorate the adverse impacts of energy facilities and development programs
in coastal areas. The CEIP is a Federal program of financial assistance

-18-

which,has been "zeroed out" in recent budgets but still has some residual
carryover funding. Maryland is among many coastal states which are seek-
ing to perpetuate this program or substitute funding. Inasmuch as the
CEIP program provided planning funds for preparation of the Vienna Water-
front Plan, the pursuit of additional funds for implementation is a logical
course of action by the Town. Applications for funds for acquis.ition and
development should, be made to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources,
Tidewater Administration, Coastal Resources Division.

Community Development Block Grants. The Community Development Block Grant
program (CDBG) is a Federal program administered by the Maryland Department
of Economic and Community Development (DECD). Originally intended primarily
to aid urban communities, small towns are also eligible under certain cir-
cumstances. Under new Federal rules and regulations, states are given
more authority over the distribution of CDBG funds. These funds may be
used for a wide variety of-public improvement projects, including open
space and recreation. Contact should be made with DECD to determine Vienna's
eligibility for CDBG assistance.

Recommended Initial Actions

Securing Implementation Assistance. The Town of Vienna is likely to need
continuing technical assistance to move the Waterfront Plan forward. We
recommend, therefore, that the Town apply for a $5,000 supplemental CEIP
grant or other coastal program funds from the Department of Natural
Resources to provide monies for on-going professional legal and planning
services over the next year. These services would include:

@ Preparation of applications and supporting documents for acquisition
and development grants.

9 Technical support at meetings with Town Commissioners.

e Meetings and correspondence with State and County officials.

_19-

* Meetings and correspondence with affected local property owners.

s Meetings and correspondence with potential developers, investor
groups, and/or restaurant industry representatives, to interest
them in waterfront opportunities.

Coordination With Dorchester Coun . Contacts with appropriate Dorchester
County officials should be initiated by the Town for the following purposes:

* To make the County Commissioners,Recreation and Parks Board, and
Planninq and Zoning Office aware of the Vienna Waterfront Plan and
of Town support for its implementation.

e To request the Planning and Zoning Office to amend the County's
comprehensive recreation and open space plan at an early date,
as necessary, to reflect the Vienna Waterfront Plan.

@ To request from the Recreation and Parks Board and County Commis-
sioners early approval of Program Open Space funds from the County's
for, at the mini:mum, Phase 1 land acquisition. Initial contacts
should be made with Mr. Harold Carr, Jr., Director of the Recreation
and Parks Board and County Liaison Officer for Program Open Space.

Application for POS Funds. After receiving the necessary County approvals,
we recommend that the Town apply to DNR for a POS grant for Phase 1 land
acquisition, at the minimum.

Coordination With Maryland Department of Economic and Community Development;
Application for a MICRF Grant. A copy or copies of this report should be
filed with DECD tourism and community development offices to make them aware
of possibilities for waterfront commercial development in Vienna. The
availability of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and Vienna's
eligibility should be determined. We also recommend that an application be
submitted to the Maryland Industrial and Commercial Redevelopment Fund

-20-

(MICRF) to prepare more detailed market and financial feasibility studies
supporting the waterfront restaurant and other commercial development
possibilities in Vienna. MICRF studies have been conducted in several
of Maryland's small communities, including Snow Hill.

-21-

IV. POTENTIAL MARKET SUPPORT FOR
WATERFRONT RESTAURANT

Background

Eating out has become a national habit and pastime. The industry has grown
dramatically over recent years in response to changing lifestyles and real
gains in personal income. This eating out phenomenon not only affects the
resident population, but is a major activity for Eastern Shore visitors,
many of whom come expressly to enjoy fish and shellfish from the Cheaspeake
Bay and other local waters, served in Eastern Shore ambiance. Located rel-
atively near to the Baltimore-Washington and Philadelphia-Wilmington metro-
politan areas, the Maryland Eastern Shore attracts hundreds of thousands of
sightseers, recreationists, and vacationers each year.

Concept. The historic ch'aracter of Vienna, the Town's riverfront setting,
its location on a well traveled tourist route, and proposed waterfront im-
provements make Vienna an ideal location for a restaurant on the ri.verfront.
We recommend development of an approximate 200-seat fac ility immediately
adjacent to the Nanticoke River and having direct access to/from U.S. 50.
With expansive views of the River, waterfront park, and the historic homes
of Vienna, the restaurant would be distinctive in the region.

Open-air dining and cocktail service would also be possible on decks and
boardwalks along the riverfront. Boat tie-ups would be provided along the
riverfront as conveniences to visitors by water and to add further interest
to the waterfront scene. Boardwalk connections to the Town park area would
permit restaurant visitors to see part of the Town while waiting to be
seated or after dining, particularly on busy summer weekend days. Figure 6
shows the concept for restaurant development. The architecture is contem-
porary, but is compatible with nearby homes.

-22-

Figure 6
Riverf ront Restaurant and Boardwalk

Market Location. U.S. 50, the primary tourist travel route in Maryland's
Eastern Shore, passes directly through Vienna. Along this route, the Town
is midway between Cambridge and Salisbury, the two largest Maryland commun-
ities on the Delmarva Peninsula. Vienna is approximately 16-17 miles from
both,and is less than 50 miles west on Route 50 from Ocean Ci.ty, the
popular seashore resort community. Thus, the Town enjoys a strategic
local and regional location.

Vienna is only a two hour drive from much of the Baltimore and Washington,
D.C. metropolitan areas, with a combined population of over 5 million. The
Wilmington, Delaware urbanized area is almost as close, and much of the
Philadelphia region's 5 million residents live within three hours drive
from Vienna.

Among Eastern Shore locations, particularly the lower counties, the Town's
historic character and waterfront setting present a rare opportunity for
development. Interestingly, Cambridge has yet to take commercial advan-
tage of its waterfront location in terms of restaurant development. And,
Salisbury does not have the same riverfront amenities and potentials found
in Cambridge and Vienna. Vienna, therefore, has the dual opportunity to
serve the local Dorchester-Wicomico market and to capture a share of the
extensive tourist traffic passing through on Route 50.

U.S. 50 Traffic

Detailed traffic.volume data is recorded for this important tourist and
local travel route by means of a permanent counter stationed between Cam-
bridge and Vienna in Dorchester County. Data clearly shows the impact of
tourist travel through the Vienna area.

Growth Trends. Figure 7 illustrates the growth of average annual daily
traffic (AADT) on U.S. 50 near Vienna from 1971 to 1981. Traffic peaked
in 1978 at nearly 11,000 vehicles per day, but dropped in 1979, reflecting
fuel price increases which occurred at that time. Since then, traffic

-24-

Figure 7

TRENDS OF AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT).
ON U.S. 50 NEAR VIENNA, 1971-1981

10,8017

10,300
10 10,290 10,150
9,846
9,904

9 9,131
<C r.
(a 8,841
630

U-
U- 4-)

8
31

CC U
7,673

7,'- 4-
21-0
CC 7

c< E
Actual
c:x
Average Annual
6 Growth Trend (3%)

+
YEAR 1971 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81

Source: @Maryland Department of Transportation; and Kenneth Crevelina
Associ ates

growth has been sluggish. During the entire 11 year period, however, AADT
increased at an average yearly rate of three (3) percent.

Monthly and Daily Variations. The impact of seasonal travel to the Eastern
Shore is vividly pictured in Figure 8, which shows significant peaks in
average daily traffic (ADT) from June through August of 1981. Correspond"
inqly, ADT during the colder non-tourist months was substantially less
than AADT. ADT also varies by day of the week for each month and season.
Weekday and weekend day ADT for the summer season (June-August) exceeded
the AADT in 1981, and peaked significantly on Saturdays during the summer.
Fridays and Sundays also had high volumes during the summer season.

Spring (March-May) and fall (September'November) seasons had remarkably
similar daily traffic volume patterns in 1981. Fridays were peak days in
the fall season, while Fridays and Sundays were the peak days during the
spring months. Patterns in 1981 are representative of other years, except
that minor differences show up when there are major differences in the
weather. Tables C-1 and C-2 in Appendix C present detailed traffic data
by month, day, and during peak dining periods as further aids to restaurant
planners.

Estimation of Tourist Traffic. Using monthly traffic data, it is possible
to estimate the numbers of tourists passing through Vienna, from which
restaurant clientele can be drawn. Non-tourist traffic on U.S. 50 is
assumed to be the average ADT for the three winter months (December-Februar
extended over 12 months. Tourist traffic, therefore, is the difference be-
tween the AADT and the average winter month ADT extended over the entire
year, less a percentage for increased commercial and other non-tourist
traffic during the warmer months. For 1981, tourist traffic and the number
of tourists passing through Vienna are estimated as follows;

1. [(AADT x 365 days) - (average winter month ADT x 365)]
[15% for increased non-tourist traffic during warmer months]
no. tourist vehicles x 3 persons per vehicle = no. tourists.

-26-

Figure 8

MONTHLY VARIATIONS IN AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
ON U.S. 50 NEAR VIENNA, 1981

17,201
17

16,416
16

15 14,846

cz
11,373
10,784
U-

10
a)

9
>

LU 4--
(-M 0 8,603 8,431
S.- 8

::C E

7 7.190
6, 92 6,621
6

5,786
5

4 - 111.111111 1981 AADT: 10,150
4

0 T i i i i i i i i i i i
MONTH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Source: Maryland Department of Transportation; and Kenneth Creveling Associates

2. [00,150 x 365) - (6,300 x 365)] - 15% = approximately 1.2
million tourist vehicles x 3 = 3.6 million tourists.

The Local Food Service Industry.

General Sales Trends. U.S. Census of Retail Trade data for 1972 and 1977
(1982 data not available) showed an 88 percent increase in sales at eating
and drinking places in eight Maryland Eastern Shore counties during this
five-year period (see Appendix C, Table C-3). The four Lower Eastern Shore
counties (Dorchester, Somerset, Wicomico, and Worcester) increased their
sales by 97 percent, while the four Upper Eastern Shore counties (Caroline,
Kent, Queen Anne's, and Talbot) increased by 70 percent. Sales in Dorchester
and Talbot Counties showed the greatest proportional increases between 1972
and 1977 (110 and 107 percent, respectively).

The number of food service establishments increased by 11 percent overall in
the eight counties from 1972 to 1977, but increased by 35 percent in Dorches-
ter County, as several "fast food" establishments were added in the County.
At the same time, Dorchester County lagged six other Eastern Shore counties
in average sales per establishment in 1977.

More recent trends are revealed by sales tax data reported by the Maryland
Comptroller of the Treasury, Retail Sales Tax Division. Sales tax receipts
were converted to estimates of taxable sales for food service establishments
in the same eight counties for FY 79 and FY 82. Earlier fiscal years were
not selected because of differences in tax rates and covered sales. Results
are summarized in Table 3. These data are not necessarily comparable to
U.S. Census of Retail Trade data, but do show continued growth in overall
sales, with the four Lower Eastern Shore counties leading the four northern
counties both in dollar volume of sales and percentage increases. Sales tax
records do not include numbers of establishments by county, therefore,
analyses of average sales cannot be made.

-28-

Table 3

RECENT TRENDS IN TAXABLE SALES
AT RESTAURANTS AND OTHER FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS,
MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE COUNTIES
FY 79-82

Estimated Sales Increase
Area FY 79 FY 82 TFOOO) %

Lower Eastern Shore

Dorchester Co. 4,388 5,924 1,536 35.0
Somerset Co. 1,869 2,454 585 31.3
Wicomico Co. 24,383 28,194 3,811 15.6
Worcester Co. 44,245 69,967 25,722 58.1

74,885 106,539 31,654 42.3

Upper Eastern Shore

Caroline Co. 2,384 2,522 138 5.8
Kent Co. 4,067 4,966 899 22.1
Queen Anne's Co. 6,424 6,497 73 1.1
Talbot Co. 12,805 21,344 8,539 66.7

25,680 35,329 9,649 37.6

Eight County Total 100,565 141,868 41,303. 41.1

Note: Fiscal years run from July 1 throuqh June 30.
(1) Estimated sales derived from retail sales tax data.

Source: State of Maryland, Comptroller of the Treasury, Retail Sales Tax Division;
and Kenneth Creveling Associates.

-29-

Table 3 shows that sales volume in the eight-county area increased $41
million from FY 79 through FY 82, with Talbot and Worcester Counties alone
accounting for 83 percent of this increase. The growing popularity of
St. Michaels, other Talbot County communities, and Ocean City in Worcester
County is clearly indicated by this data. Wicomico and Dorchester Counties
ranked distant third and fourth in increased sales volume, growing by a
combined $5.3 million during the three-year period. In FY 82, their total
estimated sales were $34 million.

Trends by Type of Establishment. Maryland sales tax records distinguish
between establishments with and without alcoholic beverage licenses. Table
4 summarizes estimated sales for each type of establishment in Dorchester
and Wicomico Counties -- Vienna's local market area. In both counties,
establishments without licenses (including typical "fast food" places)
lead in sales volume in FY 82 and increased their shares of total sales

from FY 79 to FY 82.

Sales in local establishments with alcoholic beverage licenses, which in-
clude the type of restaurant proposed in Vienna, dropped slightly from 47
percent of the market area total in FY 79 to 45 percent in FY 82. This
proportional decline does not indicate inherent weaknesses in the traditional
"sit down" restaurant market. Rather, it shows the strength of the "fast
food" segment of the industry.

Seasonal Variations in Sales. Maryland sales tax data is not available
by month, but the Commonwealth of Virginia publishes estimates of gross
taxable sales and tax collections quarterly. Records for Virginia's Eastern
Shore counties, therefore, may give some indication of seasonal,sales vari-
ations in Maryland's Lower Eastern Shore counties. For Virginia counties
in 1980, quarterly shares of total annual sales for eating and drinking
places and for overnight accommodations were as follows:

_30-

Table 4

RECENT TRENDS OF TAXABLE SALES AT FOOD SERVICE
ESTABLISHMENTS WITH AND WITHOUT ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE LICENSES IN THE VIENNA MARKET AREA

Percent of Total Sales
Sales at Establishmentso) Sales at Establishments at Establishments
Without Licenses ($000) With Licenses ($000) With Licenses
Area FY 79 FY 82 FY 79 FY 82 FY 79 FY 82-

Dorchester County 2,374 3,622 2,013 2,302 45.9 38.9

Wicomico County 12,955 15,2 29 11,429 12,965 46.9 46.0

Market Area 15,329 18,851 13,442 15,267 46.7 44.7

(1) Includes "fast food" establishments.

Source: Maryland Comptroller of the Treasury, Retail Sales Tax Division; and Kenneth Creveling Associates

Percent of Annual Sales
Eating and Overnight
Quarter Drinking Plac"bs Accommodations

January - March 14.2 5.4
April June 29.4 29.1
July September 35.1 54.0
October - December 21.3 11.5

100.0 100.0

These data indicate that restaurant business fluctuates much less than
that of motels and other lodgings, which are highly sensitive to non-
resident traffic. The resident market, even in an area as rural and remote
as the Virginia Eastern Shore, exerts a significant influence on restaurant
business throughout most the year.

Projec ted Local Market Area Expenditures for Eating Out

A national survey of consumer expenditures indicated that families with
income levels similar to those in Dorchester and Wicomico Counties spent
approximately 3.3 percent of their annual incomes on eating out near home,
excluding meals purchased on trips and vacations.0) The percentage of fam-
ily incomes spent on eating out has been increasing nationally, and is ex-
pected to continue to-do so in the years ahead. This trend is borne out by
comparing increases in local sales and personal income. Retail sales at
at eati ng and drinking places have grown at a much faster rate than personal
income for most Eastern Shore counties during recent years. In part, this
is due to inflation and increased tourist spending, but proportional in-
creases in local spending relative to incomes are a significant factor.

Spending for eating out by residents of the Dorchester-Wicomico area in
1980 is estimated conservatively at $26 million, as shown in Table 5. These
expenditures are projected to increase to nearly $40 million by 1990 (in

(1) Consumer Expenditure Survey Series: Interview Survey, 1972-1973, U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1977.

-32-

Table 5

POTENTIAL EXPENDITURES FOR EATING OUT
BY RESIDENTS OF THE VIENNA MARKET AREA,
1980 - 1995(l)

1980 1985 1990 1995

Market area
population(2) 95,163 99,306 103,497 105,009

Per capita personal
income($) (3) 7,827 8,641 9,540 10,532

Total personal
income ($000) 744,876(4) 858,103 987,361 1,105,955

Estimated percent
of income spent
on eating out,
excluding trips(5) 3.5 3.75 4.0 4.25

Estimated total
expenditures for
eating out by
local residents($000) 26,070 32,179 39,494 47,003

Note: All dollar figures are 1980 constant dollars (inflation effects not reflected).
(1) Market area is Dorchester and Wicomico Counties, MD.
(2) Population projections from MD Dept. of State Planning, 10/82.
(3) Per capita income increases based on assumed two (2) percent annual "real"
(after inflation) income growth.
(4) Estimate by U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
(5) Based on U.S. Dept. Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics survey of consumer expend-
itures on eating out.

Source: Kenneth Creveling Associates

-33-

1980 constant dollars) and to $47 million by 1995. These projections sug-
gest an ample margin for expansion of the local restaurant industry, inclu-
ding the proposed facility in Vienna.

Estimated expenditu res by local area residents in 1980 (i.e., $26 million)
compare with estimated actual taxable sales of $31-32 million in the two
counties (average of FY 79 and FY 82 sales from Table 3). The difference
between the two estimates is explained largely by non-resident spending at
food service establishments in the area. Moreover, some oart of the $26
million in local resident expenditures is probably spent 'in ad .jacent coun-
ties (e.g., Talbot and Worcester), which would mean that non-resident
spending is somewhat greater than the difference between the estimates of
resident spending and local sales.

Potential Market Capture and Sales

Local Market. The local market for the Vienna restaurant is primarily
that portion of total local expenditures for eating out oriented to estab-
lishments with alcoholic beverage licenses.. Given the distinctive nature
of the proposed restaurant in the Dorchester-Wicomico area, the presently
low level of competition, and the accessible central location of the pro-
posed facility to both counties, a four (4) percent capture rate is a
reasonable expectation. Estimates of the food and beverage sales potential
of the restaurant are presented in Table 6. In 1985, for example,
estimated potential sales associated with the local market are $570,000
(in 1982-83 constant dollars).

Tourist Market. The proposed restaurant would be an attractive and conven-
ient stopover for tourists traveling through Vienna, particularly during
the summer, spring, and fall months. An estimated 4 million tourists will
pass through Vienna in 1985, representing a significant market to draw
from.

Because of its riverfront amenities and accessible location on U.S 50, we
assume that the restaurant is capable of capturing up to one (1) percent

-34-

Table 6

POTENTIAL FOOD AND BEVERAGE SALES
AT VIENNA WATERFRONT RESTAURANT

A. Local Market Share of Expenditures (2)
(1 at Establishments with Potential Sales
Total Expenditures Alcoholic Beverages at Approx. 4%
for Eating Out M Market Capture (1)

1985 32,180,000 44 14,160,000 570,000
1990 39,495,000 42 16,590,000 660,000
1995 47,005,000 40 18,800,000, 720,000

B. Tourist Market
Estimated Number (3) Estimated Number (4) Potential sales (5)
of TouristVehicles of Tourists at Approx. 1%
Through Vienna Through Vienna Market Captur

1985 1,350,000 4,0 50,000 405,000
1990 1,565,000 4,700,000 470,000
1995 1,815,000 5,450,000 545,000
C. Local and Tourist Markets Combi'ned

Potential Sales

1985 975,000
1990 1,130,000
1995 1,265,000

(1) Fo r derivation of expenditure estimates in the local market area, see
Table 5.
(2) Percentage shares are based on analyses of data in Table 4.
(3) Assumes continuation of average annual traffic growth rate of 3 percent
experienced from 1971 through 1981; see Figure 7.
(4 ) Assumes an average of three persons per vehicle.
(5) Assumes an average $10 expenditure at restaurant per person.

Source: Kenneth Creveling Associates

-35-

of the tourist traffic passing through Vienna. On this basis, and assuming
an average $10 expenditure per patron, the sales potential of the tourist
market in 1985, for example, is $405,000, as shown in Table 6.

It is likely that construction of the Route 50 bypass will not be completed
before 1990. If the restaurant is established in Vienna well before that
time, its reputation and clientele should be firmly established and rela-
tively unaffected by the diversion of traffic around Vienna. Indeed, such
diversion of traffic and its associated congestion and noise should improve
the atmosphere of the waterfront park area and restaurant site. Moreover,
the bypass route will be near enough to the site so as to not be unduly in-
convenient to restaurant visitors.

Total Sales Potential. Combining potential sales generated by local and'
tourist markets for 1985 results in a total of nearly $1 million, increasing
to nearly $1.3 million by 1995 (in 1982-83 constant dollars). This sales
volume should easily support food and beverage operations for a 200-seat
restaurant.

-36-

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX A .
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I

Table A-1

VIENNA WATERFRONT PLAN
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE

Waterfront Comm. Devel.-
Work Item Quantity(l) Unit Cost($)(') Total Cost($) Town Projects Basic Site Preparation(4)
Quantity Cost($) Quantity Cost($)

A. Demolition & Removal (2)

I. Building demolition
and removal 7 L.S. 40,000 6 35,000 1 5,000
2. Removal of concrete
surfaces 3,250 s.f. 4.50 14,625 2,700 s.f. 12,150 550 s.f. 2,475
@3- Removal of concrete
foundations/footings - L.S. 8,000 8,000
4. Removal of asphalt
surfaces 1,380 s.f. 3.50 4,830 1,380 s.f. 4,830
5. Removal of gravel
surfaces 11,650 s.f. 1.50 17,475 1,650 S.f. 2,475 10,000 S.f. 15,000
6. Removal of grain
tanks and related - L.S. 3,500 3,500
7. Removal of fencing 1,080 s.f. 3.75 4,050 280 I.f. 1,050 800 l.f. 3,000
8. Removal of timber
bulkhead 55 l.f. 50.00 2,750 55 I.f. 2,750
9. Removal of wood docks 4 150.00 600 4 600
10. Removal of wood pilings 27 75.00 2,025 27 2,025
11. Removal of trees 9 200.00 11800 7 1,400 2 400
12. Removal of fuel tank
and pump - L.S. 1,200 - 1,200
13. Removal of underwater
obstructions and concrete
rubble, as needed L.S. 15,000 - 13,500 1,500
14. Removal of flag pole
and concrete footing L.S. 750 - 750
15. Misc. other removals
(trailer, inlets, posts,
bollards, etc.) L.S. 1,500 - 1,000 500
16. Removal of utility poles
and overhead services (See Note 3)

Sub-total (excluding item 16) $118,105 $ 90,230 $27,875
Contingency (15%) 17,715 13,535 4,180
Total (including contingency) $135,820 $103,765 $32,055

B. Site Development

1. Clearing and grubbing 2 acres 1,500.00 3,000 2 acres 3,000
2. Excavation and grading 2,250 c.y. 10.00 22,500 2,050 c.y.
3. Timber bulkhead (new) 127 I.f. 250.00 31,750 127 l.f. 31,750
Bulkhead repair and
stabilization, as needed - L.S. 37,500 20,000 17,500($
5. Boardwalk and decking, etc. 9,100 S.f. 12.00 109,200 7,900 s.f. 94,800 1,200 S.f. 34,400
6. Boardwalk (over water
sections) 2,800 s.f. 20.00 56,000 2,800 s.f. 56,000
7. Timber retaining wall 150 l.f. 55.00 8,250 140 I.f. 7,700 10 I.f. 550
B. Benches 5 450.00 2,250 5 2,250
9. Pavement (asphalt) 230 s.y. 9.50 2,185 230 s.y. 2,185
10. Oyster shell paths 9,000 S.f. 2.50 22,500 9,000 S.f. 22,500
11. Open shelter 1 9,600.00 9,600 1 9,600
12. Light posts/fixtures 12 1,700.00 20,400 12 20,400
13. Relocation of old
ferry tender's office
(old Town Hall) - L.S. 2,500 - 2,500
14. Resurfacing of boat
ramp (top coat to
water line) L.S. 3,000 3,000
15. Relocation of existing
overhead utility
services (underground) (See Note 3)
Sub-total (excluding item 15) $330,635 $296,185 $34,450
Contingency (15%) 49,595 - 44,425 5,170
Total (including contingency) $380,230 $340,610 $39,620

C. Planting & S eding

1. Glossy Abelia 40 38.20 1,528 37 1,413 3 115
2. Black Chokeberry 36 33.00 11188 36 11188
3. Rockspray Cotoneaster 33 32.00 1,056 33 1,056
4. Autumn Elaeagnus 40 82.00 3,280 40 3,280
5. Dwarf Burford Holly 19 46.00 874 19 874
6. American Holly 2 316.00 632 2 632
7. Sargent Juniper 29 58.60 1,699 29 1,699
8. Bayberry 28 48.40 1,355 28 1,355
9. London Plane Tree 12 326.80 3,925 12 3,925
10. Perennial rye grass
seed/apply 70,400 s.f. 0.12 8,448 70,400 s.f. 8,448
11. Natural grass seed
mix/apply 135,600 s.f. 0.15 20,340 135,600 s.f. 20,340

Sub-total $ 44,325 $ 35,130 $ 9,195
Contingency (15%) 6,650 5,270 1,380
Total (including contingency) $ 50,975 $ 40,400 $ 10,575

Total Cost of Town
Projects and Commercial Cost of Town Cost of Commercial
Site Preparation(fl Projects($) Site PreparationM
SUMMARY

A. Demolition & Removal $118,105 $ 90,230 $ 27,875
B. Site Development 330,635 296,185 34,450
C. Planting & Seeding 44,325 35,130 9,195

Sub-totals $493,065 $421,545 $ 71,520
Contingency (15%) 73,960 - 63,230 10,730
Total (including contingency) $567,025 $484,775 $ 82,250

(1) Abbrevia - S: s_.f. square foot; Lf. - linear foot; s.y. - square yard; c.y. cubic yard; L.S. lump sum (unit costs not determined).
(2) Unit and total cost estimates include allowances for cartage of debris from site to a dump location in the County or area.
(3) See estimates provided by Delmarva Power & Light Company in Appendix B; relocation of telephone service not included in DP&L estimates, however,
cost of this work is expected to be a minor addition to relocating electrical service.
(4) Quantities and costs if Town was to acquire and prepare commercial site for eventual sale to private developer.
(5) The commercial site may require replacement of existing bulkhead rather than repair and stabilization, depending on nature and scale of development.
Note: All cost fiqures are 1982-83 constant dollars (inflation not reflected).

I -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Delmarva Power & Light Company
Southern Division General Office
U.S. 13 & Naylor Mill Rd. - P.O. Box 1739
Salisbury, MD 21801
(301) 546-6000

May 5,, 1983

Commissioners of Vienna
Vienna
,Nlaryland 21869

Reference: Underground estimates for Water St., Vienna, Md.

Per request by Mr. Kenneth Creveling of Kenneth Creveling Associates,
we have prepared the following estimates to put existing overhead line
underground.

The following estimates are based as follows:

A. Estimated cost of underground system
B. Estimated cost of new overhead system
C. Difference (A-B)
D. Remaining life value
E. Estimated salvage value
F. Difference (D-E)
G. Contribution in Aid (C+F)

The above parameters are used to calculate cost of conversion for the
Town of Vienna with the following criteria held in 'mind. When the town
makes a request for conversion to underground with no additional load
and rebuild is not necessary, then the Town will provide a non-refundable
contribution in a7d to construction.

Our estimates in similiar situations such as these are prepared with
wo different options available to the Town in order to save cost on
the project. The first option referenced as exhibit (A) would be the
t

Town of Vienna will break and repair all sidewalks and streets. Second
option referenced as exhibit (B) would be the Town of Vienna will break
and repair all sidewalks and streets and furnish and install all conduits
on city Rights-of-Way.

B-I

Delmarva

May 5, 1983
Commissioners of Vienna
Page 2

These estimates are based on a totally underground Distribution System
along with underground streetlighting system. Existing street light-
ing to be replaced with 7 - 30, embedded aluminum standards, 41 brackets
with 10OW Mercury Vapor Lamps. However, we have a street lighting
specialist who will make a detailed survey upon request. All street
light inquiries can be made to William C. Brittingham Delmarva Power
P. 0. Box 1739, Salisbury, Md. 21801.

In all cases it is the Town's responsibility to make customer's
facilities accept this new undelrground system, which means the tourn
is to be responsible for any material and labor necessary to con-
vert existing overhead customers to underground. Delmarva will
supply any necessary meter sockets or cabinets and install service
conductors to point of attachment to customer's entrance equipment.

In reference to the sewage pumping station, Mr. Dewey Blades was con-
tacted about a possible outage due to a fault in the proposed under-
ground system. He stated that a prolonged interruption would not be
desirable. With this in mind, it is recommended a dual feed be in-
stalled. This would involve extending overhead primaries from Middle
Street and tieing into existing overhead line on Church St. This
has not been included in the estimate. The additional cost for this
tie is estimated at $3,000.00.

1. All procurements of private Rights-of-Way will be the Toim's
responsibility.

2. Any additional costs incurred as a result of changes in
construction plans as submitted to Delmarva Power . and more.
specificallyt those plans attached shall be borne by the
Town of Vienna.

3. If there is any material in addition t o conduit supplied by
the Town of Vienna for Delmarva Power, it must meet Delmarva's
specifications.

4. Town of Vienna to assure Delmarva Power 'that all underground
cable and service routes are free of obstructions, and that

B-2

Delmarva

May 5, 1983
Commissioners of Vienna
Pace 3

all grades in the area of transformers, switchgear, and cable
routes are within six inches of final grade before installation
begins.

5. Other factors not included in the estimate are: R emoval of
4 - private poles, removal of existing overhead telephone
facilities, (should get estimate from Telephone Co. to place
underground) can place cable in joint use trench with power.
Extra work excavating around water & sewer lines.

If estimate is accepted, please allow adequate time to assemble
the required material and schedule the construction.

Due to.periodic increases in labor and material, estimate may
have to be revised, if not accepted within a reasonable time.

If I can be of further assistance, please advise.

Very truly yours,

William G. Redden
Project Engineer
Distribution Engineering Dept.

WGR/gjd

Attachments

cc: Bill-Neville. Art Nobl Gene Messick, Dewey Blades, Bill Brittingham,
4oDle,,

B-3

Water Street

Vienna, Md.

Exhibit (A)

A, Estimated cost of Underground System $ 79t7l6.81

B. Estimated cost of New Overhead System 15,647.89

C. Difference (A-B) 64,068.92

D. Remaining Life Value 3,247.06

E. Estimated Salvage Value 168.66

F. Difference (D-E) 3,078.40

G. Contribution in Aid (C+F) 67,147.32

Exhibit (B)

A. Estimated cost of underground 59,834.43

B. Estimated cost of New Overhead System 15,647.89

C. Difference 44,186.54

D. Remaining Life Value 3,247.06

E. Estimated Salvage Value 168.66

F. Difference (D-E) 3,078.40

G. Contribution in Aid (C+F) 47,264.94

B-4

L 31 J/0 At
3'o m cc 110 3 "0 ALL
SO 3 1, IAL. ZAL.

31
26' RACE s

A' <
L
V9.
SON I
ol 24
3 19
104

DE AD
SElt

Df.Av
ul

PRIMARY
jo SYM,6V
lk

87
;ro

I 'DAL (T:

A-
73

2/9' AL 79
--c/l/O AL
43 1 OAL
2AL-11
27
25
I'D
'-ve-I
247

4 CU

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Table C-1

VARIATION OF TRAFFIC FLOW
ON U.S. 50 NEAR VIENNA
BY DAY AND MONTH, 1981(l)

Percent of Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT=10,150 Vehicles)
Month Season Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

January Winter 53.2 54.5 53.7 54.3 50.5 70.7 59.6
February 11 68.6 60.7 55.3 56.5 57.3 79.1 70.3
March Spring 84.2 64.5 59.3 63.0 61.1 87.8 77.2
April 101.4 77.5 66.9 70.0 77.8 111.3 94.0
May 144.7 108.1 81.5 76.8 88.1 135.9 130.5
June Sumer 197.0 129.3 104.6 111.0 117.7 175.3 203.7
July 11 189.1 154.4 118.6 123.8 140.4 189.6 223.4
August it 198.8 150.1 129.9 133.5 138.1 182.5 234.7
September Fall 117.2 86.4 85.0 83.3 97.5 144.9 140.6
October 97.5 76.0 66.2 70.0 77.1 105.4 84.9

November 79.8 67.5 64.0 72.8 67.8 97.7 85.8
December Winter 57.3 62.0 62.2 65.4 68.1 70.5 71.2

(1) Based on data for traffic counter station 16 in Dorchester County.

Source: MD Dept. of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Engineering; and Kenneth Creveling Associates.

Table C-2

AVERAGE NUMBER OF VEHICLES PER HOUR(VPH)
DURING LUNCH AND DINNER PERIODS BY MONTH
ON U.S. 50 NEAR VIENNA, 1981(l)

Lunch Period Dinner Period
(11:00am 2:00pm) (5:00pm 8:00pm)
Month Weekday VPH Weekend VPH Weekday VPH Weekend VPH.

January 370 410 405 415
February 405 465 460 480
March 445 475 515 585
April 550 570 600 620
May 710 690 775 770
June 1,015 1,055 945 865
July 1,195 -1,355 1,015 820
August 1,265 1,375 1,110 11000
September 740 800 740 690
October 540 565 600 605

November 495 515 535 570

December 430 450 465 480

(1) Based on data for traffic counter station 16 in Dorchester County.

Source: MD Dept. of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Engineering; and
Kenneth Creveling Associates.

C-2

Table C-3

CHARACTERISTICS OF EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS
IN MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE COUNTIES, 1977

Establishments Sales Avg. Sales per Estab.
Increase Volume Increase Volume Increase
Area Number From 1972 M ($Ono) From 1972 (% ($000) From 1972 (%

Lower Eastern Shore

Dorchester Co. 58 34.9 6,848 109.9 118 55.3
Somerset Co. 21 (12.5) 3,214 101.1 153 128.4
Wicomico Co. 97 34.7 20,485 95.4 211 44.5
Worcester Co. 161 11.8 30,953 94.5 192 73.0

337 19.1 61,500 96.7 182 65.5

Upper Eastern Shore

Caroline Co. 27 6.9) 2,494 58.1 92 70.4
Kent Co. 40 11.1
5,971 29.4 149 16.4
Queen Anne's Co. 32 (15.8) 6,076 79.1 190 113.5
Talbot Co. 47 4.1) 9,794 107.1 208 114.4

146 4.9) 24,335 70.0 167 77.7

Eight County Total 483 11.0 85,835 88.3 178 69.5

Note: Percentages in parentheses mean losses.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Censuses of Retail Trade for 1972 and 1977;
and Kenneth Creveling Associates

f
3 6668 14103 0355 1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I