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

    GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCE CENTER

    FINAL REPORT

    COASTAL MANAGMENT GRANT 95D - 10.07

    Grand Traverse County
    Northwestern Michigan College

    FINAL REPORT

    GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER
    REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

    This final report summarizes the background, goals and objectives, tasks,
    accomplishments and next steps for the Great Lakes Water Resources Center, under a
    Coastal Management Program Grant (No. 95D-1 0.07).
    Proiect Goal

    The goal of the Great Lakes Water Resources Center Redevelopment Project is provide
    a comprehensive foundation of information for the planning and development of a Center
    to host a diverse range of water related public attractions and office space for water
    related public agencies, educational institutions and private firms.

    The proposed location for the Center is the Great Lakes Maritime Academy, situated at the
    base of the West Arm of grand Traverse Bay, w(ith walking distance of downtown Traverse
    City and visibly located on the heaviest traveled section of road in northern Michigan. The
    Northwestern Michigan College property encompasses approximately 7 acres, containing
    the Great Lakes Maritime Academy building with a deep water, protected harbor capable
    of handling a number of very large vessels, In addition, Technicallvocationai Division and
    warehousing functions are presently housed in the old Cannery Building..

    Proiect Fundina and Particioants

    Funding for the project came from a $30,000 grant from the Coastal Management Program,
    MDNR, and a $15,000 matching grant from Rotary Charities. In-kind services were
    provided by the project participants. The project participants include:

    El Grand Traverse County	03	Northwestern Michigan College
    03  MSU Extension Sea	13	Great Lakes Water Resources
    Grant Program	Task Force

    The project team included:

    Mae McClelland, Deputy Administrator, Grand Traverse County
    Chet Janik, Director for Special Projects, NMC
    John Tanner, Director, Great Lakes Maritime Academy
    Bob Brick, ReMax Realty
    Michael Wills, Harbor Boat Shop
    Tim Reardon
    -1I-

    John McKinney, MSU Extension Sea Grant AgentI

    Proiect BackaroundI

    For over two years, a small group has been exploring the concept of establishing a Great
    Lakes Water Resources Center. With the assistance of Rotary Charities of Traverse City,
    funding was obtained from the Biederman Foundation and the Slaughter Foundation to
    engage the Waterfront Center of Washington, D.C., a consulting firm specializing in
    waterfront development, to undertake a professional assessment of the concept. A reportI
    was prepared and presented to various key community groups in May, 1993. The report,
    in summary, made the following assessments and recommendations:

    Ii       The Maritime Academy site is a gem and should be retained in a public
    educational role, a sentiment with apparent widespread support in the
    community. Together with adjacent, publicly owned parcels, the site offers aI
    prime public access point to Traverse Bay.

    cl       The basic concept for a public educational facility is sound. It now needsI
    refinement and direction, which the Waterfront Center's report attempts to
    provide.

    EJ       The mission of the facility should be focused on public education about all
    aspects of the Bay, ecological and cultural, and through this, convey insights
    into the Great Lakes system. Ancillary activities would be restricted to the
    Maritime Academy, a shop/cafe and offices; research would not be envisioned
    here, but rather the results of research done in the area might be displayed and
    explained here.
    13       Steps should be taken to formalize the plan, to broaden and incorporate its
    organizing committee, to begin a public education program, to employ a staffI
    director ($1 a year), and take beginning steps to relocate to the site activities that
    naturally fit.
    cl       A number of important early steps can begin right away, such as investigation of
    how to possibly upgrade and expand the existing marina, to properly evaluate
    the old cannery structure and to make sure the needs and plans of Northwestern
    Michigan College and its Maritime Academy are fully incorporated.

    The report concluded that "the idea of a Traverse Bay Center, with a sharpened focus and
    done well, is an excellent one."

    Northwestern Michigan College has conducted a study of the site to determine the buildout
    capacity in the context of their overall Master Plan. In addition, NMC recently launched
    a University Center which provides four degree programs in conjunction with a number ofI
    Michigan universities. An important consideratiion was to ensure that site planning was

    -2-I

    integrated closely with the needs of NMC.
    Proiect Process

    The project team met in early 1995 to outline the process in order to move forward toward
    the ultimate goal of redeveloping the Maritime Academy site into a Great Lakes Center.
    These steps included developing the work scope or project tasks; hiring a qualified
    consultant to carry out the work, conducting the project, and determining the next steps.

    Project Tasks

    Based on the report frorn the Waterfront Center and discussions with NMC, the Project
    Team developed the project tasks which would need to be accomplished. The tasks
    formed the basis of the Request For Proposals for consulting services.
    Listed below are the primar tasks of the Great Lakes Water Resources Center Planning
    Assessment Project:

    Task 1: Determine Site Constraints

    The site has tremendous potential and significant constraints due to its size and location.
    This task will identify the significant site contraints and outline the maximum carrying
    capacity of the site for development.

    Task 2: Proiect Reconnaisance

    The outcome of this task will be to identify priority uses for the Great Lakes Water
    Resources Center.

    There are three subtasks:

    a)       Community Consensus - A forum or design charette will be conducted to identify
    and prioritize key uses for the Center. The Center Task Force will provide the
    space and assist in the publicity of and invitations to the charefte. Proposers
    should outline the specific considerations in developing and conducting a
    consensus forum including a proposed agenda, marketing efforts, and
    consensus tools.

    b)       Identify Organizational Participants in the Center - From information provided by
    the County and culled from other sources, locate and identify organizations
    which may become tenants and/or exhibitors. Search efforts will focus on
    entities that provide serviceslproductslregulations related, but not limited to,
    environmental, ecological, economic and recreational aspects of the Great Lakes
    Basin. The NMC University Center plans will need to be closely considered
    -3 -

    during this task.I
    c)       Report - Provide a report on the key priority uses of the Center and users groups
    to target discussions for participation.I
    Task 3: Desian Studv
    Based on the site contraints and the priority uses, the next step is to conduct a design
    study to more completely determine the site potential.
    The specific components of the design study will include the following subtasks:
    a)       Programming -Meet with the organizational participants identified above toI
    determine space requirements and operational integrations with other potential
    facility occupants.I
    b)       Schematic Design - Prepare schematic planning documents which indicate
    clearly the consideration involved and the alternate solutions available to the
    owner. The schematic design will include schematic layouts, sketches and
    preliminary  design  criteria  and  set  the  Professional   Contractor's
    recommendations and establish the scope of the project.
    c)       Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate

    Task 4: DeveloD) Business Plan
    The business plan should include the optimal organizational structure for the development
    and operation of the Great Lakes Resources Center and include a capital and operating
    budget with revenue sources. Potential funding sources will be identified and defined.
    These will include applicable federal, state, and local government programs, foundations,I
    trusts, and potential tenants/exhibitors among others. In addition, funding request criteria,
    parameters and deadlines will be defined for funding sources when applicable.3
    Consulting Services
    A Request for Proposals was developed and distributed on May 1, with proposals due MayI
    25. Unfortunately, no proposals were received in response to the RFP. Informal
    communication with potential bidders indicated that the work scope was too aggressive for
    the available funds. Two areas in particular were identified as resource intensive and
    lower priority: data collection and marketing. As a result, the work scope was revised to
    narrow the focus to the most important aspects: site constraints, community input, design,3
    and business plan.
    The RFP was reissued on July 24, with proposal due August 23. The evaluation team3
    comprised of Chet Janik, Bob Brick, Ti'm Reardon, Mike Wills, and Mac McClelland

    -4 -

    reviewed and scored the four proposals submitted in response to the Great Lakes Water
    Resources Center RFP and met on Monday, August 28 to discuss the proposals. Listed
    below are the summary scores for each firm:
    FIRM	CITY	TOTAL
    Johnson Johnson & Roy, Inc.	Madison	80.83
    Economic Research Associates	Chicago	72.21
    Beckett & Raeder Inc.	Ann Arbor	71.95

    Blue Northern	Traverse City	57 .03
    The evaluation unanimously recommended Johnson, Johnson, and Roy (JJR). The
    contract was approved by the County Board of Commissioners at their August 30 meeting.
    Project Implementation

    Kickoff Meetina
    A kickoff meeting with JJR and the Project Team was held October 2. The purpose of this
    meeting was to set the project parameters, provide direction to JJR on community input,
    and set the project schedule. The Project Team developed the scope and agenda for the
    public input meeting, scheduled for October 26.
    In addition to meeting with project team, JJR met with a number of local officials to gain
    input on the project. These local officials included representatives from NMC, City of
    Traverse City, Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative, Maritime Heritage Alliance,
    Inland Seas Education Association, and others.
    Also during this time, JJR collected information about the site and the constraints which
    would determine the carrying capacity of the site. Meetings were held with the City
    Planner and Zoning Administrator to determine the standards for site development. Floor
    plans and design drawings, along with the NMC master plan, which includes this site, were
    obtained. Other site assessment information from NMC was also collected.

    At this meeting, NMC agreed to take a leadership role in facilitating the project.
    Understanding that the final outcome of the project would require Board of Trustee
    approval and would need to fit in with the overall vision of the college, Chet Janik, Director
    of Special Project for NMC, assumed the lead role as project manager and took over
    responsibility for communication between and among the project team, the community, and
    the consultant. This leadership was crucial in the successful implementation of the project
    and integration with NMC, the key partner in the project.
    - 5-

    Public InDut WorkshoD

    On October 26, a community input session was held with over 30 participants.  TheI
    participants were divided into small groups to develop programming issues and concerns,
    and develop an overall vision of the project. The results of that session are detailed in the
    consultants report, attached to this final report.
    In addition to the community input session, the project team met with representatives of
    the NMC Board of Trustees. The Board had an opportunity to hear the overall scope ofI
    and consultant's approach to the project and to provide input on the boundaries of the
    study from the Board's perspective.

    Desian Rer)ort

    JJR then took the input for the community session, the meeting with the Board of Trustees,
    and the input of the project team, along with the data and informnation collected on the site
    and produced a draft report for reveiw. The report included an executive summary, site
    and architectural feasibility,and project budget and operations summary.

    The report identified an overall mission statement, goals and objectives, and a phased
    implementation plan.

    Mission StatementI

    The creation of a center consisting of both public and private entities committed to public
    education and promoting an awareness of all environmental and cultural aspects of grand
    Traverse Bay.   This center will complement the broader educational mission of
    Northwestern Michigan College. The new facility needs to reach out to the broadest
    community base as well as a appeal to the visiting tourist reinforcing the concept that theI
    water quality of the overall watershed as well as its intricate relationship to the Great Lakes
    System is what makes the Grand Traverse Bay Area such an exceptional place.

    Concept

    The creation of a non-profit facility sharing the NMC Technical Cetner Site on the bay,I
    downtown Traverse City. The proposed center will build on the presense of the Great
    Lakes Maritime Academy, and introduce a range of activities providing educational
    opportunities promoting maritime heritage, research and vocational training, recreation,
    freshwater ecology and economic issues related to the watershed of the Grand Traverse
    Bay Area.3

    Goals and Objectives3

    -6-I

    The facility's intent is to build on existing organization, (Maritime Academy, Watershed
    Initiative, Inland Seas Educational Association, Maritime Alliance, University Center, aet.),
    and create a synergistic environment resulting in a facility which shares information,
    becomes a clearing house, attracts research, develops educational programs on all levels,
    and provides access to the Bay. The resources developed need to celebrate the Bay and
    show the impact on the daily lives of local residents, as well as the impact on their
    activities on the watershed. The resulting reputation and effort will expand Grand Traverse
    Bay's importance within the academic ancd scientific community nationally. An indirect
    benefit will be the ability to offer seasonal tourists a reason to lengthen their stay and
    expand their understanding about the regions environments quality.

    Specific objectives include:

    0	Provide Public Access to the Bay

    *	Create a Clearinghouse and Exchange of Information

    0	Provide Vocation/Technical Training Opportunities

    0	Foster Scientific Research which includes the private sector.

    0	Create an opportunity for notoriety and economic development on a variety of
    levels.

    Phased Implementation

    Due to the nature of pursuing and obtaining grants and the reliance on a variety of
    fundraising options, the consultants recommended, and the project temam agreed, that the
    project be phased.
    Phase  one would  include demolition of the cold storage building and   marina
    improvements, phase two would include parking lot and landscaping improvements and
    the relocation of labs and shops in new facilities, phase three would include the
    development of an outdoor exhibit area and phase four would include remodeling the
    existing Maritime Academy building, adding 35,000 square feet of offices to incorporate
    the Water Resources Center.

    Next Steps

    Over the next six months, the final report will be presented to the NMC Board of Trustees
    for consideration. An implementation plan is being developed to identify a project leader
    (a highly qualified community member has volunteered to fulfill this role), expand the
    advisory board, finalize an organization structure, and develop the terms of a formal
    relationship with NMC. This implementation plan will be presented to the NMC President
    and Board of Trustees for consideration of adoption. Once the plan is adopted by the
    - 7-

    NMC Board, the project leader and advisory board will begin the task of fundraising andI
    forming formal partnerships with organizations and firms which will be a part of the Great
    Lakes Water Resources Center.

    This study has provided invaluable information and community impetus to the concept of
    a Great Lakes Waters Center. The support of the Coastal Management Program and
    Rotary Charities was crucial to continuing progress on this project. Any redevelopment
    on the site can be directly related to the financial and staff support of Coastal Management
    Program and Rotary Charities.I

    PROJECT FINANCIAL REPORTS

    DEPAR0TEH0T OF NATURAL RESOURCES
    LAND AND WAITE MANAGEMENT DVITSION
    COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
    COlT.-ACTOR/SUBG.RANT=E IS QUARTERLY FUIANCIAL REP0RT+

    Contract Io.  95D-10.07 -or Quarter/Peri4d October 1, 1995 through Decexaer 31   , 19 95

    Subgrantae's Name  Grand Traverse County                   Date:  May 15, 1995
    Subgrantae's Federal M.D. Number 38-
    Amount Spent During Qua--ter
    Personnel

    Fringe Benefits

    Travel

    Equinment

    SupplIes

    Ot.her

    Contractual Serviaes

    Total ..

    Personnel~

    Frinzge Henef-fit's

    Tra,rel

    Equipment

    Supplies

    Other

    Cont--actual Services

    CZDI Grent Funds

    Contribution

    Data

    $30,000      SiZata/Federal
    CZ23G~iFunds

    $40,261.66  CZgranr-Funs
    HSugatchiane
    Contributlt.f.

    Amount Seent,' irscal Year to I
    -$16,922.50

    $7,252.50

    -0-
    $500.00
    $586.66

    $45,000
    Total ....
    $70,261.66
    Fxzenditur- 'a iaeacries lizted naa  be aodified to a reasonable dede to cOZ~O~ to
    csntractor's  acccu:.-cng system.
    nup"/-'iNll 2/988

    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    1
    I
    I
    I
    I
    GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER
    LOCAL MATCH
    ROTARY GRANT

    STAFF TIME

    COMMUNITY EFFORT

    SUPPLIESIMATERIALS

    MAILINGS

    PRINTING

    TOTAL
    $15,000.00

    $10,150.00

    $14,025.00

    $500.00

    $353.06

    $233.60

    $25,261.66

    No. B 20619-1
    S.TR
    1/09/96
    D~ATE
    PAYEE ---

    101,  i.c3'500.00              57462572

    COMMENTS.

    13,500.00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~COMNACON
    U
    j.THE A~TTACHED WARRANT IS TE:_NOERED'TO YOU HEREWITH                                    002   0 2 06 1'9T7"
    114I:FPULL SETTLEMENT OF YOUR ACCOUNT AS DETAI LED ABOVE.
    No. B  269

    ~~~GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY.DT
    Travese    (OVgFtNMENTAL CENTER  *400 BOARDMAN AVE.
    tyT-RA-VERSE CITY, MICHIGAN 496a84-
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~AMOUNT

    I  7HWTW~  THOUISAND, FIVE ..HU3D           DOLLARS AND,NO CENTS
    1.               ~~~~~VOID IF NOT CASHED IN 60 DAYS                               ***1,500
    EMPIRE NATONAL BANK74143

    ~~~~JOHN4SON JIDHNSOI AWVE0 CiTY  MICIAN72
    11M?ILLER

    *.1 -fARBOR                31   80-39COUNTY CLERK
    COUNTY TREASURER       NT 9R              LD
    i  Io~q &us     :?10i31   7nO081'a377sla
    4
    mm -

    I
    I

    I
    I
    Johnson Johnson & Roylnc
    110 Miller
    Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104-1339
    313662 4457
    NOVEMBER 27, 1995
    INVOICE NO. 57462
    PROJECT NO. 17791.00

    GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY
    400 BOARDMAN AVENUE
    TRAVERSE CITY, MI 49684-2577

    ATTN:  MR. MICHAEL J. MCCLELLAND
    DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR

    FOR: GREAT LAKES CENTER

    PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING OCTOBER 31, 1995
    FEE
    45,000.00
    TOTAL FEE
    25.00 FEE EARNED
    11,250.00
    PERCENT COMPLETE
    TOTAL EARNED
    11,250.00
    PREVIOUS FEE BILLING
    CURRENT FEE BILLING

    TOTAL THIS INVOICE
    11,250.00
    $ 11,250.00
    D, 1 o
    I Due and payable
    upon receipt.
    Should there be any
    questions in connection
    with this invoice, you are
    requested to contact the
    Accounting Departmentl
    a Billing Section.
    INVOICE 77;                        IN'VPICE #   4
    P--.o. #	1o,-.,r
    	,7
    ACOi.vi       :fREAT	/.41c.  -,E    ,7	Z,,	A j            /,,4?	-

    lCOMatMENi 'S: 6R$EJ	1-kKEi    �F/t'Rb,4'7e ./jiX	CI,-vU jfR    A,PPA'OV4t	6

    /YXAN/"M'          4- 1F ' SInz    f	1 �/5    SS5    /'         Ai

    .  1'1 ..  -  -
    , .-                          17    &I /i
    A J  /  ) <
    l,
    I Al 0 J I/	(1
    _  - - -  . _	--
    X    . -vn A f
    ;	r Z-t, rK
    K	t	,.
    9JvR/

    Johnson Johnson & Roy/inc	,           ,-        7
    110 Miller                ..	. .
    Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104-1339
    313 662 4457
    Iw
    I
    I
    I
    DECEMBER 4, 1995
    INVOICE NO. 57626
    PROJECT NO. 17791.00

    GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY
    400 BOARDMAN AVENUE
    TRAVERSE CITY, MI  49684-2577

    ATTN: MR. MICHAEL J. MCCLELLAND
    DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR

    FOR: GREAT LAKES CENTER

    PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 1995
    I
    I
    I
    I
    FEE
    I
    TOTAL FEE
    45,000.00
    I
    PERCENT COMPLETE
    30.00 FEE EARNED
    13,500.00
    TOTAL EARNED

    PREVIOUS FEE BILLING

    CURRENT FEE BILLING

    TOTAL THIS INVOICE
    13,500.00

    11,250.00

    2,250.00
    I
    I
    $   2,250.00
    I
    OUTSTANDING INVOICES
    NO. 57462 DATE 11/27/95
    11,250.00
    I
    TOTAL
    11,250.00
    11,250.00
    I
    TOTAL NOW DUE   $  13,500.00

    lIqs P, eorl
    I
    I
    I

    s�                   BPP4WTh)VA:  /~C
    cr- - .. .) lw - 500
    g4t,   ,,_^ppassvat	- . r ,               V;r.4Lj
    ACe .S                             A	o
    Due and payable
    upon receipt.
    Should there be any
    questions in connection
    with this invoice, you are
    requested to contact the
    Accounting Department
    Billing Section.
    2p. Bo ff
    I
    /I
    z
    250,00
    ,O'~.2.
    ),%~t'

    ./
    No. B 21 2361
    mE JJR
    DATE  5/14/96

    I               *                    *B-                                                                                                                                            -
    15,705.00
    57962
    58209
    58424
    COMMENTS:
    15,705.00
    002   02123VO"MON ACC
    No. B 212361

    DATE
    5/1 4/96
    T IS TENDERED TO YOU HEREWITH
    YOUR ACCOUNT AS DETAILED ABOVE.
    GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY
    GOVERNMENTAL CENTER � 400 BOARDMAN AVE.
    TRAVERSE CITY, MICHIGAN 49684
    AMOUNT
    'IFTEEN THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED FIVE DOLLARS AND NO CENTS
    VOID IF NOT CASHED IN 60 DAYS
    S*****15,705.00

    EMPIRa NAtIONALV ANK	74143
    TRAVERSE CNY  MICHIGAN	724

    NOi    HEQTGADA7

    m* JOQHNSON JOHNSON & ROY, INC.
    .,,L  110 MILLER
    I
    7
    ANN ARBOR

    IL
    MI 48104-1339
    I
    COUNTY CLERK
    COUNTY TREASURER
    :0o 7 2I40 L, 3 31:  7'"O0BB 7 7?, 3:'
    t'I 2  , 2 3 6
    & i'

    I
    1

    C1
    -
    AFOWIFT-
    I
    Johnson Johnson & Roy/inc
    10 Miller
    Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104-1339
    313 662 4457

    JANUARY 31, 1996
    INVOICE NO. 57962
    PROJECT NO. 17791.00

    GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY
    400 BOAPDMAN AVENUE
    TRAVERSE CITY, IdT  49684-2577

    ATTN: MR. MICHAEL J. MCCLELLAND
    DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR

    FOR: GREAT LAKES CENTER

    PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1995
    FEE
    I
    TOTAL FEE
    45,000.00
    PERCENT COMPLETE
    51.00 FEE EARNED
    22,950.00
    I
    I
    I
    22,950.00

    13,500.00

    9,450.00
    TOTAL EARNED

    PREVIOUS FEE BILLING

    CURRENT FEE BILLING

    TOTAL THIS INVOICE
    $   9,450.00
    I
    OUTSTANDING INVOICES
    NO. 57462- DATE 11/27/95
    NO. 57626 DATE 12/04/95
    11,250.00
    2,250.00
    I
    TOTAL
    13,500.00
    13,500.00
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    TOTAL NOW DUE   $  22,950.00
    -.' 1   DAT!2, A -        )

    c.-  � sa,	1-.
    .1709          --. us:~Ped	1heI

    Pk m re-% IR
    . . # (LON(gAm

    9LOUL~ea,LLc~

    �I;�

    .i, P
    __i� _�
    _3_J' :��
    -- - - --l. --
    -_j
    II
    6JL444-1-;~ SeAA.
    I

    ,ww---Johinson Johnson & Roy/inc
    110 Miller
    Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104-1399
    313 662 4457

    FEBRUARY 15, 1996
    INVOICE NO. 58209
    PROJECT NO. 17791.00

    GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY
    400 BOARDMAN AVENUE
    TRAVERSE CITY, MI 49684-2577

    ATTN: MR. MICHAEL J. MCCLELLAND
    DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR

    FOR: GREAT LAKES CENTER

    PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY 15, 1996

    FEE
    45,000.00  /l6
    ,P9

    100.00 FEE EARNED
    *o       '0 .ooo.Cr

    45,000.00   w*s- ,fi
    TOTAL FEE

    PERCENT COMPLETE
    TOTAL EARNED

    PREVIOUS FEE BILLING

    CURRENT FEE BILLING
    45,000.00

    40,500.00

    4,500.00
    A
    RETAINAGE
    10% OF $4,500.00                                                450.00-
    $   4,050.00

    =======
    TOTAL THIS INVOICE
    OUTSTANDING INVOICES
    INVOICE TOTAL
    9,450.00
    17,550.00
    NET DUE
    9,450.00
    15,795.00 /
    NO. 57962 DATE 01/31/96
    NO. 58038 DATE 01/15/96
    TOTAL
    27,000.00
    25,245.00
    25,245.00
    TOTAL NOW DUE
    $ 29,295.00

    /R     P. Bof/
    / ~ S/o/Ojy
    Due and payable
    upon receipt.
    Should there be any
    questions in connection
    I           with this invoice, you
    are
    requested to contact the
    Accounting Department/
    I
    Billing Section.
    INVOICE # -
    r:, la,.P A# N14- c,

     J, 'A   -_

    I'mlu

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ~~~~~~~~~~-'t
    Johnson Johnsonl & Roy/inc
    110 Miller
    Ann Arbor. Michigan 48104-1399
    313 662 4457
    I
    APRIL 25, 1996
    INVOICE NO. 58424
    PROJECT NO.
    17791.

    .o01
    I
    /
    GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY
    400 BOARDMAN AVENUE
    TRAVERSE CITY, MI 49i
    I
    I
    684-
    2577
    ATTN:  MR. MICHAEL J. MCCLELLAND
    DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR

    FOR: GREAT LAKES CENTER

    FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 31 MARCH 1996

    RELEASE OF OUTSTANDING
    RETAINAGE:
    I
    I
    I
    INV. #58038, DATE
    01/15/96
    I      NV. #58209 DATE
    02/15/96

    TOTAL THIS INVOICE
    $
    1,755.00
    450.00

    $ 2,205.00
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I.P Bog aJ
    I
    Due and payable
    upon receipt
    Should there be any
    questions in connection
    with this invoice, you are
    requested to contact the
    Accounting Department/
    Billing Section.
    I
    I

    PAE JJR                                                    DATE 4/96NO8207
    i

    a

    15,795.00
    -

    WIN FULL SETTL-EMENT OF YOUR ACCOVNT AS OF-TAI LED ABOVE.                              002   02 0
    oB210774

    radGRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY	DATE

    Traver 'GOV6RNMSNfAL CENT R *400-BOAROMAN AVE,	4/09/96
    TRA f~NY     VE  OL RSE CMIHGANDN	4E484

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AMUT

    iMPhSE t4A~Q~IA W4I~74-143

    'r~~a o	M,

    LANR	ARDOR           ~~~Ill 40104-1399
    COUNTY CLERK
    '?03'~~ONt TES UE NaOT
    01;211N 019 L

    -~~~ ~~~~~~o -1. -'a -                                                                 -

    I
    I
    AJR/
    ,__I ritim I  -
    Johnson Johnson & Roy/inc
    110 Miller
    Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104-1399
    313 662 4457
    I J.      "  r:.'   3V (
    I
    I
    JANUARY 15,
    INVOICE NO.
    PROJECT NO.

    GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY
    400 BOARDMAN AVENUE
    TRAVERSE CITY, MI 49684-2577

    ATTN: MR. MICHAEL J. MCCLELLAND
    DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR

    FOR: GREAT LAKES CENTER

    PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JANUARY 15, 1996

    FEE
    1996
    58038
    17791.00
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    TOTAL FEE
    45,000.00
    I
    90.00 FEE EARNED
    40,500.00
    PERCENT COMPLETE
    40,500.00

    22,950.00

    17,550.00
    TOTAL EARNED

    PREVIOUS FEE BILLING

    CURRENT FEE BILLING
    I
    RETAINAGE
    10% OF $17,550.00                                              1,755.00-
    $ 15,795.00
    TOTAL THIS INVOICE
    OUTSTANDING INVOICES

    NO. 57962 DATE 01/31/96

    TOTAL
    INVOICE TOTAL
    9,450.00

    9,450.00
    NET DUE
    9,450.00
    9,450.00
    9,450.00
    TOTAL NOW DUE
    $ 25,245.00
    I
    I
    I
    Due and payable
    upon receipt.
    Should there be any
    questions in connection
    with this invoice, you are
    requested to contact the
    Accounting Department/
    Billing Section.
    INVOICE DATES -  Ii   voice    # -0t7-
    FD/DPT/L

    AcO MdT S:       ' 17.S_/ Q  Hct
    . ajtq

    D  e s i g n    S t u  d  y
    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    M i c h i g a n
    T r a v e r s e
    C i t y,
    April 1996
    J o h n s o n
    J o h n s o n
    &  R o y / i n c .
    TAI
    AAI
    ERG

    A C K NOWL E DG MEN T
    We would like to acknowledge and thank the following for their joint efforts and
    the resources dedicated to this study.

    K. Ross Childs, Administrator, Grand Traverse County
    Michael J. McClelland, Deputy Administrator, Grand Traverse County
    Dr. Timothy G. Quinn, President, Northwestern Michigan College
    Chet Janik, Director of Campus Services, Northwestern Michigan College
    John Tanner, Director, Great Lakes Maritime Academy

    This project would not have been possible without the funding provided by
    Cathie Cunningham, Coastal Management Program
    Land & Water Management Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources

    Rotary Charities of Grand Traverse County

    The dedication and involvement of the project steering commiftee:
    Robert Brick
    Timothy Reardon
    Chet Janik
    Russ Soyring
    John McKinney
    Mike Wills
    Michael McClelland
    The enthusiasm and participation of the local citizens who took part in various workshops.

    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan

    Table of Contents

    Executive Summarv
    1. Mission Statement
    2. Concept
    3. Location/The Site

    Site/Architectural Feasibilitv
    1. Design Approach
    2. Program
    3. Site Design Concept
    4. Building Design Concept
    Project Budaet/Ooerations Summarv
    1. Capital Outlay Requirements
    2. Phasing Strategy
    3. Business Plan Summary
    4. Public Funding Sources
    Appendices
    Appendix One - Existing Site Plan & Aerial Photo
    Appendix Two - Workshop Feedback

    ...  the evolutionary process for an ethic is simply this: quit thinking about decent land-use as
    solely an economic problem. Examine each question in terms of what is ethically and
    aesthetically right, as well as what is economically expedient. A thing is dght when it tends to
    preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends
    otherwise. "
    - Aldo Leopold (from T'he Land Ethic," in a Sand County Almanac, 1949)

    I
    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Tra,verse City, Michigan

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    1.  Mission Statement
    The creation of a center consisting of both public and private entities
    committed to public education and promoting an awareness of all
    environmental and cultural aspects of Grand Traverse Bay. This center
    will complement the broader educational mission of Northwestern
    Michigan College. The new facility needs to reach out to the broadest
    community base as well as appeal to the visiting tourist reinforcing the
    concept that the water quality of the overall watershed as well as its
    intricate relationship to Great Lakes System is what makes the Grand
    Traverse Bay Area such an exceptional place.

    Northwester~ihgn
    2.    Concept
    The creation of a non-profit facility sharing the Northwestern Michigan
    College Technical Center Site on the bay, downtown Traverse City. The
    proposed center will build on the presence of the Great Lakes Maritime
    Academy (GLMA), and introduce a range of activities providing
    educational opportunities promoting maritime heritage, research and
    vocational training, recreation, freshwater ecology and economic issues
    related to the watershed of the Grand Traverse Bay Area.

    Goals and Objectives

    The facility's intent is to build on existing organizations, ( Maritime
    Academy, Watershed Initiative, Inland Seas Educational Association,
    Maritime Alliance, University Center, etc.), and create a synergistic
    environment resulting in a facility which shares informatfion, becomes a
    clsaring house, attracts research, develops educational programs on all
    levels, and provides access to the Bay. The resources developed need
    to celebrate the Bay and show the impact on the daily lives of local
    residents, as well as the impact of their activities on the watershed. The
    resulting reputation and effort will expand Grand Traverse Bay's
    importance within the academic and scientific community nationally. An
    indirect benefit will be~ the ability to offer seasonal tourists a reason to
    lengthen their stay and expand their understanding about the regions
    environmental quality.

    Specific objectives include:

    Provide Public Access to the Bav. This objective will be achieved
    physically, visually and through educational programming. The removal
    of physical barriers and the creation of "hands on" exhibits will promote
    direct access to the bay. The removal of the old cannery building and
    limiting new building construction around the existing Maritime Academy
    building will enhance visual access to the Bay. The development of
    2

    G re at Lakes W ate r Re so uroes C ente r
    Traverse City, Michigan
    INLAND SEAS
    EDUCATIONj,ASSOC.

    =HE~   - ,

    NMC
    Univerity
    center
    educational programming, public exhibits and hands on outdoor
    demonstration/interpretive facilities will provide access through
    knowledge of the importance of the area's water resources and the need
    of maintaining a high level of water quality which enhances and sustains
    H     ~~environmental quality. All of the above collectively will foster regional,
    stat andnatinalrecognition and the desire to tap into this resource.
    Create a Clearinahouse and Exchanas of Information. No mafter what
    the focus whether it be freshwater ecology, maritime heritage, recreation,
    vocational opportunities or tourism the proposed facility will enhance
    I    ~~accessing information, promote research, enrich the history of the region
    and celebrate the environment. This can be achieved by reducing
    redundancy, establishing both traditional and electronic library resources,
    public exhibits and facilitating events ranging from workshops to major

    Provide Voc'ation/Technical Trainina ODDortunities. The current Maritime
    Academy, Northwestern Michigan College and Universit Center Will have
    a unique opportunity to expand existing water related vocational curricula
    to include scientific and environmental careers. The existing Maritime
    Academy curriculum can be expanded to include Marina Management.
    All of these programs can provide better educational and employment
    *     ~~opportunities serving the local population.
    Foster Scientific Research which includes the Drivate sector. The
    institutions of higher learning could expand their network to include the
    I ~~private sector through innovative partnerships. The site does not have
    the capacity to physically support large laboratory facilities, but could
    certainly become a symbolic place to meet, process informatilon, share
    I         information, become a clearing house for funding, and become a focal
    point for inspiration.
    Create an oDnortunitv for notorietv and economic develooment on a
    varietv of levels. The Center can promote economic development on
    both a local and tourist'level. The facility can extend the seasonal
    tourists' visit and increa'se the economic benefits without necessarily
    increasing the numbers of tourists. This has a direct economic impact by
    providing more opportunity for local employment. As the area becomes
    more popular due to publicity and marketing efforts there needs to be an
    awareness as to the environmental impacts of such growth. The Center
    can demonstrate that growth can take place With appropriate growth
    management techniques. And lastly the center can enhance the
    exposure and Visibility of the Maritime Academy resulting in funding and
    growth potential of both the program and the physical facility.
    GRAND TRAVI"RSE BAY
    WATERSH~ED
    WITIATIVE
    3

    G re at Lakes Water Re sources Ce nte r
    Traverse City, Michigan

    1        ~~3.     Locatior/Site

    Location: Traverse City, Michigan
    Ownership: Northemwestem Michigan College
    Site Characteristics:
    5            *~~~ Highly visible at the base of the West Arm of Grand Traverse Bay
    a Commanding view of the Bay
    *  Direct physical access to the Bay                                                      SITE
    * Approximately 5.32 acres
    0 Minimal topographic relief
    I         ~     ~~* Small protected harbor
    o Two vehicular access points (Hope & Barlow Streets)
    0 Two existing buildings (Maritime Academy / Voc. Tech Programs
    i	~      ~~~Building and an old cannery cold storage building used primarily
    *	~~~~~for storage.)
    o The remainder of site developed as surface parking.
    Site Context/issues:SIELCTOMP
    * The site is flanked by two publicly owned properties (west -
    Sunset Park, east - Seniors Center)
    * It is within walking distance of the downtown and riverwalk
    0 It is located along the heavily traveled State Highway 31 (Front
    S           ~ ~~~Street)
    & The site is flanked by major lodging (west - Holiday Inn, east -
    Bayshore Resort)

    0  Located within reasonable distance of the NMC core campus           c m.         _ S.,
    -         ~~* The primary user of the site is the Great Lakes Maritime Academy          _______
    Zoning: Currently the college is exempt form local jurisdictional controls.
    As the center is developed however it Will want to be a good
    neighbor and be sensitive to minimizing impacts on the Bay. If
    I          ~~~~~the property were not controlled by the college the site would be
    zoned 0-3 and need to follow guidelines applicable to that
    zoning designation.

    3                                         ~~~~~~~~~~~~4

    If
    I
    I
    ,
    4
    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan

    SITE / ARCHITECTURAL FEASIBILITY

    1.  Design Approach
    I
    !
    Before a concept plan could be developed, it was important to assess the
    site's context and opportunities. In addition to the technical aspects of
    site analysis, a key component of design was to solicit meaningful public
    input. The Great Lakes Water Resources Center design approach
    included the following elements:
    Site Reconnaissance: Time was spent assessing the physical
    ,eharacteristics and understanding the opportunities and constraints of the
    site. This evaluation went beyond the physical boundaries to better
    understand the community context as well. A number of interviews were
    held to better identify stake holders and community perceptions.
    I
    6:7J
    . Z:7 /7-0
    i_E--;57'- '
    0:XDL->9
    !
    LZ
    7I
    '--
    I
    Community Input: A critical part of the process was to facilitate a public
    workshop. It was important to receive the community's input early in the
    process. The workshop generated ideas in a public forum with the intent
    of creating consensus on the following primary planning issues:
    � Key issues and priorities
    * Site programming
    * Innovative site utilization ideas
    � Community access and linkage
    � Bay access and use
    � A clear strategy for implementation and follow through
    Workshop Feedback: The information obtained during the workshop was
    summarized in a series of lists and charts. This information is
    documented in Appendix Two.
    * Program Issues and Concerns: feedback
    � Programmatic Input - by participant group
    � Development Scenarios - by participant group
    Steering Committee: Throughout the design process, the steering
    committee participated in project meetings, provided review and
    comments on the program development and approved the schematic
    concepts. This committee had representatives from NMC, the Maritime
    Academy, the Grand Traverse County, the city of Traverse City as well as
    citizen input.
    Schematic Plan: The workshop process and ongoing involvement of the
    steering committee resulted in the criteria used to develop the schematic
    site and building plans.

    5
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I

    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan

    Business Plan: It wasn't enough to develop schematic concepts. With a
    concern for how to best implement these plans and longer term
    operational issues it was critical to start formulating a Business Plan.
    This plan, which is elaborated on in a later section, incorporated the
    following:
    * Organizational structure
    � Staffing Requirements
    � Annual operating revenues
    * Annual operating expenditures
    � Funding strategies

    'it would seem that the time has come for the creation of a vast new public landscape..
    By interweaving man's construct with the profuse phenomena of nature - water,
    geological formations, plants and animals in their natural habitats - it might be possible
    to shift away from a world oriented to power and profit, to a world oriented to life."
    -Patricia Johanson (from "Garden-Cities," unpublished
    manuscript for House and Garden.

    6

    l
    I
    *

    4
    1
    I

    a
    t
    !
    I

    t
    �
    m
    l
    jI
    J
    o

    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan

    2.    Program
    The following building and site development program was developed
    working closely with the college, the steering committee and
    incorporating feedback from the public workshop. The program went
    through multiple reiterations and is the basis of the schematic plans
    which follows.

    Buildina Proaram:

    t
    i'
    1.     Maritime Academy
    (Includes Circulation and Int. Walls)
    2.     Entry/Lobby (Resources Center/
    Maritime Academy>
    Reception
    *      Visitor Information
    � Ticketing
    Security/Control
    3.	Public Restrooms
    4.	Gift Shop
    5.	Exhibit Area
    6.	Theater/Assembly Area
    Theater/Assembly Are
    100 people (@ 22,5 per person)
    Audio Visual
    Projection Booth
    No Stage
    Approx. S.F. 30,000

    Approx. S.F. 400

    Approx. S.F. 500
    I
    Approx. S.F. 975
    Approx. S.F. 5,000
    Approx. S.F. 2,250
    I
    I
    I

    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    :1
    7.     Food Service/Seating and Preparation        Approx. S.F. 1,000
    (Could combine public/maritime academy use)
    (Facilitate catering)
    8.    Exhibit Support
    *	Storage
    *	Preparation Area
    *	General Maintenance
    Approx. S.F. 1,200
    725
    250
    225
    Approx. S.F. 400

    Approx. S.F. 200
    9. Resource Center
    Administration
    (Full Time & Volunteer Staff)
    10.    Volunteer Staff Lounge
    I
    7
    I

    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan
    11.  Shared Office Space for Related
    Approx. S.F. 800
    Water Resource Groups
    (could be one large or multiple rooms)
    12.    Common Kitchen Facility                    Approx. S.F. 540
    (maybe it's tied in with public food service)
    (16x20=320+Ref. Stg @ 220)
    13.	Office Storage	Approx. S.F. 100
    14.	Shared Conference Room	Approx. S.F. 576
    Small 12x16=192
    15.    Shared Work Room                           Approx. S.F. 250
    *	Mail
    *	Publication Preparation
    16.    Learning Center                            Approx. S.F. 270(
    [Classroom/Lab. (3@900)]
    17.    Common Resources Center/                   Approx. S.F. 100l
    Library(approx. 28x36)
    18.	Custodial Storage
    19.	Trash                                      Approx. S.F. 500

    20.	Shipping & Receiving
    21.	MechanicaVElectrical Equipment             Approx. S.F. 500
    0
    0
    I
    I
    Subtotal                                             48,891 square feet

    Min: 25% for circulation, interior walls (not inc. maritime academy)
    48,891-30,000=18,891  18,891x25%=4,722.75	4,723 S.F.

    Subtotal	53,614 S.F.

    Gross S.F. of office use
    (Assume 85% efficiency for parking calculations)   35,000 S.F.
    TOTAL
    88,614 square feet
    8

    G re at La kes Wate r Resourcess C ente r
    T rave rse Ci1ty, Mi1c hi1g an

    SITE PROGRAM:

    22.    Outdoor Exhibit Space
    a Open Plaza
    0	Fish Pool
    0	Weather Station
    0	Outdoor Exhibit Tanks
    *	Maritime Heritage                               .
    *	Maritime Academy Drill Area
    0	Upgrade Marina 32 Slips
    *	Excursion/Science Ship Docking
    23.    Potential for Traveling Exhibits that are
    circulated by Tractor/Trailer ... Trailer is Actual Exhibit
    24.	Service Access

    25.	On-site parking 300-+ cars

    26.	Bus drop-off
    In creating the program for the Water Resource Center there are
    numerous references to "shared"l classrooms, office, support facilities,
    library and conference needs. The desire is to create an opportunity to
    serve many allied water resource focused groups which already exist.
    Some examples of these organizations, but not necessarily limited to
    these, would include the following:

    *  Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative.  A function of the
    Northwest Michigan Council of Governments.   Dedicated to
    preservation of water quality in the Bay area.

    *  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Great Lakes Coordination Office.
    Expected to employ up to 20 scientists involved in fisheries
    research.

    �  Great Lakes Environmental Research Center as suggested by the
    University of Michigan Graduate Student Study in 1990.
    Research facilities and programs could be shared by the Michigan
    universities currently engaged in Great Lakes Research:
    University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Grand Valley
    State University, Lake Superior State University, Western
    Michigan University, and others.
    I
    9

    Great Lakes Water Resources CenterU
    Traverse City, Michigan

    �  Michioan Fisheries Center as outlined in the 1987 study by the
    Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Bringing theI
    results of fisheries research to the people, and showcasing the
    DNR's stewardship role of the resource. Fresh water aquarium,
    exhibits, displays, presentations are possible features.
    * Maritime Heritaae Alliance. A permanent home for display of
    historical nautical artifacts, antique and replica watercraft, and the,
    preservation of our maritime heritage.

    �  Groundwater Education in Michican (GEM). A program designed
    to educate the public about the importance of our groundwater,
    and sources of contamination and the individual's role in
    preservation.

    *  Inland  Seas  Education  Association,    Providing  educationalI
    experiences aboard a large Great Lakes schooner. Teaching
    students about history, culture and ecology of the Great Lakes in
    order to foster their stewardship of the resource in the future.I
    Facilitation of pre-boarding orientation.

    *Michiaan Sea  Grant.   Jointly administered through both theI
    University of Michigan and Michigan State University wvith an
    extension office in Traverse City. Both universities have ongoing
    research programs that may benefit from a presence here.
    *  NOAA. Coast Guard. Corns of Enoineers. These various federal
    agencies are involved in lake surveys, weather research and
    forecasting, navigation, safety, search and rescue and regulatory
    functions.

    �  Great Lakes Reaional Oil SDIII Control and Resoonse Center.
    While the federal program is centered in Detroit, there is a
    recognized need to provide training to the industrial clients and
    the shipping industry. This function could be performed by Great
    Lakes Maritime Academy.

    �  Center for the Great Lakes and Intemational Joint Commission.
    These and other organizations and foundations may desire a
    presence in the Center because of the level of activity that would
    be generated.

    10

    G-reat Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan

    Conceivably, there are many other groups and/or programs that would fit
    in to the Center, such as: Michigan United Conservation Club (MUCC),
    County Soil Erosion, Drain Commissions, EPA, Fishing Hall of Fame,
    Sportfishing Associations, Underwater Preserve Council, Coastal
    America, Coastal Zone Management, Nature Conservancies, DNR
    agencies (Recreation, Submerged Lands, Waterways, Wetlands), Great
    Lakes Shipping Industry Associations, Charter Boat groups, Nature
    groups, Visitor & Convention Bureau Visitor's Center, Haggerty Marine
    Insurance, Michigan Boating Industry Association, etc.

    OA sustainable society is one that satisfies its needfs without jeopardizing the prospects of future
    generations."
    _ Lester R. Brown, Christopher Flavyin, and Sandra Postel (from Worldwatch, 1990)
    11

    IAYSHOMEREMRT
    ftmtsfRm
    t
    '
    N

    *  L I" ""313 2

    SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN
    ldww. lo'~ &-AN.ll
    c,.. N.* r- St,dy%.    M.dLom4 Wh2flm  gm?

    M flu ERr.
    GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER
    TRAVERSE CMT, MICHIGAN
    - -  --       -  --  -           m MM -     -

    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan

    3.     Site Design Concept
    Maintaining visual access to the Say was repeatedly reinforced
    throughout the design process. In addition to this criteria, it is desirable
    to link the public open space (Sunset Park and the Seniors Center) which
    flanked both sides of the site with landscaped promenades and trails.
    This allows the site's development to create substantial green space
    parallel to Front Street, provide good public access along the shoreline
    and allow for linkages to the community through the creation of the
    'Traverse Trail."
    In terms of site development within the boundary of the NMC site, it was
    agreed to limit development around the existing Maritime Academy
    Building. The existing cannery building will be replaced with open space
    and parking.
    The site's development evolved into three zones. The southerly portion
    of the site provides landscaped parking and vehicular circulation with
    some trail development. The central area to the west Will support most of
    the building program. The remaining portion of the site is Bay frontage
    consisting of a marina, fishing pier, and outdoor exhibit areas. An
    important part of the site's development is the incorporation of areas for
    hands on interpretive exhibits and public displays.

    Vehicular and pedestrian access to the buildings and exhibits is
    accomplished while improving visual and physical access to the Bay.
    Maintaining the existing site access at Hope and Barlow Streets also
    creates an opportunity to maintain visual access to the Bay at those
    points. An equally challenging task was to provide adequate parking
    spaces and not have it result in the appearance of a regional retail facility
    parking lot on the Bay. This can be accomplished by careful siting and
    landscape design.
    The site development needed to embrace and promote the concepts
    outlined in the Grand Traverse Bay Region Development Guidebook
    incorporating the primary goal "to preserve and enhance the quality of our 4
    natural resources and environment as the basis for a healthy economy. .
    improve the quality of life of the people who live here and of those in
    future generations.'
    It is in response to this community desire that outdoor exhibits and
    programming events can fulfill a major educational role in reinforcing the
    Bay's value. The importance of understanding how to protect and
    maintain a high level of quality of the community's water based resources
    is emphasized throughout the design of the project.
    13

    G reat Lakes Wate r Reso urces Ce nte r
    Traverse City, Michigan	I

    Some of the proposed elements which can help achieve this goal are:	I

    * Changing exterior exhibit
    �  An indigenous fish pool
    �An outdoor weather station                                                       7
    �Hands on sampling areas
    �	Fishing pier
    �	Excursion tours                                                      clI
    *	Educational boat tours                                    >       ~~
    * Programming seasonal Bayside events-
    � A trail system linking bay and community
    �  Provide areas for outdoor classroom instruction

    The resultant center will be visionary in its purpose and will become a
    landmark facility and a community asset. Imagine yourself as a tourist or
    student visiting the site with a specific purpose or a community memberI
    at large passing through.

    The first thing that impresses you is the view of the Bay and the trails and
    walks that link the adjacent properties to the Bayshore. The parking
    areas are well landscaped and it is pleasant to walk through these areas.

    As you approach the Maritime Academy Building/Water Resource Center
    there is an inviting entry highlighted by a small plaza with attractive
    lighting and signage. There is adequate space for school buses to drop-
    off local school children who have come to see a special exhibit on
    commercial use of the Bay.

    There is another group of students and parents walking through the siteI
    to interact with a self-guided tour of "hands on" environmental outdoor
    exhibits.3

    The marina is viewed with great admiration. It is in a wonderful setting,
    'ship shape' piers and animated through the fluttering of banners and
    clanging of halyards.
    As one ventures further out the pier a variety of other experiences are
    encountered. The smile of a successful fisherman along the fishing pier.I
    The precision and business like manner of Maritime Cadets running a life
    boat drill. The anticipation of a group walting to board either a historic
    wind jammer, participate on a water sampling excursion or eager to tourI
    the bay to experience the sunset.

    Whether used formally with a programmed group or as an individual, the
    site development celebrates the bayfront, providing the user withI
    numerous activities and leaving them with a better understanding of the
    environment and its uniqueness.3

    143

    Great Lakes Water Rtesources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan

    4.     Building Design Concept
    In developing the building program a few principals need to be restated.
    �  Minimize visual impact an the Bay
    � Minimize impact on the Maritime Academy
    � Capitalize on the s'ite development concepts promoting
    environmental education
    �  Capitalize on having a Bayside presence
    � Create a structure that can be shared by allied water
    resource organizations and provide exhibit space
    � Enhance the image and visibility of the Maritime
    Academy
    The proposed center has the potential of being a community landmark
    along the Bay. As the design program evolved, it was important to
    recognize the need to respect the physical plant and operational needs Of
    the Maritime Academy. The resulting situation created an opportunity to
    develop a public facility as well as highlight the Great Lakes Maritime
    Academy. The GLMA has an opportunity to establish a presence and
    image that was not previously obvious.
    The remaining exterior portions of the Maritime Academy Building would
    be reclad and architecturally integrated into the newer building
    components. The entry into the new complex is odiented to the south
    creating a public entry serving both the Maritime Academy (with
    controlled access) and the Water Resource Center.
    The first floor of the Maritime Academy, except for the relocation of the
    administrative offices, would remain as is. The new portions of the
    ground floor would provide the center with a collection of classrooms,
    shared suppor-t services, a library resource center and a major exhibit
    space. There would be a large two story open area for programming
    exhibits and events with view to both outdoor exhibit areas and the bay.
    A new small centrally located theater could be shared by both the
    Maritime Academy and the Water Resource Center.
    A mezzanine level is proposed to provide access to an overlook viewing
    area which can take advantage of the two story exhibit area to allow
    views of the Bay. This level would also incorporate the relocated
    Maritime Academy administrative offices as well as create an opportunity
    for a shared conference facility. An overlook area could also be provided
    which views the public display areas below.
    The upper floors of the proposed Water Resource Center area would be
    developed as either office or classroom space. The building's structural
    bay spacing and floor to ceiling clearance would allow the maximum
    flexibility for either option during future programming of the building.
    Is

    I
    Great Lakes Water FResources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan

    It is through this flexibility that a variety of future programs or financial
    needs can be addressed. This zone of the building can be developed for
    private office use to generate revenue, expand current NMC programs
    with a Bayside location, build on the current success and expand on the
    University Center program or simply expand on encouraging water
    resource related user groups.
    I
    I
    I

    I

    I
    FtFflm
    I          I I  I
    The development of the Great Lakes Water Resources Center is an
    opportunity to demonstrate the community at large's role and relationship
    to the Bay and its linkage to the Great Lakes System. The architecture
    and the use of materials tell a story of a public facility which symbolically
    represents a vwindow to the Bay helping convey a better understanding of
    the scientific principles and elements of the regions aquatic ecosystem.
    In addifion there is an influence of the maritime history of the waterfronts
    use and commercial activity on the Bayfront. The nautical theme,
    reflected through the activities and presence of the Maritime Academy,
    Will also be reinforced in the architectural detailing.

    The glass enclosed large Exhibit Area allows for views of the Bay but
    more importantly becomes a beacon of the activities going on inside.
    This reinforces the opportunities of year round programming whether
    educational or seasonal in orientation serving the community during
    those long winters well after the summer tourists have gone. Ultimately
    this beacon will aftract scientists, educators and environmentalists from
    around the country.

    Not only does the use of metal on the exterior reflect the nautical
    vocabulary but it will age and develop a patina over time providing an
    aesthetic and sense of long term commitment.

    All of the above metaphors not only celebrate the Great Lakes Maritime
    Academy but create a flagship for Northwestern Michigan College as well
    as the community at large.
    E-tTh-IH--jjjj2l

    SCMDU RUT

    "
    I

    I

    I

    I

    I

    is
    I

    �.  SCHEMATIC: FIRST FLOOR
    0   16  32         64

    GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER
    TRAVERSE CITY, MICHIGAN
    Johnson, Johnson and Roy/inc
    One North Pinckney Street Madison, Wisconsin 53703
    with
    AAI      TAI       ERG
    February 23,1996

    I          S	MECHEMATIC: MEZZANINE

    One North   nckney Street Ma	son, Wisconsin 53703 ,  .

    AAI          TAI  ER        G
    ebruy 23,.1996

    w ih
    I

    February 23,1996

    I
    i

    I
    1

    1
    I
    1
    -

    4

    3
    a
    I

    0    16   32           64
    SCHEMATIC: TYP. OFFICE FLOOR
    LT LAKES WATER RESOURCES (
    TRAVERSE CITY, MICHIGAN
    Johnson, Johnson and Roy/inc
    One North Pinckney Street Madison, Wisconsin 53703
    CENTER
    GREA
    with
    TAI
    February 23,1996
    ERG
    AAI

    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan

    PROJECT BUDGET/OPERATIONS SUMMARY

    1.    Capital Outlay Requirements
    In response to the previously described design program and design
    concepts, the following opinion of probable construction costs were
    developed for planning purposes only.
    OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION
    1. Demolition of Cold Storage Building & Relocation
    2. Rebuild Maritime Academy Offices Separately

    3. Demolition Cost for Building and Site

    4. Relocation of Labs and Shops in New Facilities

    5. Reface Remaining Existing Mansard

    6. 35,000 S.F. of New Office Space

    7. New Water Resources Center Facility
    Subtotal (Items 1-7)        $7,854,00(
    CO
    S

    0.00
    STS

    $500,000.00
    $408,000.00

    $172,000.00

    S1,440,000.00
    $109,000.00

    S2,975,000.00

    52,250,000.00

    $430,000.00
    $246,000.00
    $200,000.00

    $256,000.00

    $242,000.00
    $30,000.00
    $100,000.00

    $205,000.00
    $60,000.00
    $10,000.00
    $250,000.00
    c
    8. Marina Improvements
    8.1 New Breakwater
    8.1.1 Bulkhead Paving

    8.2 Modifications to Existing Breakwater

    8.3 32 Boat Slips

    8.4 Maritime Deck Improvements

    8.5 Dredging

    8.6 Marina Building (Toilets and Showers)
    Subtotal (Item 8)          $1,504,000.00
    9. Outdoor Exhibit Area
    9.1 Fish Pool with Pump Building
    9.2 Aquarium Exhibits with Signage & Structures
    9.3 Landscape Plantings
    9.4 Hardscape
    Subtotal (Item 9)            $525,000.00
    20

    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan
    10. Weather Station Overlook
    @ Base of Breakwater by Walkway from Parking    $48,000.00
    11. Parking Lot and Landscape @ Front Street
    (Paving, Curbs, Trees, Lawn, Sidewalks, Trails)	$445,000.00
    12. Site Lighting	$120,000.00
    13. Site Utilities	$50,000.00

    Subtotal	$1
    0.546.000.00

    14. Contingencies (15%)	$1,581,900.00O

    Subtotal	$12.127.900.00

    I

    $970,232.00
    S13.098.132.00
    - Professional Fees (8%)

    TOTAL
    NOTE:
    The above opinion of probable cost is based on the assumptions that the
    site has been filled. Soil borings should be undertaken prior to building
    and site design and preparation of final budgets.
     21

    Great Lakes Water Resources Center-
    Traverse City, Michigan

    2.     Phasing Strategy
    Due to the nature of pursuing and obtaining grants and the reliance on a
    variety of fundraising options we are recommending that the project be
    phased.
    This development strategy accomplishes a number of things:

    � Phasing allows the project to move forward without having all of
    the capital in place up front.
    � There are site issues that are becoming a liability and need to be
    attended to immediately:
    1. The current harboes condition
    2. The cannery building's condition
    * The site improvements provide better visual access to the Bay.
    * The site improvements provide better physical access to the Bay
    and to the Center, both from land and from water.
    * The Maritime Academy will have better visibility.
    � Phasing creates an opportunity for the Water Resource Center to
    have an immediate presence on site.
    � Phasing will allow for immediate Water Resource Center
    educational programming of limited events on site.
    * All of the above will give the idea of the Water Resource Center
    visibility and an element of reality creating momenturm helping
    promote the vision.
    The following outline shows the various elements and how they could be
    combined in terms of a phasing strategy.

    Phase One

    1 .Demolition of Cold Storage Building
    2. Marina improvements
    2.1 New Breakwater
    2.11 Bulkhead Paving
    2.2 Modifications to Existing Breakwater
    2.3 32 Boat Slips
    2.4 Maritime Dock Improvements
    2.5 Dredging
    2.6 Marina Building (Toilets and Showers)
    22

    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan3

    Phase Two
    1. Parking Lot and Landscape @ Front Street3
    (Paving, Curbs, Trees, Lawn, Sidewalks, Trails)
    2. Relocation of Labs and Shops in New Facilities3
    Phase Three

    1. Outdoor Exhibit AreaI
    1.1 Fish Pool with Pump Building
    1.2 Aquarium Exhibits with Signage & Structures
    1.3 Landscape Plantings                                                              '

    Phase Four
    1. Rebuild Maritime Academy Offices Separately
    2. Demolition Cost for Building and Site
    S. Reface Remaining Existing Roofed Portion
    4. 35,000 S.F. of New Office Space
    5. New Water Resources Center FacilityI
    6. Site Lighting
    7. Site Utilities

    Please refer to Exhibit - 1 which follows the phasing strategy outline.
    This illustrates the breakdown of the costs related to each proposedI
    phase.
    A critical consideration for the phasing is that the concept be approved in
    its entirety. Local jurisdictional as well as public understanding andI
    support of the complete vision as described by the four phases is
    essenfial. This will safeguard from any misunderstandings during
    subsequent phasing as key people's involvement and roles changeI
    during the course of the projects implementation.

    233

    Exhibit 1.
    Opinion of Probably Construction Costs
    The Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    April 1996

    Phase	Phase	Phase	Phase	Total
    Cost Item                                        One	TwO	Three	Four	Costs
    1  Demolition of Cold Storage Building           500,000                                                 500,000
    2 Marina Improvements
    2.1 New Breakwater	430,000	430,000
    2.11  Bulkhead Paving	246,000	246,000
    2.2 Modifications to Existing Breakwat	200,000	200,000
    2.3 32 Boat Slips	256,000	256,000
    2.4 Maritime Deck Improvements	242,000	242,000
    2.5 Dredging	30,000	30,000
    2.6 Marina Building	100.000	100,000
    3	Parking Lot + Landscape @ Front Street	445,000	445,000
    4	Relocation of Labs & Shops	1,440,000	1,440,000
    5	Outdoor Exhibit Area
    5.1 Fish Pool + Punb Puilding	205,000	205,000
    5.2 Aquarium Exhibits	60,000	60,000
    5.3 Landcape Plantings	10,000	10,000
    5.4 Hardscape	250,000	250,000
    6	Weather Station Overlook	48.000	48,000
    7	Rebuild Maritime Academy Offices                              -	408,000	408,000
    8	Demolition Costs for Building + Site	172,000	172,000
    9	Resurface Remaining Mansard	109,000	109,000
    10	Construct 35,000 sq. ft of New Ofice Space	2,975,000	2,975,000
    11 ' New Water Resources Center Facility	2,250,000	2,250,000
    12	Site Lighting	120,000	120,000
    13	Site Utilities	50.000	50,000
    14	Subtotals	2,004,000	1,885,000	573,000	6,084,000	10,546,000
    15	Contingencies	15.0%	300,600	282,750	85,950	912,600	1,581,900
    16	Professional Fees	8.0%	184,368	173,420	5.Z16	559.728	970,232
    17	Totals	2,488,968	2,341,170	711,666	7,556,328	13,098,132

    Source: Johnson Johnson Roy I Inc. (April 1996)
    TAI RF4ALT ADJ'7SORS            -t - -    -     o
    GLWRCo04XI

    _PHASING PLAN
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    !
    r--
    EIosting Maritime
    I      Academy
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I ~~Z----
    I
    I
    I

    JI
    r-
    -

    i
    !

    I
    -ICl

    I
    I
    I
    I
    0-
    0-----
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    FRtNTsrER
    I
    PHASE ONE

    I N J"          I"M  I0a

    a  .  _-_
    SCL U ....
    I

    I
    I

    M..)oN. ,,d 71 1/W
    0,. Nhd, phwjy Sw  M-daT   WIE nG      i

    AXU TX ERG
    GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER
    April 1996                     TRAVERSE cmrr. MICHIGAN

    PHASING PLAN.

    nwmcn-

    r.
    EIdsting Maritime
    I      Academy
    I arkingL ota nd
    I
    I
    I
    I

    Relocation of Labs and
    Shops in New Facilities
    Parking Lot and
    F
    K
    *vDW9ntEE
    i
    N
    I
    Ti
    r
    PHASE TWO

    a 2J  n  I	I.    am
    Beu 0	PUT

    GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER
    Arann!1QE CM,U MIMAICAN
    &A14J�nnd RAW/WK
    h,~rrc~c  .  .&.WhWWwmwfin M"M
    Alnril 19%~

    I
    I
    PHASING PLAN
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    ymeG FM
    Exhibit Area

    -Weather Stali
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    _-_
    I
    I
    I
    I

    *        1_
    FRONT STrEET
    f
    I
    I I
    A
    ,
    I
    PHASE THREE
    I
    I
    a u "         US 0u  w
    r,_e-- _ .
    edJu l[

    Sr wt Mad- Ww.         iI
    GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER
    TRYERSE CITY, MICHIGAN
    Anril 1996

    PHASING PLAN .

    I ~~~~~~~~~~I

    1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ~~~~~I

    4~rtime Academy/Great Lakes
    _ ;Water Resources Center
    p

    1
    i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
    f0'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I .
    _ _  _ _~~~~~~~~~.
    i

    I ;I

     i 110.
    lis
    k !s~

    6%11 --t~
    L  1M'. ..
    0
    ; K.

    I
    e
    I

    ,r i
    -)E
    I I
    PHASE FOUR

    GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER
    TRAVEASE CrTy, MIOUGAN
    lwymftkhrbr WWOM &-A KMAMC~
    - -mww-6- SM
    April 1996

    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan

    2.     Business Plan Summary
    Establishina an Entitv. Identity and Savside Presence
    It is strongly recommended to immediately establish a non-profit entity
    whose purpose is the creation and establishment of the center. This
    entity needs to focus on establishing an identity of its own. It can not
    burden another existing non-profit group nor should it dilute the
    importance of its mission. The new entity should reinforce the concerns
    of other allied environmentaVeducational organizations and at the same
    time build on the resources and network that those organizations can
    provide. In establishing this entity the proposed name used should
    receive some reconsideration. The primary concern there is whether or
    not its name should have stronger ties with the immediate area given the
    notoriety that the Grand Traverse Bay area already has.
    As this non-profit group is established it is imperative that a development
    board be created. The interest and activifies related to the idea of
    creating the center have been around long enough. It is now at a critical
    point where the appropriate mix of influential members of the Greater
    Grand Traverse Bay community need to pool resources to solicit the
    financial and political support required to make it happen.
    The third consideration for immediate action is to establish a presence on
    the NMC site. This is important from both an identity as well as visibility
    issue. The use of a small space within the existing Maritime Academy to
    start facilitating on site educational programs is a very effective way to
    start creating a "very real" community presence.
    Ownershin Entitv
    It is assumed that NMC will not sell the site, but wVill likely execute a long-
    term ground lease with a not-for-profit (possibly related) developing
    entity. Sometime during phase three the ownership entity will issue an
    RFP to potential fee developers to construct the Great Lakes Water
    Resources Center (the Center). Construction of the Center would
    commence in the year 2000 and continue for approximately twelve
    months. Therefore, the fee developer would retain no ownership interest,
    but would be paid a development fee of approximately 3.0 percent of total
    construction costs (approximately $350,000). Ownership of the
    improvements would reside with the not-for-profit developing entity, for
    the duration of the ground lease. It wVill generally be necessary for that
    ground lease to extend for at least the term of the financing (assumed to
    be 25 years). After that term, the ground lease wVill expire, and ownership
    of the Center will revert to the NMC.
    Manaaement and Onerations (See Exhibit 4, Exhibit 5)
    It is assumed that the Ownership Entity will hire a full time Director for the
    Center, who will have operations, leasing and program development
    responsibilities. The size of the Center, and its varied tenant activities
    29

    Exhibit 2.
    Financing and Operations Plan
    The Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan
    April 1996
    Phase
    Three

    12
    Phase
    One
    Phase
    Two

    6
    Phase
    Four
    totals
    Estimated Start Date
    Estimated Completion Date
    Duration (montlls)
    24
    12
    54
    Total Probable Costs
    2,488,968      2,341,170
    711.666     7,556,328    13,098,132
    Add:
    Interim Operating Costs
    Prefunded Operating Deficit
    Financing + Transaction Costs
    Developer Fee
    90,0
    00
    132,000
    50,000
    200,000
    250.000
    382,000
    50,000
    200,000
    250.00
    Total Development Costs
    (rounded to:)

    Possible Fundine Sources:
    I	Corporate Fund Raising
    2	Federal Funding (?)
    3	State Boating Facilities Grant
    4	Coastal Zone Management Grants
    5	Inland Fisheries Resource Grants
    6	Land + Water Conservation Fund
    7	-Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund
    8	Private Fund Raising
    9	County/Municipal Contributions
    10	State Contributions
    11	Mortgage Loan Proceeds

    Total Sources of Funds
    2,608,968	2,381,170
    2,600,000	2,400,000
    801,666	8,188,328	13,980,132
    800,000	8,200,000	14,000,000

    600,000	3,700,000	5,700,000
    00                           0
    30,000
    50,000
    20,000
    50,000
    350,000
    1,500,000	3,850,000
    100,000	200,000	550,000
    100.000	300,000	900,000
    2.500.000	2.500.000

    800,000     8,200,000	14,000,000
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    1,200,000
    0
    30,000
    50,000
    20,000
    50,000
    350,000
    850,000
    50.000
    200,000
    0

    1,500,000
    200,000
    500.0
    00
    2,600,000     2,400,000
    I
    Source: TAI REALTYADVISORS
    I

    415/96       I
    .41 REALTYADI7SORS
    GLWRC004-.,S

    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan

    (including the Maritime Academy, marina, multiple office and retail
    tenants, exhibit and assembly hall space) will require that a Maintenance
    Director be hired, along with two maintenance staff personnel. The
    Center Director will likely delegate all exhibit responsibilities to a full-time
    Program Curator, who will design and implement all leaming-center
    activities. We further assume that the Director will have a full-time
    secretary, and the Program Curator will have a part-time (50%) secretary-
    support person. We assume that a volunteer staff, Comprising three full-
    time equivalent (FTE) persons, will be available to assist the Program
    Curator in supporting the use and care of exhibit space.
    Sources of Fundina (See Exhibit 2)
    We have identified eleven possible funding sources which would be used
    to finance the estimated $14 million cost of the proposed Center. A
    range of municipal, county, state and federal sources are available, and
    we assume that almost $2.0 million in such funds will be committed to
    funding the Center. A local fund-raising program will likely have to be
    initiated, and we assume that this program, relying heavily on local
    corporate contributions, would provide an estimated $5.7 million to the
    Center.
    The NMC currently assumes financial responsibility for maintaining the
    site and for providing for capital improvements at the Maritime Academy.
    This Business Plan is based on the assumption that the College would
    provide the site, and that some fundraising activity would be required.
    The amount needed would increase, or decrease, depending upon the
    level of contributions or grants secured from other sources. The
    estimated funds required through these fundraising activities currently is
    approximately $3.85 million.
    Financing (See Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3)
    We assume that upon completion of phase four (or at the start of the year
    2001), a $2.5 million mortgage loan will be originated. Based upon a
    7.25 percent interest rate, and a 25-year amortization period (equivalent
    to the presumed term of the ground lease), the Center will face an annual
    debt service payment of approximately $222,000. During year one a
    projected operating deficit of approximately $40,000 is forecast, but
    reserves to fund this deficit will have been set aside. Operating income in
    year two is estimated at $10,000; this operating surplus increases to
    $143,000 by year five.
    Sources of Potential ODeratina Revenue (See Exhibit 4)
    The Business Plan assumes that there are four business activities, or
    sources of potential revenue, within the Center. Annual rents for each
    are estimated, as described below. The Business Plan assumes that
    rents increase at a 3.0 percent annual rate, and that operating expenses
    increase at slightly more than this, or at a 4.0 percent annual rate.
    m                                                         31

    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan

    1. Rental Revenues from the Gift ShoD. A small gift shop, containing
    975 rentable square feet (rsf) is included in the development plans.
    We estimate that this gift shop will be leased to a private retailer, who
    will pay a gross annual rent of $12 per rsf. Over the forecasted ten-
    year planning period, these revenues represent less than 1.0 percent
    of total potential revenues of the Center.

    2. Rental Revenues from Office Space. Thirty-five thousand gross
    square feet of office space would provide approximately 29,750
    rentable square feet of space. At an average rent of $15.00 per rsf,
    this space, if fully leased (with no lease concession and net of any
    leasing commission liabilities) would provide $446,250 in gross
    potential revenue.
    3. Attendance-Generatina Caoacitv based on Exhibit SDace. We                                    I
    assume that exhibits portraying ecological, environmental and fresh
    water-related demonstration programs will be developed and housed
    within the 5,000 square-feet of space of proposed exhibit space. We
    cannot reasonably estimate the ability of this space, and of these
    demonstration programs, to attract visitors without a more detailed
    description of the characteristics and uniqueness of a Exhibition
    Program. However, project costs assume that only a small
    investment will be made in developing an aquarium program, and that
    such a program will not become a 'paid-attendance generator'.
    Instead, we assume that a nominal entrance fee will be charged to
    view the exhibits developed under the sponsorship of the non-profit
    entity. We assume that, in Year 1, approximately 120,000 attendees
    would pay $2.50 each to view the exhibit, representing approximately
    20,000 visitors monthly during the summer months and 7,250 visitors
    monthly during the balance of the year. Annual attendance is                                 3
    conservatively estimated to increase by approximately 3.0 percent
    annually.
    4. Rental Revenues from Assembly Hall. The 2,250 square feet of                                  I
    assembly hall space can be leased to local businesses and citizen
    groups, as well as to members of the educational community. We
    estimate that this space can generate rental income of approximately
    $650 per week ($15 per rsf per year, or $33,750 annually), based on
    use and pricing variables that are established to maximize potential
    revenues. For instance, management may not wish to compete
    directly with the two adjacent hotels, both of which offer public space
    options, but the Center may determine that it is desirable to offer this
    space to non-profit and educational users at moderate cost.
    The Business Plan assumes that of these four business activities they will
    experience some loss attributable to vacancy or credit loss. The                                  I
    likelihood that no vacancy loss would be experienced is remote,
    I
    323

    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan

    particularly subject to the expectation that the commercial office space
    will be leased to a number of small, and possibly, not-for-profit, tenants.
    Vacancy loss is estimated at 25% during year one; this loss is estimated
    to decline to 5% by year five. However, vacancy losses could be further
    minimized if development of the Center is postponed until commitments
    to pre-lease all of the office space have been negotiated.
    Timina and DeveloDment Flexibilitv (See Exhibit 1)
    The Business Plan assumes that the proposed development program is
    carried out over four phases extending over six years. In order to
    commence this development program, however, project funding, in the
    amount of $14.0 million, must be committed, and a fund raising program
    must be successfully completed.
    The program provides for a high level of flexibility in completing
    alternative combinations of components of the program. It may become
    desirable to more closely evaluate alternative development programs that
    can be accomplished, depending upon the level of funding that
    materializes.
    Implications of Business Plan
    There are a number of important financial and operational implication of
    this Business Plan. Some of these might be deemed to be advantages;
    others not. Nonetheless, they are important considerations, and some
    are summarized below.
    �  Operating maintenance (and responsibility for related capital
    expenditures) would likely transfer from NMC to the non-profit entity
    a NMC would receive a ground rent that would likely be payable by the
    ownership entity from available cash flow after debt service. The
    assumptions inherent in the Business Plan indicate that these ground
    rent payments to NMC would represent more than one million dollars
    over the ten-year planning horizon.

    *  If the ownership entity were thinly capitalized, it could potentially
    represent a financial liability until such time as vacancy losses are
    eliminated, and operating revenues achieve the level of gross
    potential revenues illustrated in the Business Plan.
    �  A mixed-use, waterfront, commercial development could provide
    excellent public spaces and cause the site to be developed to its likely
    highest-and-best use. However, more intensive commercial
    development of the site could potentially disrupt, and compromise, the
    mission and operations of the Maritime Academy.
    34
    I -    _  .__                         -         -                                                                                    --  --                                                                                - ~-- -    -        -          - W            "      -           _                  _        -                                -                           _         -w.                                        --.

    Exhibit 3.
    The Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan
    Prospective Operating Performance

    I
    rent
    Gross Potential Revenues	per rsf
    Gin Shop	975 rsf
    	$12.00
    Office Rent	29,750 rsf	15.00
    Exhibit Space	5,000 rsf	60.00
    Assembly Hall	2. 2  rsf	15.00
    total space	37,975 rsf
    Total Potential Revenue
    Less: Vacancy Loss (Exhibit 6)
    Annual Operating Revenue
    nar 9
    14,821
    565,296
    380,031
    42.753

    1,002,90
    2
    f49.40
    4)
    953,498

    90,950
    0
    25,986
    20,789
    12,993
    82,114
    318,466
    12.993
    564,290

    15,26
    6
    582,25
    5
    391,43
    2
    44.036

    1,032,9
    89
    (50.88
    6)
    982,10
    3

    94,58
    8
    0
    27,02
    5
    21,62
    0
    13,51
    3
    85,39
    9
    331,20
    5
    !3.5
    13
    586,86
    2
    year
    13,168
    502,258
    337,653
    37.986

    891,065
    (43.89
    5)
    847,170

    77,744
    0
    22,213
    17,77
    0
    11,10
    6
    70,192
    272,226
    11.106
    482,358
    Year-6
    13,56
    4
    517,32
    6
    347,78
    2
    39.126

    917,797
    (45.21
    21
    872,58
    6
    Year 7
    13,970
    532,846
    358,216
    40.299

    945,331
    (46.56
    8]
    898,763

    14,39
    0
    548,83
    1
    368,96
    2
    41.508

    973,69
    1
    (47.96
    5)
    925,726

    87,452
    0
    24,986
    19,98
    9
    12,49
    3
    78,95
    6
    306,21
    7

    542,58
    7
    542,587
    Year 2
    12,051
    459,638
    309,00
    0
    34.763

    815,45
    1
    (154.88
    6)
    660,56
    5

    69,115
    0
    19,74
    7
    15,79
    8
    9,874
    62,400
    242,00
    8
    9.874
    428,814
    Year3
    12,41
    3
    473,42
    7
    318,27
    0
    35.805

    839,91
    5
    (118.15
    81
    721,75
    7

    71,87
    9
    0
    20,53
    7
    16,43
    0
    10,26
    8
    64,89
    6
    251,68
    8
    10.26
    8
    445,96
    7
    Year 4
    12,785
    487,629
    327,818
    36.880

    865,112
    (85.233
    )
    779,879

    74,754
    0
    21,358
    17,087
    10,679
    67,492
    261,756
    10.679
    463,805
    Yesrl
    11,70
    0
    446,250
    300,000

    791,700
    (197.92
    5)
    593,77
    5
    ODerating Exenses:.	p
    Utilities

    S
    Taxes
    Insurance
    Supplies + Repain
    Replacement Reserve
    Exhibit Program Costs
    Personnel Costs (Exhibit 4)
    Contract Services
    Operating Expenses                 S

    Operating Revenues Before
    Debt Service and Capital Contributions
    er Ur
    S1.75
    66,456
    0.00            0
    0.50
    	18,9
    88
    0.40	15,190
    0.25
    	9,49
    4
    60,000
    232,70
    0
    0.25
    	9.49
    4
    13.15
    	412,
    321
    80,854
    84,088
    0             0
    23,1,01
    	24,02
    5
    18,481
    	19,22
    0
    11,551
    	12,01
    3
    72,999	75,919
    283,115
    	294,44
    0
    50165    .,	1213
    501,652
    	521,71
    8
    181,454      231,751       275,790       316,074       364,813       370,934       377,045       383,139       389,208       395,241
    Source: TAI REALTY
    ADVISORS
    _I OlMI�03.X'N  I                I                 I    I        .

    mn    ain  - morl.                          *                     -r     INW   "                       N             -a .2 f  Mg bo                            -a
    b'CA

    Exhibit 4.
    The Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan
    Prospective Personnel Costs
    Year 9
    62,954
    36,951
    54,743
    49,268
    41n.57
    Year10
    65,472
    38,429
    56,932
    51,239
    Yewr 7
    58,205
    34,164
    50.613
    45,551
    37.960
    Year S
    60,533
    35,530
    52,637
    47,374
    39.478
    Year 4
    51,744
    30,371
    44,995
    40,495
    3jj7.4
    Yew 5
    53,813
    31,586
    46,794
    42.115
    35.096
    Year 6
    55,966
    32,850
    48,666
    43,800
    36.500
    ymar
    22
    47,840
    28,080
    41,600
    37,440
    113-0-

    49,754
    29,203
    43,264
    38,938
    32.448
    EnE
    1.00
    1.00
    2.00
    1.00
    1.50
    3.00
    9.50
    Year 1
    46,000
    27,000
    40,000
    36,000
    I2.2QM
    Diketlr
    Maintenace Director
    MaintenanceStafr
    Progam pCuator
    Secretariat Support
    Exhibit Voluntees
    Total
    209,405      217,781      226,492       235,552      244,974 '   254,773
    179,000       186,160       193,606       201.351
    62,21	65.334
    272,226	283,115
    67.948	700666
    294,440	306,217

    318,466

    331,205
    58.082
    251,688
    60A,05
    261,756
    Taxes + Benefits @              30.0%/0
    Total Peronnel Costs
    53.700
    232,700
    55.848
    242,008

    Soume: TAT REALTY ADVISORS
    4/196
    OLWRC003.XLS

    Exhibit 5.
    The Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan
    Prospective Financial Operating Performance

    389,208
    (221.6971
    167,510
    Yar 10
    395,241
    (221.697)
    173,544
    Year
    3
    275,790
    (221.6971
    54,093
    Year 4
    316,074
    (221.697)
    94,377
    Year5
    364,813
    (221.697)
    143,116
    Year 6
    370,934
    (221.697)
    149,236

    377,045
    (221.6971
    155,348

    383,139
    (221.6971
    161,442

    181,454
    (f221)97
    (40,244)
    Year 2
    231,751
    (221.6971
    10,053
    Operating Revenues(Dcficit)
    Annual Debt Service If
    Cash Flow
    Prospective Operating Deficit
    40,244
    1.65
    1.67
    1.70
    1.73
    1.76
    1.78
    (annual debt coverage ratio)
    0.82
    1.05
    1.24
    1.43
    Cash Flow Available For
    Gounmd Rent Participation
    Payment to NMC
    94,377       143,116       149,236       155,348       161,442       167,510        173,544
    0        10,053
    54,093
    Cumulative Ground Rent
    Payments to NMC (10 years)
    1,108,719
    1/ Annual debt service based on the assumption that a $2.5 million loan (at 7.5%'; fully amortized over 25 years)
    would be originated to repay part of the construction costs of the Phase 4 Improvements and Expansion.

    Source: TAI REALTY ADVISORS

    OLWRCOO3.XLs

    A  rM jr  -p                              L                                                                               'Y                AM d                                          _A_o   w  d

    Exhibit 6.
    The Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan
    Prospective Annual Vacancy Rates and Rent Loss

    Year 1        Ye-KI Year              3              Yea 4 Year  5                    IYear 9                                   Year 10
    rospective Annual Vacancy Rate:
    Gift Shop	975 rsf	12.00	25.00	0.0%/6	0.0%	0.0%1/6	0.0%	0.0%/0	0.0%/0	0.0%	0.0%/0	0.0%/0
    OfTice Rent	29,750 rnt	15.00	25.0%	15.00/%	10.0%	10.0%	5.0%	5.0%	5.0%	5.0%1	5.0%	5.0%/0
    Exhibit Space	5,000 nf	60.00	25.00%o	25.00/0	20.0%	10.0%	5.0%	5.0%	5.0%/6	5.0%	5.0%/a	5.0%
    Assembly Hall	2,250 raf	15.00	25.06/%	25.0%1/	20.00/0	10.0%	5.00/0	5.0%	5.0%/0	5.0%/0	5.0%	5.0%1/

    Gross Potential Revenue:
    (Exhibit n)                                      791,700       815,451        839,915       865,112       891,065        917,797        945,331       973,691      1,002,902     1,032,989

    Less: Prospective Rent Loss
    Gin Shop	(2,925)            0              0             0             0              0              0              0             0             0
    Office Rent	(111,563)	(68,946)	(47,343)	(48,763)	(25,113)	(25.866)	(26,642)	(27,442)	(28,265)	(29,113)
    Exhibit Space	(75,000)	(77,250)	(63,654)	(32,782)	(16,883)	(17,389)	(17,911)	(18,448)	(19,002)	(19,572)
    Assembly Hall	(8.438)	(8.691)	(7,.1D	(3.618) 31.899)	(1.9561	(2.015~	(2.075)	(2.138-)	(202)
    Total Rent Loss	(197,925)	(154,886)	(118,158)	(85,233)	(43,895)	(45,212)	(46,568)	(47,965)	(49,404)	(50,886)

    Operaing Revenue	593,775	660,565	721,757	779,879	847,170	872,586	898,763	925,726	953,498	982,103

    Source: TA! REALTY ADVISORS
    OGWRCOU3.NLS
    41519

    Great Lakes Water Resources Center3
    Traverse City, Michigan

    3.     Public Funding Sources
    The development of the Water Resources Center is very dependent on
    fth success of a fund raising effort. This effort must have a well defined
    strategy, be carefully planned and efficiently conducted. Fundraising is
    inherently part art and part science and although past funding is not
    always a good predictor of future success, a good track record will
    certainly enhance an organization's credibility. The planning to date forU
    this Water FResources Center has shown a definite local community
    support, having initiated two separate and comprehensive feasibility
    studies. This demonstration of interest will certainly enhance theU
    Center's chances in the eyes of funding organizations.
    Funding can be generated through a number of sources: Local
    fundraising efforts within the community, private foundations, corporate
    giving plans, and through local, state and federal agencies. We have
    identified a number of potential organizations which have provided start-
    up funds, funds for special projects and support for programs which are
    compatible wvith the stated goals and objectives of the Water Resources
    Center. This list is not comprehensive but merely serves as a starting
    point for subsequent development activities. By nature, programmatic
    goals of funding agencies frequently change as does the availability of
    support funds. The funding process is, therefore, dynamic in nature and
    identifying appropriate, Viable funding sources is a continual procedure.U
    The uncertainties in the political climate in the state and federal
    governments makes programs from these agencies particularly
    vulnerable. It will be the responsibility of the Director and theI
    Development Board to continually assess funding opportunities as they
    arise and develop appropriate fundraising strategies depending on the
    Center's priorities. (See Potential Funding Sources Exhibit)

    JsNdocsWtaverse\REPORT.DOC3

    . __t  I l_l g    -jd A: 1                           b -I,&  i &  ,a  i 4 "t A  4  N  JI Jl I

    Potential Funding Sources Exhibit
    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan

    I

    I

    l

    ..

    l

    l

    i
    Funding
    Cycle
    Use Category
    Avg. Grant
    Amount
    Matching Funds
    (Y/N) %
    Annual Grant
    or Support Funds
    Source
    -- - -
    Variable
    (Quarterly)
    Special Projects,
    Educational
    $1.5 K
    Y (desirable),
    variable
    Support
    Biederman Foundation
    Dec. RFP
    Project Development,
    Educational
    $20K
    Y, 50%
    Support
    Coastal Zone Management
    (NOAA)-Federal/State DEQ
    Y & N, variable
    Support/Annual
    Quarterly
    C.S. Mott Foundation
    Continuing support,
    Operating, general
    purpose, seed money,
    matching funds
    $20K - 30K
    $1 OK -$50K,
    up to 250K
    Y, 25%
    Support
    Fall/Winter
    EPA Environmental
    Education Grants- Federal
    Environmental Ed.,
    Special Projects
    Support
    Quarterly
    Seed, Start-up
    $35K
    N
    Frey Foundation
    $100K-400K
    N
    Support
    6 Times/Yr.
    Kresge Foundation
    Bricks & Morter
    Seed Money, Special
    Projects
    $20K - 30K
    Y (5%)
    Support
    Spring
    Michigan Great Lakes
    Protection Fund-EPA-
    Federal
    Y(desirable),
    variable
    Support
    Sept.
    Rotary Charities
    Start-up, special
    projects, challenge grants
    $15K
    not available
    Y, 40%
    Support
    Variable
    EPA Office of Water -
    319 Funds-Federal/State
    DEQ
    Specific projects,
    demonstration
    projects
    Environmental
    Education
    $104K
    Y, (variable)
    Support
    Variable
    National Science Foundation-
    Federal
    Education, Research,
    Nature
    $1K - 500K
    not available
    Support
    Bimonthly
    H. & G. Dow Foundation
    Special Projects
    Seed Money, Operating
    $1
    OK
    N
    Support/Annual
    Quarterly
    Americana Foundation
    Support
    IsdocsItraverseFUNDTABL.DOCFUNDTABL.DOC

    11                          A  P  P  E  N  D  I X    0  N  E
    6  ~~~~~           Great Lakes Water Resources Center

    I*

    II

    01

    I4-

    3l

    I~ ~~A                                 U  "; ir~"�3'T~

    L~~L

    L~~~~~~~WL

    I.                                          I �.
    0    OL L
    CL~~.

    L   1.   �~i~,-t t~� I~Su  MARITIME ACADEMY         L         L
    L~~~~~ L
    *
    a,~~I

    BUILDING

    I~~~   [-i~~~~2    AI	P~~~~~R~~~ING          I        I   5~~~~~ENNIS   COURT
    L	AREA	.
    I	UL

    ING  L              I    :                                  L
    'A PARK'Nr,O                                                                            OL   OLi

    (I'i~~~~~~ "3 ~~~CANNERY BUILDING            .5 S ,       f     f          Ir

    ~9L'  FRONT STREET  5 of  mmmnm     mmm  MO     mnmmn     mm=48R 37
    L

    w                                              IL
    E~~~.                   AL        I
    0~~~~~                                               ~ -j

    *PROJECT SITEL          & CONTEXT_
    7/1  �CI PId   L 11

    ~~~~~~~~~a                        a%   1mI   mb          A491bI

    - W* - --wo r-m I d-ob -he )no Z I* I do& bA wb z A a &a~)

    I.  I

    I

    ,t
    I

    I
    1

    i
    I
    04za
    A P P E N D I X   T W O
    Great Lakes Water Resources Center

    _.'.T"r,I ,      ,         -         -=    ..- X    .., -- I..... -,  ,   -,   , .  v    .-                ,           .     ..  .            .             ,.,,._ , .   . I

    1                                  ~~~~~~~~26 October 1995
    EJ                                    ~~~~~~Workshop
    I                        ~~~~~Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    PROGRAM ISSUES & CONCERNS: FEEDBACK
    (General Discussion Prior to Group Exercises)

    I ~~Research! educ'ation

    Local value

    -Tourist Value

    Long-term operation and cost

    *Concern of scale

    Watershed "community-at-large"

    Public access

    Aquatic focus (modest)

    '     ~~Multiple-use (flexibility)

    Increase outside visitor stay, not necessarily the volume

    ~~   ~ Affordable (both visiting or local user group)

    Home Site - Value

    How far? Outreach to hinterlands, etc.

    What are activities unique to site? (evaluate-related revenue)

    Concern over size and impact on site

    '      ~~Research other natiorfally recognized facilities

    Existing cannery wall as a positive barrier? (buffer)

    ~~   ~ Bay View high priority

    Outreach to broadest population base

    Start by addressing the lowest common denominator

    26 October 1995
    Workshop
    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    PROGRAMMATIC INPUT - Red Group
    Year-Round Facility
    Focus on activities which
    belong on water

    Facility                    Activity                  Revenue                 Notes/Theme
    Potential

    Water quality testing lab	Chemical/biological       Yes
    and lab space for outside	testing
    aqencies
    Environmental education    1) Tie in with NMC          Low potential ?
    2) Hands-on focus rather
    than only exhibits
    Tie into park system        Pedestrian corridors	No

    Inland Seas Science Ship	Yes

    Recreational sailing	Yes
    proqram
    Aquarium                                               Yes
    Natural history programs

    Marina facility	Possible tie-in with       Yes
    Marina management	hospilality program - NMC

    Small craft repair	Tie-in NMC and maritime	No

    Non-profit, water-related	Yes (rental)
    organizations

    Maximize the view corridor  Change building            No
    orientation

    Generic facilities          Maximum flexibility        No
    Allow for evolution

    Diving Club use	Yes

    Year-round educational	Satisfy T.C., Regional Ed.	No
    themes	requirements

    Research	Science research projects  Yes
    Build tie with University
    Center
    Meeting facilities	Yes

    Artificial outdoor research	Yes
    facility
    "Ecoloqy"
    Weather-related activities	Tie-in with Maritime      No
    Climatotoqy	Acaderriy
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I

    I
    I
    a
    JJIR  I

    I-
    26 October 199,
    I                                  Workshop
    Great Lakes Water
    Resour

    'PROGRAMMATIC INPUT- Blue Group
    a
    5

    rces Center
    4
    Facility                      Activity                   Revenue                   Notes/Theme
    I~~~~~~~ ~~~Potential

    IMaritimrne Academy	Training class on water	Student fees
    *I	access certification	Federal Grants
    ]~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~Tuition
    University Center               Research - Laurentian        Tuition	Sharing labs/equipment
    4*~~~    ~~vessels/labs/ contracts w/University	among universities
    teaching                     Center
    electronic conf. center
    Weather Center               Research                     NOAA
    '*l~~~~~~~~ ~~Media
    GovernmentlNongov't	County/State/Federal	Appropriation	Could be located
    NoMffices	Private Research	Rentals	across the street
    offices6	EPA/DEQ	Grants
    Teaching vessels
    pill Response Center        Emergency training center  Federal/State
    Private Contracts
    interpretive Center	Exhibits (interactive)	Admission fees
    Environmental History	Aquarium	Product sales
    +~~~ ~Imax	Sales
    Restaurants	Volunteer seniors
    History
    arina	Commercial boats	Fees (slips)
    i"~~~~ .	Historic ships	Annual Dockside
    Attractions
    .djacent marina	private boats	contracts

    ~ommunity Sailing Center	Training	Fees
    Regattas	Tournament fees
    ishing Pier                    Community Access	Grants (capital)
    Worm sales
    Bait shop
    Iublic Beach                   Community Access             Public/Private
    Partnership

    ~~~~~~~~~~*                  ~~JJR
    _, ~~~~~. -                                                                                                                                                                                      -                                -                 .       ..     . .            - .  . ...

    I
    26 October 1995
    .Workshop
    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    PROGRAMMATIC IN PUT - Green Group
    I

    Facility                     Activity                  Revenue                  Notes/Theme
    Potential

    Marketing to visitors/ loca
    Maritime Academy	Education	citizens

    Maritime Heritage Alliance	History Museum               Yes, tourism	Mystic seaport theme
    Tall ships
    Boating building
    Blacksmith shop
    Community Center            Sailing, environmental ed,	(for construction
    kayaking, lectures,	NO
    proqrammning	(cost center)
    Cinemax Theater	Virual Reality	Yes
    Planetarium	Theater in the Round
    Underwater observation	Observe marine               Yes	concern about attraction -
    deck	biology	draw/I limited access in  a
    winter
    Conference facility         - host environmental conf.  Yes
    - papers on Great Lakes
    - business conference
    Information clearinghouse   Database center              Yes
    Library
    Monitoring equipment
    Environmental Education	Environmental
    Center	programmingI
    Community Sailing
    CenterN
    Commercial fishing	Research
    Recreational fishing	Datalinventory
    Science museum	rotating interactive	visitors
    .exhibits	Local residents
    I
    Jill
    I
    I

    26 October 1995
    Workshop
    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Group Session on Development Scenarios
    (Blue Group)

    Traverse Bay Center: 35,000sq.ft. footprint

    1.     Minimal capitalization

    -' *   Remove cannery building
    Office Space for environmental organizations
    Upgrade harbor
    -      Space for MHA, Inland Seas, community sailing
    2.     Mid-Range

    -	All of number one
    -	University Center (teaching, research, interpretation)
    3.     Maximum capitalization
    -	All of number one
    -	Aquarium
    -	Imax
    -	Auditorium
    -	Museum/Interpretive Center (10,000-20,000sq.ft.)
    -	Expand marina

    JJR

    _V.    ,.- c.                                   V -t  .      ,t     .                                                 4         C                  _.  .        .. -  -1 ,              -    _    -  ' -    .*

    I
    26 October 1995
    Workshop
    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Group Session on Development Scenarios
    (Red Group)

    Minimal CaDitalization Proaram

    1)	School Ship
    2)	Maritime Heritage
    3)	Water taxi - link to other attractions
    4)	Community sailing program
    5)	Regional Program coordinating
    6)	Nominal educational activities
    7)	Training and workshops
    8)	lMerchandising (gift shop, etc.)

    Intermediate Caoitalization Prooram

    Add or expand on above:

    1)	Auditorium
    2)	Classroom labs/equipment
    3)	Teacher in-service, environmental ed.
    4)	Marina improvements
    5)	Weather station
    6)	"Hands-on" interpretive displays - theme-based (environmental edJwat-er quality)
    7)	Office space for "partner" organizations
    "Skv's the Limit"
    Add or expand on above:
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I

    I
    I
    I

    JJFII
    1)     Science component - labs/conferences/University Centerlinformation database
    (international)
    2)	College/community programming office
    3)	Fishing pier
    4)	Expand maritime alliance
    5)	Capitalization vs. operating
    6)	Aquarium
    7)	Resource center/library
    8)	Science ship fleet
    9)	ROU - interaction system for public education

    I

    I

    26 October 1995
    Workshop
    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Group Session on Development Scenarios
    (Green Group)

    1.  NO ACTION - NO DIFFERENCE & POSSIBLE NEGATIVE
    Building stays and deteriorates
    2.     The NMC Init. (+)    Repair Dock
    Strictly college, not community
    (-)    Neg. community view
    3.     Traverse Bay Center (minimal capitalization)
    (+)    Watershed mural
    More exposure to environmental education
    Interaction between organizations
    Near water facility
    Program Development
    (-)    Rough facility
    Higher Risk
    Short-term commitment
    4.     Traverse Bay Center (intermediate capitalization)

    (+)	Strong leadership goals
    (-)	Lack of above and lack of money
    5.     Traverse Bay Center (expanded program)
    (+)    Do it right
    Cheap rent
    Non-profits
    (-)	Size limitation
    *(+)	Use of site
    JJR
    I ;
    X L~~~~~~          ~ ~~~~ 8  -'. '  !;  e-             L '- .;  -'z--    '       -            ..

    r ,                                             ,      .    .I                              -                                                          .                    -                             . :   .  . I                                        - .-
    -  --                 .           ..  ,,,-...-_ .,I ,, -           ,

    ROTARY CHARITIES GRANT

    AGREEMENT

    JANr- 4  95

     _,ary Charities
    lof Traverse City

    PAR K STREET
    rAVERSE CITY, MICHIGAN 49684

    TELEPHONE (616) 941-4010
    [ (616) 941-4066

    IE MUHA, President
    JACK BAY, Vice-President
    BOB DEAN. Secretary
    ILL SHOSKEY, Treasurer
    WRY HOGUE
    BILL McCOOL
    JERRY MEYER
    IIL RODGERS
    WRRY SKENOZEL
    PAUL MOCERE, Club President
    I

    IB .JLLIER, Executive Director

    I B HILTY. Assistant to the President
    January 3, 1995
    Michael J. McClelland
    Deputy Administrator
    Grand Traverse County
    400 Boardman Avenue
    Traverse City, MI 49684
    Dear Mac:
    On behalf of Joseph Kuha, President of Rotary Charities
    of Traverse City, I -am pleased to inform you that the
    Board of Trustees has approved a grant of $15,000.
    The purpose of this grant is to help develop a business
    plan for a Great Lakes Water Resources Center at NMC's
    Maritime Academy.
    This letter describes the terms and conditions of this
    grant award. It is agreed between Rotary Charities (the
    Foundation) and Grand Traverse County (the Grantee) that:
    1. The Grantee will use the funds only for the grant
    purposes specified above.

    2.   None of the grant proceeds are to be transferred by
    the Grantee to any other organization without the
    written permission of the Foundation.
    3.   The  Foundation  will  pay  this  grant  in  two
    installments: $7,500 upon receipt of a signed copy
    of this grant agreement letter and evidence that
    consultants have been retained to perform the tasks
    required, and $7,500 upon receipt of a satisfactory
    progress report as described below.
    4.   Two progress reports are required on this grant
    with the following schedule:
    For the period ending June 30, 1995 due August I"
    1995.
    For the period ending December 31, 1995, due
    February 1, 1996.
    These reports are to include: a summary of
    expenditures related to the grant, progress by the
    consutants in completing the business plan, and a
    distribution plan for the final product of the
    grant.
    5.   This grant is for a period of one year to December
    31, 1995. In order to receive an extension of the
    -grant period, the Grantee must submit a request in
    writing to the Foundation explaining the need for
    the extension.
    A Charitable Foundation of the Rotary Club of Traverse City, Michigan

    January 3, page 2                                                        I

    6.   The Grantee agrees that it will not use funds:

    a.   To attempt to influence legislation or the outcome of any
    specific election or to carry on, directly or indirectly,
    any voter registration drive.
    b.   For grants to individuals or to other organizations which
    do not comply with the requirements of Section 4945(d)(3)     I
    of the Internal Revenue Code.
    c.   For any purpose other than one specified in
    Section 170(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code
    (exclusively for charitable, educational or scientific
    purposes).
    7.   The Grantee agrees to supply such information as may be
    necessary for the Foundation to exercise its responsibility
    for supervision of the grant as required by the IRS.

    8.   Any news releases, public announcements, or other products
    pertaining to this grant should acknowledge Rotary Charities
    of Traverse City as a funder.

    Congratulations on this grant award.  Enclosed is a copy of the
    news release announcing this and the other grant awards.

    Please return a signed copy of this grant agreement to make the
    grant official and call me if you have any questions.

    ely,

    R~Bpjr ~  CoIllerI

    Grantee agrees to the terms and conditions of the grant as recited
    above.
    Name:~~ Title: e-4,,4

    Date:  !   o�
    I
    I
    I

    REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
    FOR
    GREAT LAKES WATER
    RESOURCES CENTER
    PLANNING ASSESSMENT

    V                                ~~~~~~~GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY
    J~~\TraverseA ~~~DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
    ~~W~~~1-OUI*~~~~~~~~/j ~~400 BOAFIDMAN AVENUE
    TRAVERSE CITY, Ml 49684-2577
    (616) 922-4622 - FAX (616) 922-4636

    M E MOR AN D UM

    DATE:	July 24, 1995
    TO:	Prospective Proposers

    FROM:	michael McClelland, Deputy Administrator

    SUBJECT: Reissue of Request For Proposals for Great Lakes Water
    Resources Center Planning Assessment

    Grand Traverse County invites qualified firms to submit proposals
    to conduct planning research to develop a Great Lakes Water
    Research Center.
    Attached to this letter is a revised Request For Proposal to
    provide interested parties with sufficient information to enable
    them to prepare and submit proposals for a contract award.
    The County reserves the right to consider proposals or
    modifications received at any time before award is made, if such
    action is in the best interest of the County. The County also
    reserves the right to reject any and all proposals received as a
    result of this RFP, or to negotiate separately with any source
    whatsoever in any manner necessary to serve the best interests of
    the County. The County does not intend to award a contract
    solely on the basis of any response made to this request or
    otherwise pay for the information solicited or obtained.
    Inquiries which require a written response must be submitted must
    be received no later than August 11, 1995.
    Proposal must be submitted in six copies, no later than  2:0p.m.
    on Wednesday, Auqust 23, 1995 to:

    GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER
    Michael J. McClelland
    Deputy Administrator
    Grand Traverse County
    400 Boardman Avenue
    Traverse City, Michigan   49684

    Attachment

    100% recycled paper

    I
    REVISED: JULY 24, 1995

    REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

    GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER
    PLANNING ASSESSMENT PROJECT

    Due Date: Wednesday, August 23, 1995, 2:00 p.m.
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    Issued by

    Grand Traverse County

    400 Boardman Avenue
    Traverse City, Michigan 49684
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I

    I
    I
    II
    I
    '

    GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP
    RVSD    UY2,19
    REVISED: JULY 24, 1995
    PART I

    GENERAL INFORMATION

    I-I Purpose

    Grand Traverse County is requesting for proposals from qualified
    firms to conduct planning research to develop a Great Lakes
    Water Research Center.

    The maximum contract amount is $45,000.

    II-2 Proqram Statement

    The project will provide a comprehensive foundation of
    information that will be utilized to refine the concept for and
    provide for informed decision making for the planning and
    development of a Center to host a diverse range of water related
    public attractions, such as a freshwater aquarium, interactive
    displays and exhibits on the ecosystem and maritime history,
    community sailing center, and office space for water related
    public agencies, educational institutions and private firms.

    The proposed location for the Center is the Great Lakes Maritime
    Academy, situated at the base of the West Arm of grand Traverse
    Bay, with walking distance of downtown Traverse City and visibly
    located on the heaviest traveled section of road in northern
    Michigan. The Northwestern Michigan College property encompasses
    approximately 7 acres, containing the Great Lakes Maritime
    Academy building with a deep water, protected harbor capable of
    handling a number of very large vessels, In addition,
    Technical/vocational Division and warehousing functions are
    presently housed in the old Cannery Building.

    I-3 Issuing Office

    This RFP is issued by Grand Traverse County (Issuing Office).
    Michael J. McClelland, Deputy Administrator, Grand Traverse
    County (400 Boardman Avenue, Traverse City, Michigan 49684
    616/922-4694) is the point of contact in the County for purposes
    of contract administration and technical assistance.

    I-4 Contract Award

    Contract negotiations will be undertaken with those firms whose
    proposals, as to price and other factors, show them to be
    qualified, responsible, and capable of performing the work.
    -31--

    GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP    REVISED:  JULY 24, 1995

    The contract that may be entered into will be that which is most
    advantageous to the County, price and other factors considered.
    The County reserves the right to consider proposals or
    modifications received at any time before award is made, if such
    action is in the best interest of the County.3

    1-5 Reiection of Proposals
    The County reserves the right to reject any and all proposals
    received as a result of this RFP, or to negotiate separately with
    any source whatsoever in any manner necessary to serve the best
    interests of the County. The County does not intend to award a
    contract solely on the basis of any response made "to this requestI
    or otherwise pay for the information solicited or obtained.

    1-6 Incurring Costs
    Grand Traverse County is not liable for any cost incurred by the
    firm prior to the issuance of a contract.3

    I-7 Preproposal Conference
    No preproposal conference will be held in association with thisI
    RFP. Inquiries made be in the manner outlined in Section 1-8.
    I-8 Inquiries
    Questions that arise as a result of this RFP which require a
    written response must be submitted in writing to the Issuing
    Office.  All questions must be submitted on or before the dateI
    specified in the cover letter.

    I-9  Addenda to the RFP3
    In the event it becomes necessary to revise any part of this RFP,
    addenda will be provided to all firms who received the basic RFP.
    1-10 Response Date
    To be considered, proposals must arrive at the Issuing Office onI
    or before the date specified in the cover letter. Firms mailing
    proposals should allow normal delivery time to insure timely
    receipt of their proposals.I
    I-li Proposals
    To be considered, firms must submit a complete response to thisI
    RFP, using the format provided in Part IV. Each proposal must be-
    submitted in six (6] copies to the Issuing Office. -No other
    distribution of proposals will be made by the firm. Proposals

    -2-

    GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP
    RVSD    UY2,19
    REVISED: JULY 24, 1995
    must be signed by an official authorized to bind the firm to its
    provisions. For this RFP, the proposal must remain valid for at
    least sixty days.
    1-12 Acceptance of Proposal Content
    The contents of the proposal of the successful bidder, as
    mutually modified, amended or supplemented shall become
    contractual obligations if a contract ensues. Failure of the
    successful bidder to accept these obligations may result in
    cancellation of the award.
    1-13 Interview/Oral Presentation
    The County may request an interview and/or oral presentation of
    any firms who submit a proposal. These meetings provide
    opportunity for the County to ask questions and f or the bidder to
    clarify the proposal. The Issuing Office will schedule these
    presentations.
    1-16 Prime Contractor Responsibilities
    The selected firm will be required to assume responsibility for
    all services offered in the proposal whether or not they possess
    them within their organization. Further, the County will
    consider the selected firm to be the sole point of contact with
    regard to contractual matters, including payment of any and all
    charges resulting from the contract.

    I-17 Contract Payment Schedule
    Payment for any contract entered into as a result of this RFP
    will be made upon receipt and approved by the County Project
    Manager of the reports under each task outlined in Part III-2.B.
    and upon receipt of the firm's billing statement. Payments shall
    be the amount of each task stipulated in the cost proposal and
    contract. The final billing must be received no later than
    January 31, 1996.

    I-18 News Releases

    News releases pertaining to this RFP or the service, study, or
    project to which it relates will not be made without prior County
    approval, and then only in coordination with the Issuing Office.

    1-19 Disclosure of Proposal Contents
    Proposals are subject to disclosure under the Michigan Freedom of
    Information Act (P.A. 1976, Act 442).
    - 3-

    GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP    REVISED:  JULY 24, 1995

    After contract award, a summary of total price information for
    all submissions will be furnished upon request to those bidders
    participating in this RFP.
    1-20 Independent Price Determination

    A.   By submission of a proposal, the of feror certifies, and in
    the case of a joint proposal each party thereto certifies as
    to its own organization, that in connection with this
    proposal:
    1.   The prices. of the proposal have been arrived at
    independently without consultation, communication, orI
    agreement, for the purpose of restricting competition,
    as to any matter relating to such prices with any other
    of feror or with any other competitor;

    2.   Unless otherwise required by law, the prices which have
    been quoted in the proposal have not been knowingly
    disclosed by the of feror and will not be knowinglyI
    disclosed by the of feror to any competitor; and

    3.   No attempt has been made or will be made by the of ferorI
    to induce any other person or firm to submit or not to
    submit a proposal for the purpose of restricting
    competition.
    B.   Each person signing the proposal certifies that:

    1.   (S)he is the person in the of feror's organizationI
    responsible within the organization for the decision as
    to prices being offered in the proposal and that (s)he
    has not participated, and will not participate, in anyI
    action contrary to A. 1, 2, and 3, above; or

    2.   (S)he is not the person in the of feror's organization
    responsible within that organization for the decision
    as to the prices being offered in the proposal, but
    that (s)he has been authorized in writing to act as
    agent for the persons responsible for such decisions inI
    certifying that such persons have not participated, or
    will not participate, in any action contrary to A. 1,
    2, and 3 above, and as their agent does hereby soI
    certify; and that (s)he has not participated, and will
    not participate, in any action contrary to A. 1, 2, and
    3 above.3

    C.   A proposal will not be considered for award if the sense of
    the statement required in the Cost and Price Analysis
    portion of the proposal has been altered as to delete orI
    modify A. 1, A. 3, or B. above. If A. 2 has been modified
    or deleted, the proposal will not be considered for award

    -4-

    REVISED: JULY 24, 1995
    GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP
    RVSD    UY2,19
    unless the of feror furnishes with the proposal a signed
    statement which sets forth in detail the circumstances of
    the disclosure and the Issuing Office determines that such
    disclosure was not made for the purpose of restricting
    competition.
    I-21 County's Liability
    The selected firm agrees to indemnify, defend, and save harmless
    the County, its officers, agents, and employees from any and all
    claims and losses accruing or resulting from the negligent
    performance of work as described in any agreement that results
    from this RFP. Further, if any recipient of a contract
    subcontracts for work, they will enter into a contract with such
    subcontractor(s) which indemnifies the County as provided herein.
    - 5-

    GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP    REVISED:  JULY 24, 1995

    PART II
    WORK STATEMENTI

    11-1 Purpose of the Project

    Grand Traverse County is requesting for proposals from qualified
    firms to conduct planning research to develop a Great Lakes
    Water Research Center.

    The maximum contract amount is $45,000.

    11-2 Program Statement.I

    The project will provide a comprehensive foundation of
    information that will be utilized to refine the concept for andI
    provide for informed decision making for the planning and
    development of a Center to host a diverse range of water related
    public attractions, such as a freshwater aquarium, interactive
    displays and exhibits on the ecosystem and maritime history,
    community sailing center, and office space for water related
    public agencies, educational institutions and private firms.

    The proposed location for the Center is the Great Lakes Maritime
    Academy, situated at the base of the West Arm of grand Traverse
    Bay, with walking distance of downtown Traverse city and visibly
    located on the heaviest traveled section of road in northern
    Michigan. The Northwestern Michigan College property encompasses
    approximately 7 acres, containing the Great Lakes Maritime
    Academy building with a deep water, protected harbor capable ofI
    handling a number of very large vessels, In addition,
    Technical/vocational Division and warehousing functions are
    presently housed in the old Cannery Building.I
    11-2 Additional Information
    For over two years, a small group has been exploring the conceptI
    of establishing a Great Lakes Water Resources Center. With the
    assistance of Rotary Charities of Traverse City, funding was
    obtained from the Biederman Foundation and the SlaughterI
    Foundation to engage the Waterfront Center of Washington, D.C.,
    a consulting firm specializing in waterfront development, to
    undertake a professional assessment of the concept.  A reportI
    was prepared and presented to various key community groups in
    May, 1993. The report, in summary, made the following
    assessments and recommendations:

    o    The Maritime Academy site is a gem and should be retained in
    a public educational role, a sentiment with apparent
    widespread support in the community. Together with adjacent,I
    publicly owned parcels, the site offers a prime public
    access point to Traverse Bay.

    -6-

    GREAT LAK(ES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP
    RVSD    UY2,19
    REVISED: JMY 24, 1995
    o    The basic concept for a public educational facility is
    sound. it now needs refinement and direction, which the
    Waterfront Center's report attempts to provide.
    o    The mission of the facility should be focused on public
    education about all aspects of the Bay, ecological and
    cultural, and through this, convey insights into the Great
    Lakes system. Ancillary activities would be restricted to
    the Maritime Academy, a shop/cafe and offices; research
    would not be envisioned here, but rather the results of
    research done in the area might be displayed and explained
    here.
    o    Steps should be taken to formalize the plan, to broaden and
    incorporate its organizing committee, to begin a public
    education program, to employ a staff director ($1 a year),
    and take beginning steps to relocate to the site activities
    that naturally fit.
    o    A number of important early steps can begin right away, such
    as investigation of how to possibly upgrade and expand the
    existing marina, to properly evaluate the old cannery
    structure and to make sure the needs and plans of
    Northwestern Michigan College and its Maritime Academy are
    fully incorporated.
    The report concluded that "the idea of a Traverse Bay Center,
    with a sharpened focus and done well, is an excellent one."
    Northwestern Michigan College has conducted a study of the site
    to determine the buildout capacity in the context of their
    overall Master Plan. In addition, NMC recently launched a
    University Center which provides four degree programs in
    conjunction with a number of Michigan universities. Site
    planning needs to be integrated closely with the needs of NMC.
    The purpose of this project is to "sharpen the focus" of the
    Great Lakes Water Resources Center.
    11-4 Tasks
    Listed below are the primary tasks of the Great Lakes Water
    Resources Center Planning Assessment Project:
    Task 1: Determine Site Constraints
    The site has tremendous potential and significant constraints due
    to its size and location. This task will identify the
    significant site contraints and outline the maximum carrying
    capacity of the site for development.
    -7 -

    GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP    REVISED:  JULY 24, 1995I

    Task 2: Project Reconnaisance
    The outcome of this task will be to identify priority uses forI
    the Great Lakes Water Resources Center.

    There are three subtasks:
    a)   Community Consensus - A forum or design charette will be
    conducted to identify and prioritize key uses for the
    Center.  The Center Task Force will provide the space andI
    assist in the publicity of and invitations to the charette.
    Proposers should outline the specific considerations in
    developing and conducting a consensus forum Lni~cluding aI
    proposed agenda, marketing efforts, and consensus tools.
    b)   Identify Organizational Participants in the Center - From
    information provided by the County and culled from otherI
    sources, locate and identify organizations which may become
    tenants and/or exhibitors. Search efforts will focus on
    entities that provide services/products/regulations related,I
    but not limited to, environmental, ecological, economic and
    recreational aspects of the Great Lakes Basin. The NMC
    University Center plans will need to be closely consideredI
    during this task.
    c)   Report - Provide a report on the key priority uses of the
    Center and users groups to target discussions forI

    Task 3: Design StudyI

    Based on the site contraints and the priority uses, the next step
    is to conduct a design study to more completely determine the
    site potential.
    The specific components of the design study will include the
    following subtasks:
    a)   Programming - Meet with the organizational participants
    identified above to determine space requirements andI
    operational integrations with other potential facility
    occupants.
    b)   Schematic Design - Prepare schematic planning documents
    which indicate clearly the consideration involved and the
    alternate solutions available to the owner. The schematic
    design will include schematic layouts, sketches andI
    preliminary design criteria and set the Professional
    Contractor's recommendations and establish the.scope of the
    project.
    c) Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate
    - a -  ~~~~~I

    GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP
    RVSD    UY2,19
    REVISED: JULY 24, 1995
    Task 4: Develop Business Plan
    The business plan should include the optimal organizational
    structure for the development and operation of the Great Lakes
    Resources Center and include a capital and operating budget with
    revenue sources. Potential funding sources will be identified
    and defined. These will include applicable federal, state, and
    local government programs, foundations, trusts, and potential
    tenants/exhibitors among others. In addition, funding request
    criteria, parameters and deadlines will be defined for funding
    sources when applicable.
    - 9 -

    GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP    REVISED:  JULY 24, 1995

    PART III
    PROJECT CONTROL AND REPORTSI

    III-1   Proiect Control

    A.   The firm will carry out the project under review of the
    County project manager. The Grand Traverse County Board of
    Commissioners shall have final authority over
    agency/contractor agreement.
    B.   Although there will be continuous liaison with the firm's
    team, the County project manager will meet as- 'needed withI
    the firm's project manager f or the purpose of reviewing
    progress and providing necessary guidance to the firm in
    solving problems which arise.

    III-2   Reports
    A.   The firm will provide the project manager with monthlyI
    update reports as described in the contract. The monthly
    update reports should be a brief summary of work conducted
    in the last month and anticipated tasks and targetI
    completion dates for the next month. The report should also
    include problems, real or anticipated, which should be
    brought to the attention of the County project manager, and
    notification of any significant deviation from previouslyI
    agreed-upon work plans will be reported as needed. A
    monthly and cumulative total of billable hours must also be
    included in each report.
    B.   Substantive reports on the following specific taBks will be
    provided to the project manager:

    Task I : Site Contraints
    Task 2 : Project Reconnaissance
    Task 3 : Design StudyI
    Task 4 : Business Plan

    C.   A final report, as described in the contract, must beI
    submitted to the County project manager before the final
    contract payment is made.

    -10-

    GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP
    RVSD    UY2,19
    REVISED: JULY 24, 1995
    IPART IV

    INFORMATION REQUIRED FROM BIDDERS

    Contract proposals must provide sufficient information to permit
    a determination that project requirements can be met and that the
    project plan will be successfully implemented.

    Specific objectives, general work tasks and special project
    organization and management requirements have been developed and
    are detailed in this RFP. The successful bidder must describe in
    sufficient detail how its plan and tasks will be implemented, the
    resources, materials and equipment which will be utilized, and
    how the necessary project management interactions will be carried
    out. Contract proposals must be submitted in the format outlined
    below:

    IV-1 Business Organization

    State the full name and address of vour organization and, if
    applicable, the branch office or other subordinate element that
    will perform, or assist in performing, the work hereunder.
    Indicate whether you operate as an individual, partnership, or
    corporation; if as a corporation, include the state in which you
    are incorporated. If appropriate, state whether you are licensed
    to operate in the State of Michigan.

    IV-2 Statement of the Problem

    State in succinct terms your understanding of the problem
    presented by this RFP.
    IV-3 Management Summary

    Describe in narrative form the management structure, methods, and
    procedures selected by your organization to complete the project
    as described in the RFP. Include evaluation and quality assurance
    measures.

    IV-4 Work Plan

    Describe in narrative form your technical plan for accomplishing
    the work as outlined in the Work Statement - Part II. Indicate
    the number of staff hours you have allocated each task. include
    a time-related chart such as a PERT-type display or GANTT chart,
    showing each event, task, and decision point in your work plan.
    The work statement outlines a general process for achieve the
    project objectives. Proposers are invited to describe
    alternative methods and steps to achieve the project objectives.
    - 11 -

    GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP    REVISED:  JULY 24, 1995

    IV-5 Authorized Neciotiators
    Include the names and phone numbers of personnel of yourI
    organization authorized to negotiate the proposed contract with
    the County.
    IV-6 Prior Experience Disclosure
    Given the project objectives, the contractor should demonstrate
    an established competence with respect to development of planningI
    designs And business plans for waterfront development projects to
    achieve project objectives within time and cost constraints.
    Proposals submitted should include in this section a listing of
    qualifying experience, including project description, costs, and
    starting and ending dates of projects successfully completed.
    Additionally, include the name, address, and phone number of the
    responsible official of the client organization who maybe
    contacted.

    IV-7 Personnel
    The professional firm must be able to staff a project team which
    clearly possesses talent and experience in development of
    planning designs and business plans for waterfront development
    project. Include the number of executive and professional
    personnel by skill and qualifications that will be employed in
    the work. Show the inclusive periods and the time commitment in
    hours each individual will devote to the work. Identify key
    personnel by name and title.  include resumes for proposedI
    professional personnel.

    IV-8 Time Frame
    To assist you in the preparation of your proposal, the County
    contemplates the project will four (4) months, from September 1,
    1995 to December 31, 1995.
    IV-9 Cost and Price Analysis
    The information requested in this section is required to support
    the reasonableness of your quotation. Use the format that
    follows:

    -12-

    GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP    RVSD
    UY2,19
    REVISED: JULY 24, 1995
    1..  Cost
    Provide a not to exceed cost proposal in the following
    format:
    TASK
    COST
    Task 1: Site Contraints
    Task 2: Project Reconnaissance
    Task 3: Design Study
    Task 4: Business Plan
    Expenses:
    $
    $
    $
    $
    TOTAL
    $
    The maximum contract amount is $45,000.
    2.   Independent Price Determination
    Include a statement substantially as follows: "This cost and
    price analysis is submitted in full compliance with the provision
    of the paragraph titled 'Independent Price Determination' in Part
    I of the RFP to which this proposal is a response."1
    IV-10 Additional Information
    Include any other information that is believed to be pertinent,
    but not specifically requested elsewhere in this RFP.
    - 13-

    GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP    REVISED:  JULY 24, 1995

    PART V

    CRITERIA FOR SELECTION

    All bids received shall be subject to an evaluation by the
    Issuing Office. This evaluation will be conducted in a manner
    appropriate to select a firm for the purpose of entering into an
    agreement to perform this project. The following factors will be
    considered in the selection:

    V-1  Management  (10%)

    To what extent will the management structure ..:nsure the
    successful completion and quality of the project?
    How reasonable are the staff hours allocated to each task?

    How reasonable is the project timeline?

    V-2  Tasks (40%)I

    How responsive is the proposal to each of the task
    requirements?I
    Does the proposal identify specific considerations in the
    tasks?

    What is the extent of the firm's understanding of the
    program?

    How familiar is the firm with current waterfront development
    research and applications?
    How well are alternative approaches described and howI
    innovative are those approaches?

    V-3  Prior Experience and Personnel  (40%)I

    To what extent does the staff assigned have experience and
    talent to assure successful project completion?I
    To what extent has the firm been involved in similar
    projects?

    V-4 Cost and Price Analvsis (10%)

    How reasonable is the total project cost?I

    To what extent are the costs accurately allocated between
    the tasks?
    How is the project cost compared to other bidders?
    - 14 -

    GLWRCRFP REVISED
    STATE ZIP
    NAME    LNAME   AFFILIATION
    ADDRESS
    CITY
    P-=                                       ====================                                            = ========
    Ayres, Lewis, Norris & May	3959 Research Park Drive	Ann Arbor	MI	48106
    BECKETT & RAEDER INC	535 W WILLIAM SUITE 101	ANN ARBOR	MI	48103
    BETA DESIGN GROUP	50 MONROE PLACE, SUITE 300	GRAND RAPIDS	MI	49503
    Design Plus	48 Fountian NW	Grand Rapids	MI	49503
    Earth Tech	5555 Glenwood Hills Parkway Grand Rapids	Michig49588 0
    ED	FREER	JOHNSON JOHNSON & ROY	ONE N PINCKNEY STREET       MADISON	WI	53703
    JIM	HOUK	BIRD HOUX & ASSOCIATES	400 METRO PLACE N SUITE 390 DUBLIN	OH	43017
    Gove Associates	404 Kalamazoo Plaza,Suits 20Lansing	MI	48933
    McKenna Associates, Inc.	38955 Hills Tech	Farmington Hills	MI	48331
    DICK     LYON      LYON GROUP	860 VIA DE LA PAZ SUITE F7	PACIFIC PALLISADES CA
    Planning & Zoning Center, Inc.	302 S Waverly	Lansing '.	MI    48917
    Progressive	2942-PFaner-Avs-NE	Grand-Rapids	Miehig49s05
    ERNIE    HUTTON   HUTTON ASSOCIATES	72 5TH AVENUE	NEW YORK	NY	10011
    Vilican-Leman & Associates, Inc. 26316 Franklin road	Southfield	MI	48034
    TIM	REARDON	6757 MATHISON RD	TRAVERSE CITY	MI	49684
    BOB	FORD      LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS	919 E GRAND RIVER AVENUE	E LANSING	MI	48823
    PAT	MCCOOL	326 BROADWAY	SUTTONS BAY	MI	49682
    TRAVERSE CITY      MI    49682
    DAVE     HANAWALT CWST
    513 S UNION ST

    Contract No.
    GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY

    CONTRACT AGREEMENT

    BETWEEN

    GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY

    AND

    JOHNSON JOHNSON & ROY

    One North Pinckney Street
    Madison, Wisconsin 53703
    616/251-1177
    Fund No.

    Federal I.D. No.

    GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT
    AGREEMENT

    AN AGREEMENT between GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY (COUNTY) and JOHNSON
    JOHNSON & ROY (CONSULTANT) dated September 1, 1995, consisting of
    Part I - Special Provisions and PART II - General Provisions,
    provides as follows:

    PART I - SPECIAL PROVISIONS

    Section 1.1   Statement of Purpose

    1.11 The County desires to engage the Consultant to conduct
    planning research to develop a Great Lakes Water Research
    Center.

    1.12 The purpose of this contract is to define the terms,
    conditions and tasks for the technical and professional
    services of the Consultant.

    Section 1.2   Statement of Work

    The Consultant shall provide the following services:

    The Consultant agrees to undertake, perform and complete the
    following tasks. The project is broken down into four overall
    task categories:

    1.21:     Determine Site Constraints
    Identify the significant site contraints and outline the maximum
    carrying capacity of the site for development.
    1.22:     Project Reconnaisance

    Identify priority uses for the Great Lakes Water Resources
    Center.

    1.23:.    Design Study

    Based on the site contraints and the priority uses, conduct a
    design study to more completely determine the site potential.
    1.24:     Develop Business Plan

    Develop a business plan which includes the optimal organizational
    structure for the development and operation of the Great Lakes
    Resources Center and include a capital and operating budget with
    revenue sources.

    The work plan is more fully described the consultant's proposal,
    attached to and incorporated in this contract as Rider A.
    CONTRACT - PAGE I

    GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT

    Section 1.3.   compensation
    1.31 The County agrees to pay the Consultant a lump sum not to
    exceed $45,000.00. This amount represents the aggregate
    -compensation to be paid for the entire project contemplatedI
    under the terms of this contract.

    1.32 Payment for any contract entered into as a result of this
    RFP will be made upon receipt and approved by the County
    Project Manager of the reports under each task outlined in
    Section 4.C. and upon receipt of the firm's billing
    statement.  Payments shall be the amount of e'ach taskI
    stipulated in the cost proposal and contract. The final
    billing must be received no later than January 31, 1996.

    1.33 Consultant billings should be mailed to the County Project
    Manager listed below:

    Michael J. McClellandI
    Deputy Administrator
    Grand Traverse County
    400 Boardman AvenueI
    Traverse City, Michigan 49684

    Section 1.4.   Project Control and Reports

    1.41 The Consultant will carry out the project under the review
    of the County Project Manager. The Grand Traverse County
    Board of Commissioners shall have final authority overI
    agency/Consultant agreements.

    1.42 Although there will be continuous liaison with theI
    Consultant, the County Project Manager will meet monthly, at
    a minimum, with the Consultant's Project Manager for the
    purpose of reviewing progress and providing necessary
    guidance to the Consultant in solving problems which arise.
    1.43 The Consultant will submit monthly brief written summaries
    of progress which outline the work accomplished;  anyI
    problems, real or anticipated, which should be brought to
    the attention of the County Project Manager; and
    notification of any significant deviation from previouslyI
    agreed-upon workplans.

    1.44 Substantive reports on the following specific tasks will be
    provided to the project manager:I

    Task I   Site Contraints
    Task 2 :Project Reconnaissance
    Task 3 :Design Study
    Task 4: Business Plan

    CONTRACT - PAGE

    GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT
    1.45 A final report must be submitted by the Consultant and
    approved by the County Project Manager prior to the end of
    the contract period. The final report should include, at a
    minimum, a description of the work undertaken, the key
    results of the project, recommendations for County action,
    and a budget report, reconciling all expenditures with the
    approved budget.
    1.46 Nothing in the above provisions shall be read to alter the
    employment relationship of the Consultant being an
    independent contractor for the County. Performance of this
    contract is within the control of the Consultant and the
    County disclaims any liability, in tort or otherwise, caused
    by the actions of the Consultant.

    1.47 The Consultant shall indemnify and save harmless the County
    from any damages which the County may sustain, in any
    manner, through the misconduct or negligence of the
    Consultant.
    1.48 All reports, charts, graphs, databases, and other
    information developed and/or provided under this contract
    will be submitted in machine readable form and well as
    written text with format and protocol mutually compatible to
    the hardware and software needs of the Consultant and the
    County.
    Section 1.5.   Period of Performance
    The Consultant shall commence performance of this contract
    September 1, 1995 and shall complete performance no later than
    December 31, 1995.
    Section 1.6.   Administration of Contract
    It is understood and agreed that the agency or officer designated
    to administer this contract may be changed, at the County's
    discretion upon notice in writing to the Consultant. See Part
    11, Section 2.4.
    Section 1.7.   Oral Agreements

    This agreement is to be considered a complete document between
    the County and the Consultant, and each warrant that there are no
    mutual oral agreements.
    CONTRACT - PAGE 3

    I
    I
    a!
    GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT
    I
    Contract No.
    I
    I
    I
    THIS CONTRACT IS HEREBY ACCEPTED
    I
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we sign our names and attach our seals.
    I

    In the Presence of                                                   I
    I
    I

    Date

    Witness V
    by T)tIM> ALxt  /1A-ulb
    Marga3> t Underwood, Chair
    Grand Traverse County
    Board of Commissioners
    I

    Virginia Watson, Clerk M
    Grand Traverse County

    Frdd Klancnik, Vice President
    Johnson, Johnson & Roy/Inc.

    Date

    Date
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    CONTRACT - PAGE 4

    GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT
    PART I I

    GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Section 2.1.   County Project Manager

    Whenever used in this contract, the term "Project Manager" means
    the person acting for the County to review work on this project
    and who is responsible for working with the Consultant throughout
    life of the project. The Project Manager will eva luate the
    quality and adequacy of the product and make recomrimendations to
    the Contracting Officer regarding the successful completion of
    the contract and authorization of payment. The person designated
    to act as authorized Project Manager for this contract is:

    Michael J. McClelland, Deputy Administrator

    Section 2.2.   Conduct and Standard of Work

    Unless otherwise provided in this contract, the Consultant with
    due diligence shall furnish, manage, and direct all necessary
    qualified personnel, material and equipment to complete the work
    described in Section 2 of Part I of this contract. In
    determining whether or not the Consultant has performed with due
    diligence, it is agreed and understood that the Project Manager
    may measure the amount and quality of the Consultant's effort
    against the representations made by the Consultant in the written
    proposal and in the negotiation of this contract. The
    Consultant's work shall be carried out under the supervision of
    the Project Manager. The Project Manager may issue written or
    oral instructions to fill in details in the statement of work
    described in or referred to in Section 2, Part I of this
    contract. Any instructions that affect the scope of work, price,
    period of performance, or any other provision of this contract
    must be in accordance with specific provisions of the contract.
    The Consultant agrees that the performance of the
    services under this contract shall be in a manner consistent with
    that degree fo care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of
    the same profession currently practicing under similar
    circumstances.

    Section 2.3.   Key Personnel

    Any personnel specified in Rider A to this contract are
    considered to be essential to the work being performed in this
    Project. Prior to diverting any of the specified individuals to
    other programs, the Consultant shall notify the Project Manager
    reasonably in advance and shall submit justification, including
    proposed substitutions, in sufficient detail to permit evaluation
    of the impact on the program.
    CONTRACT - PAGE 5

    GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT

    Section 2.4. Changes
    The Project Manager may at any time make changes within the
    general scope of this contract in any one or more of the
    following: format, content, number of required copies, time and
    place for submission of reports,' and other documentation.I
    Written copies of changes made by the Project Manager will be
    made available to the Consultant. If any such change causes an
    increase or decrease in the cost of, or the time required for,I
    the performance of any part of the work under this contract,
    whether changed or not changed by any such order, an equitable
    adjustment shall be made in the contract price or delivery
    schedule, or both, and the contract shall be modified in writing
    accordingly. Any claim by the Consultant for adjustment under
    this clause must be requested within thirty (30) days from the
    date of receipt by the Consultant of the notification of change.I
    Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute concerning
    a question of fact within the meaning of Section 110 below
    entitled "Disputes." However, nothing in this program shall
    excuse the Consultant from proceeding with the contract as
    changed.

    Section 2.5.   ExtrasI
    Except as otherwise provided in this contract, no payment for
    extras shall be made unless such extras and the price thereforI
    have been submitted as formal amendments to this contract
    approved by the Program Manager and Contracting Officer.

    Section 2.6.   SubcontractsI
    Unless otherwise provided for in this contract, no subcontract,
    other than those originally proposed and agreed upon, shall be
    made by the Consultant with any other party for furnishing any of
    the work or services of this Project contracted for without the
    prior consent and approval of the Project Manager and ContractingI
    Officer. Any subcontract entered into subsequent to the
    execution of the contract must be annotated "approved" by the
    Project Manager and by the Contracting Officer before it is
    compensable.  This provision should not be construed as requiringI
    the approval of contracts of employments between the Consultant
    and personnel assigned for services.
    Section 2.7.   Termination
    The performance of work under the contract may be terminated by
    the County in whole or, from time to time, in part whenever forI
    any reasons the Contracting officer shall determine that such
    termination is in the best interest of the County. -Any such
    termination shall be effected by delivery to the Consultant of

    CONTRACT -PAGE 6

    GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT
    a "Notice of Termination" specifying the extent to which
    performance of the work under the contract is terminated and the
    date on which such termination becomes effective. The contract
    shall be equitably adjusted to compensate for such termination
    and the contract modified accordingly; failure to agree to any
    such adjustment shall be a dispute concerning a question of fact
    within the meaning of the clause of this contract entitled
    "Disputes."1
    The Consultant may terminate this Agreement upon giving the
    County fourteen (14) calendar days prior written notice for any
    of the following reasons:
    1.   Breach by the County of any material term of this
    Agreement including but not limited to Payment Terms;

    2.   transfer of ownership of the project by the County to
    any other persons or entities not a party to this
    Agreement without the prior written agreement of the
    Consultant.
    3.   Material changes in the conditions under which this
    Agreement was entered into, coupled with the failure of
    the parties to reach accord on the fees and charges for
    any additional services required because of such
    changes.
    Section 2.8.
    Def ault
    2.8.1 The Contracting Officer may, subject to the provisions of
    Section 2.8.4. below, terminate for reason of default the
    whole or any part of this contract. The Contracting
    Officer may terminate a contract for reason of default in
    any one of the following circumstances:
    2.8. 1.1.

    2.8. 1.2
    If the Consultant fails to perform the services
    within the time specif ied or any extension; or
    If the Consultant fails to perform any of the
    other provisions of this contract, or so fails to
    make progress as to endanger performance of this
    contract in accordance with its terms, and in
    either of these two circumstances does not cure
    such failure within a period of ten (10) days (or
    such longer period as the Contracting Officer may
    authorize in writing) after receipt of notice from
    the Contracting Officer specifying such failure.
    CONTRACT - PAGE 7

    GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT

    2.8.2 Notice of default shall be effected by delivery to the
    Consultant of a "Notice of Default," specifying the reason
    for default, the extent to which the performance of the
    work under the contract is terminated, and the date on
    which such termination through default becomes effective.

    2.8.3 In the event the County terminates this contract in whole
    or in part as provided in Section 2.8.A., the County may
    procure, upon such terms and in such manner as theI
    Contracting Officer may deem appropriate, services similar
    to those so terminated, and the Consultant shall be liable
    to the County for any excess costs for such similar
    services and such liability shall be limited'.to, the amount
    already received by the Consultant under the contract.

    2.8.4 Except with respect to defaults of subcontractors, the
    Consultant shall not be liable for any excess costs if the
    failure to perform the contract arises out of causes beyond
    the control and without the fault or negligence of the
    Consultant. Such causes may include, but are not limited
    to, acts of God or of the public enemy, acts of the County
    in either its sovereign or contractual capacity, riots,
    fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes?
    freight embargoes, and unusually severe weather; but in
    every case the failure to perform must be beyond the
    control and without the fault or negligence of theI
    Consultant. If the failure to perform is caused by the
    default of the subcontractor, and if such default arises
    out of causes beyond the control of both the Consultant and
    subcontractor and without the fault or negligence of either
    of them, the Consultant shall not be liable for any excess
    costs for failure to perform, unless the services to be
    furnished by the subcontractor were obtainable from otherI
    sources in sufficient time to permit the Consultant to meet
    the required delivery schedule.

    2.8.5 If this contract is terminated as provided in Section 2.7
    or in Section 2.8.1., the County, in addition to any other
    rights provided in this paragraph, may require the
    Consultant to transfer title and deliver to the County inI
    the manner and to the extent directed by the Contracting
    Officer, such partially completed reports or other
    documentation as the Consultant has specifically producedI
    or specifically acquired for the performance of such part
    of this contract as has been terminated. Payments f or
    completed reports and other documentation delivered to and
    accepted by the County shall be at the contract price.
    Payment for partially completed reports and other
    documentation delivered to and accepted by the County shall
    be in an amount agreed upon by the Consultant andI
    Contracting Officer. Failure to agree to such amount shall

    CONTRACT -PAGE 8

    GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT
    be a dispute concerning a question of fact within the
    meaning of the paragraph of this contract entitled
    "Disputes," Section 2.9.
    2.8.6 If, after notice of termination through default of this
    contract under the provisions of Section 2.9, it is
    determined for any reasons that the Consultant was not in
    default under the provisions of this Section, or that the
    default was excusable under the provisions of this Section,
    the rights and obligations of the parties shall be the same
    as if the notice of termination had been issued pursuant to
    the Section 2.7 entitled "Termination."
    2.8.7 The rights and remedies of the County provided in this
    paragraph shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any
    other rights and remedies provided by law or under this
    contract.

    Section 2.9.   Disputes

    2.9.1 In an effort to resolve any conflicts that arise during the
    design of construction of the project or following the
    completion of the project, the County and the Consultant
    agree that all disputes between them arising out of or
    relating to this Agreement shall be submitted to nonbinding
    mediation unless the parties mutually agree otherwise.
    The County and the Consultant further agree to include a
    similar mediation provision in all agreements with
    independent Consultants and consultants retained for the
    project and to require all independent contractors and
    consultants also ton include a similar mediation provision
    in all agreements with subcontractors, subconsultants,
    suppliers or fabricators so retained, thereby providing for
    mediation as the primary method for dispute resolution
    between the parties to those agreements.
    2.9.2 This "Disputes" paragraph does not preclude consideration
    of law questions in connection with decisions provided for
    in Section 2.8.A. provided that nothing in this contract
    shall be construed as making final the decision of any
    administrative official, representative, or board on a
    question of law.

    Section 2.10.   Officials Not To Benefit

    No member of the County Board of Commnissioners or any individual
    employed by the County shall be admitted to any share or part of
    this contract, or to any benefit that may arise thekefrom, unless
    the contract or transaction has been approved by 3/4 of the
    CONTRACT - PAGE 9

    GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT

    members of the County Board of commissioners and so shown on the
    minutes of the Board together with a showing that the Board is
    cognizant of the member's or employee's interest.
    Section 2.11.  Covenant Against Contingent Fees3
    The Consultant warrants that it has not employed or retained any
    company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely
    for the Consultant to solicit or secure this contract, and that
    (s)he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other
    than a bona f ide employee working solely for the Consultant any
    fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or other
    consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award orI
    making of this contract. For breach or violation of this
    warranty, the County shall have the right to annul this contract
    without liability or, in its discretion, to deduct
    from the contract price or consideration the full amount of such
    commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee.
    Section 2.12.   County Held HarmlessI

    The Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless the
    County, its officers, agents and employees from any and allI
    claims and losses accruing or resulting to any and all
    contractors, subcontractors, material providers, laborers and any
    other person, firm or corporation furnishing or supplying work,
    services, materials or supplies in connection with  the negligentI
    performance of this contract, and from any and all claims and
    losses accruing or resulting to any person firm, or corporation
    who may be injured or damaged by the Consultant orI
    subcontractor's negligence in the performance of this contract
    and against liability, including costs and expenses, for
    violation of proprietary rights, copyrights, or rights of
    privacy.
    Section 2.13.   Independent Capacity of Consultant3
    The parties hereto agree that the Consultant, and any agents and
    employees of the Consultant in the performance of this agreement,
    shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers,I
    employees or agents of the County.
    Section 2.14.   Assignability
    This agreement is not assignable by the Consultant either in
    whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the
    Contracting Officer.

    CONTRACT -PAGE 10

    GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT
    Section 2.15.   Inspection and Acceptance
    inspection and acceptance of all work required under this
    contract shall be performed by the Project Manager, or such
    person duly authorized in writing.
    Section 2.16.   Collection or Recording of information
    The Project Manager may require the Consultant to submit for
    approval prior to use copies of each questionnaire and survey
    plan, including plans for structured interviews and
    consultations, for the collection of information upon identical
    items from five or more individuals or organizational elements.
    The term "structured interview and consultation"i is def ined as an
    interview or consultation which follows a predesigned line of
    questioning that takes approximately the same form for all the
    respondents being interviewed or consulted.

    Section 2.17.   Publication Rights
    All property rights, including publication rights, in the
    interim, draft and final reports and other documentation,
    including machine readable materials, produced by the Consultant
    in connection with the work provided for under this contract
    shall vest in the County. The Consultant shall not publish any
    of the results of the work without the written permission of the
    Contracting Officer.
    Section 2.18.   Other Consultants
    The County may undertake or award other contracts for additional
    or related work, and the Consultant shall fully cooperate with
    such other contractors and County employees and carefully fit
    this work to such additional work. The Consultant shall not
    commit or permit any action which will interfere with the
    performance of work by any other Consultant or by County
    employees. This paragraph shall be included in the contracts of
    all Consultants with whom this Consultant will be required to
    cooperate. The County shall equitably enforce this paragraph as
    to all Consultants, to prevent the imposition of unreasonable
    burdens on any Consultant.
    Section 2.19.   Competition in Subcontracting

    The Consultant shall select subcontracts (including suppliers) on
    a competitive basis to the maximum practical extent consistent
    with the objectives and requirements of the contract.
    CONTRACT - PAGE 11

    GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT

    Section 2.20. Gratuities

    A.   The County may, by written notice to the Consultant,
    terminate the right of the Consultant to proceed under this
    contract if it is found, after notice and hearing, by the
    Contracting officer or a duly authorized representative,I
    that gratuities in the form of entertainment, gifts or
    otherwise were offered or given by the Consultant to any
    officer or employee of the County with a view towardI
    securing a contract or securing favorable treatment with
    respect to the performing of such contract; provided that
    the existence of the facts upon which the Contracting
    Of ficer or a duly authorized representative m'nakes suchI
    findings shall be in issue and may be reviewed in any
    competent court.

    B.   In the event this contract is terminated as provided in
    Section 2.8.A., the County shall be entitled to pursue the
    same remedies against the Consultant as it could pursue in
    the event of a breach of the contract by the Consultant, and
    as a penalty in addition to any other damages to which it
    may be entitled by law, to exemplary damages in an amount,
    as determined by the Contracting Officer or representative,I
    which shall not be less than three nor more than ten times
    the cost incurred by the Consultant in providing any such
    gratuities to any such officer or employee.
    C.   The rights and remedies of the County provided in this
    paragraph shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any
    other rights and remedies provided by law or under contract.
    Section 2.21.   Consultant's Liability

    The Consultant will provide as Rider B of this contract
    documentation of public and professional liability, directors and
    officers, property damage, and workers' compensation insurance
    insuring, as they may appear, the interests of all parties to
    this Agreement against any and all claims which may arise out of
    Consultant operations under the terms of this contract. It is
    agreed that in the event any carrier of such insurance exercisesI
    cancellation, notice will be made immediately to the County of
    such cancellation.

    Section 2.22.   Nondiscrimination

    A.   The Consultant agrees to comply with all pertinent federal
    and state regulations and legislation involving civilI
    rights, equal opportunity, and affirmative action including,
    but not limited to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

    Act No. 453, Michigan Public Acts of 1976, Act 220 of the

    CONTRACT -PAGE 12

    GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT
    Public Acts of 1976, Michigan Handicapper's Civil Rights
    Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, P.L.
    93-112, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    B.   The Consultant hereby agrees that any and all subcontracts
    to this contract, whereby a portion of the work set forth in
    this contract is to be performed, shall contain a covenant
    the same as set forth in Section 2.22.A. above.

    Section 2.23.   Contract Construction

    The provisions of this contract shall be construed- in accordance
    with the provisions of State and Federal laws and'local
    ordinances.

    Section 2.24.   Disclosure of Information

    The Consultant agrees that the reports and conclusions are for
    the confidential information of the County and will not disclose
    conclusions, in whole or in part, to any unauthorized person
    without the prior written consent of the Contracting Officer.

    Section 2.25.   Records, Accounts and Audits

    The Consultant shall maintain such records and accounts,
    including property and personnel records, time sheets, travel
    vouchers, fringe benefit rates, overhead rates and other
    necessary documentation to assure a proper accounting of all
    contract funds for a period of three (3) years. The retention
    period starts from the date of the Consultant's accepted final
    report. Such records shall be made available to the County, the
    State or Federal grantor agency, the Comptroller General of the
    United States, and any of their duly authorized representatives
    upon request for audit purposes.
    Section 2.26.   Federal Regulation

    The Consultant, and any subcontractor, shall take notice and
    adhere to any applicable Federal regulation. The Consultant
    assumes sole liability for any non-compliance of these
    regulations.

    Section 2.27.   Unfair Labor Practices.

    In accordance with Act 278 of the Public Acts of 1980, the
    Consultant shall not enter into a contract with a subcontractor,
    manufacturer or supplier listed in the register maintained by the
    State of Michigan, Department of Labor, or employers who have
    been found in contempt of court by a Federal Court of Appeals on
    .not less than three occasions involving different violations
    during the preceeding seven years for failure to correct an
    unfair practice as prohibited by Section 8 of Chapter 372 of the
    CONTRACT - PAGE 13

    I
    GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT

    National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158. The County may
    terminate this contract as provided in Section 2.8 if the name of
    the employer or the name of a subcontractor, manufacturer or
    supplier of the employer subsequently appears in the register
    during the performance period of this contract.

    CONTRACT -PAGE 14
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    II
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I

    I
    GREAT LANES CENTER CONTRACT

    I. KEY PERSONNEL
    The people listed here are considered essential to the success of
    the project.

    Ed Freer, Project Manager, JJR

    Fred Klancnik, Principal Engineer, JJR

    Dong Denison, Principal, JJR

    Brian Trossen, Business and Financial Planning, TAI Realty
    Advisors

    Bob Sommerville, Architectural Programming, AAI

    Pat McCool, Public Funding Analysis
    CONTRACT - PAGE 15

    .  1.
    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan
    29 September 1995
    Page I

    WORKSHOP PROCESS AND SCOPE

    The workshop approach will enable the Grand Traverse County, the Project Task Team, and
    the consultant team to consider all important issues, and the inter-relationships between them,
    while being selective in determining the level of detail which should be app'lied to the planning
    assessment of the Great Lakes Water Resources Center.

    The development program and issues idenfified must be addressed in an integrated fashion if
    the overall strategy for the Resources Center, site constraints, community context, and
    implementation strategies are to be brought into clear focus. It is difficult--and often risky--to
    develop detailed action strategies for a masterplan without having first established the
    relationships of the primary issues and objectives.

    As a result, an important product of the Water Resources Center Workshop will be the
    development of a framework concept which underlines the critical relationships between
    decisions concerning user groups, site utilization, environmental quality, development patterns,
    access circulation, and parking and their impact on the community and waterfront. The
    framework concept will establish policy directions which help to ensure that management
    initiatives and capital investments are coordinated to produce the maximum possible benefit for
    Northwestern Michigan College, Great Lakes Water Resources Center and the community at
    large.
    The definition of priority issues and solution strategies is also an important goal of the workshop
    approach. It is essential to establish a clear sense of direction -- a framework for decision-
    making which will result in a sound schematic plan.
    We believe that the workshop process and products will guide the development of a schematic
    plan as well as establish the foundation for enlisting the financial and political support needed to
    follow up with the development of detailed implementation strategies.

    The workshop process will provide a forum for local decision-makers and consultant team
    mnembers to share ideas and gain an expanded understanding of the pre-requisites for the
    success of Great Lakes Water Resources Center, and in the implementation of specific
    projects. The workshop products -- graphic and narrative -- Will also be effective tools in
    enlisting interest, support for specific follow-up activifies and assist in critical funding
    campaigns.

    The following premises and principles highlight the fundamentals of the JJR team approach to
    waterfrontiland use planning. We believe that the same qualities that make a community
    unique, environmentally rich and an enjoyable place for people also make it a more productive

    t ~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan
    29 September 1995
    Page 2

    market and a more competitive location for private investment. As a result, the Water
    Resources Center site programming, site utilization/planning and economic development
    strategies must be explored in tandem.3

    The Resource Center's economic vitality and environmental quality depends on the mix of uses
    that draw people for a variety of reasons and in sufficient numbers to create a balance between
    productive use and quality of the experience. A facility's image and identity is also influenced
    by its character as a place. In particular, the waterfront quality as a setting for public access,
    educational opportunities, open space and as a backdrop to the residential and commercial
    neighborhoods as well as Grand Traverse Bay itself plays a critical role in"determining whether
    people will choose to support a facility of this nature both short and long term.
    The Underlvina Premises

    A. The Great Lakes Water Resources Center is worth the effort.
    Although a significant investment in time, energy and resources may be needed to
    incrementally plan and implement this facility, this investment will pay dividends for the
    community as a whole.
    *  Current and future public ownership and use of this site significantly enhances theI
    community.

    � The West Arm of the Grand Traverse Bay's historic significance and influence on the
    community's growth presents a major opportunity.I
    * An environmentally sound waterfront creates the image and identity of a community that
    values a sound quality of life.I
    � Current downtown development strategies can be strengthened by promoting access and
    positive interaction with the waterfront.I
    � A healthy waterfront becomes a powerful catalyst for economic growth.I
    *  The Water Resources Center can express a unique community heritage. This heritage can-
    become an important part of Grand Traverse County's image and market appeal.
    � When the Water Resources Center has a diverse mix of uses and appropriate linkag'es, it
    provides a special setting for social interaction public ownership and personal enjoyment.
    * The Bay is an important visual symbol of community identity - an expression of what the
    community thinks about itself and remains one of Traverse City's greatest amenities.
    * It is appropriate to expand the current educational role of the project site.

    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan
    29 September 1995
    Page 3

    B. Each Community has special assets on which to build.

    Traverse City/Grand Traverse County need to make the most of the waterfronts use, physical
    characteristics and public access in defining a vision uniquely tailored to local resources and
    potentials. The goal is to build on these opportunities and to use them effectively.
    C. Waterfronts are for and about community well being.

    The most fundamental'objective in waterfront planning is to provide access and continuity to the
    waterfront. The activity generated by one function helps to provide suppoff for other functions.
    This serves as a magnet for people, economic growth and environmental enhancement. All of
    these become indicators of a healthy and desirable community.

    *If the Water Resources Center is to be a public environment designed for the community it
    must be created so that it is convenient, comfortable, and interesting for people to engage.
    Carefully located, well-designed walkways and open spaces with appropriate site utilization
    will promote people activity which support the community's economic, educational and
    social functions.

    *Given the diverse program of the Great Lakes Water Resources Center the mix of uses is
    equally important. These uses must be a balance of the built and natural environment.
    Moreover, these uses must be effeetively linked together.

    D. Cities and their waterfronts don't happen by accident.

    The process of community-building is complex, with many players and individual decisions
    influencing outcomes. But it is possible to shape the character of a community and its
    waterfront if a vision for the future is defined and an effective framework for achieving that
    vision is established.

    * The planning process should help to establish a broad understanding of, and support for,
    the basic charactedistics and principles that make the community and its waterfront an
    active, interesting, enjoyable place.

    �	Efforts should be focused on achieving community consensus as a mandate for action.
    �	The master plan must clearly define objectives, an organizing framework of concepts, and
    action strategies that serve as a guide to decision-making.
    *  Patience and persistence are essenfial; realizing a master plan and its vision for the Great
    Lakes Water Resources Center is a long-term effort.

    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan
    29 September 1995
    Page 4

    E. Publiclprivate partnership is needed.

    This partnership approach should apply to more than joint venture projects and cost-sharing. It
    should also include the ongoing participation of the local business community in defining
    planning objectives, issues, and solutions.

    Priniciples:

    A. Emphasize public access and broad variety of activity.
    B. Ensure a balance of uses and activity that don't negatively impact adjacent uses or
    environmental quality.I
    C. Link major activity to the Say using distinctive treatments, open spaces, and site utilization
    to create complementar  programs.I
    D. Concentrate on the environmental quality to create a positive setting for people promoting
    environmental awareness.I
    E. Create a clear organizing structure to help people understand how the Great Lakes Water
    Resources Center and the adjacent land use, downtown, and open space fit together.I
    F. Foster a distinctive identity, a recognizable image that has both personal and communal
    meaning.  -I
    G. Foster a distinctive identity that will have a locallregional/national significance.

    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan
    29 September 1995
    Page 5

    WORKSHOP APPROACH

    The goal of the proposed workshop approach is to maximize the productive use of limited
    available dollars by applying these principles in developing a Schematic Plan for the long term
    development of Great Lakes Water Resources Center.

    The planning workshop,will yield two different, but related products:
    * A framework concept which establishes overall directions for decisions concerning
    the overall Resource Center's image and its relationship to Grand Traverse Bay,
    environmental education, open space, community context, circulation, parking,
    public access and use of the Bay.
    �  Action recommendations which focus on issues of immediate concern and identify
    site/project-specific opportunities. This will set the foundation for the framework of
    mid and long term implementation strategies.

    The workshop will focus on these primary planning issues:

    * Key issues and priorities
    � Site programming
    * Innovative site utilization ideas
    * Community access and linkage
    * Bay access and use
    � A clear strategy for implementation and follow through
    * Community consensus

    The workshop approach, described in the following pages, is structured in three parts:
    * Preparation
    � On-site workshop
    * Documentation and the development of the Schematic Master Plan.

    TASK I - PREPARATION/SITE CONSTRAINTS

    A. Definition of priority issues

    JJR will meet with client representatives, to define the Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    issues/topics of priority concern. A city/county staff prepared description of available
    background information will also be reviewed and discussed. Additional data needs will-be
    identified.

    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    traverse City, Michigan
    29 September 1995
    Page 6

    B. Definition of information needs
    A summary of priority issues and the description of available background information w(ill beI
    circulated to members of the consultant team. The JJR team will outline additional data needs,
    hi ghlighting essential vs. dsiWrable information.

    C. '1Briefing Summary"1 Preparation and Review
    Using the consultant teams' additional data needs as a guide, the local task team will assist JJ RI
    in preparing a '1briefina summarv'1 providing background data (including maps) on land
    uselmarket, circulation, parking and general issues within the. The eity staff team will also
    provide reproducible base maps of the study area and its community context. JJR will provideI
    a slide and/or video inventory of the study area.

    The JJR team will review this background information and outline a preliminary approach to theI
    issues. Any additional data needs and/or essential community interview requirements will be
    identified at this time. The initial definition of priority issues will also be reviewed and clarified or
    amended (as appropriate).
    D. On-site Workshop Logistics

    In consultation with the local task team, JJR w(ill prepare a written description of the proposed
    on-site workshop agenda and identify local participants. This description will be circulated to all
    members of the consultant team for review and comment. Based on this review, a final agendaI
    will be prepared and approved by committee. The client will be responsible, for reserving space
    for the workshop and scheduling local participation.
    TASK 2 - PROJECT RECONNAISANCE/WORKSHOP

    NOTE: The format and agenda for the workshop vwill be determined with the local task team
    and JJR input. The following outline represents one possible option.
    Dav One: Team Reconnaissance

    Great Lakes Water Resources Center task team representatives and the JJR team members
    will participate in a walking/driving tour of the community and site area. Issues andI
    opportunities will be highlighted.
    Consultant team members will interview local experts on key'issues, e.g., Northwestern
    Michigan College board members, University Center Members, Maritime Heritage interests,
    Environmental Educators, Maritime Academy Administrators; City and County
    department/agency representatives', Visitor and Convention Bureau, and Strategic downtown
    stake holders. (These interviews will be scheduled in advance by the local task team and
    city/county staff).

    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan
    29 September 1995
    Page 7

    JJR will prepare an Issues and Opportunities Diagram in preparation for the planning workshop.

    Dav Two: Workshop)

    A. Preliminary Framework Concept

    JJR will present the Issues and Opportunities Diagram as a starting point for participant
    discussion. A written record of review comments and recommended directions will be made
    during the workshop.

    The product of this workshop will be a graphic illustration of the Preliminary Framework
    Concept. Objectives and principles for guiding future decision-making will be summarized. An
    overall implementation sequence w(ill also be discussed.

    B. Consensus on Issues/Projects

    The special issues and specific projects which will serve as the focus for further discussion and
    will be identified before the conclusion of this session.
    C. Action Strategies

    The final session will be devoted to discussions on prioeitization of special issues and specific
    project potentials. These discussions will use the Preliminary Framework Concept as a
    reference. Participants will "brainstorm' implementation approaches based on past experience,
    translating these approaches into strategies tailored to the Great Lakes Water Resources
    Center. A written record of recommendations and the rationale behind them will be developed.

    This workshop s~ession will conclude with a summary review of the Preliminary Framework
    Concept and recommended action strategies. "Next steps' will be identified and prioritized to
    give the participants an immediate action agenda.

    TASK 3 - DESIGN STUDYISCHEMATIC PLAN

    A. Workshop Summary
    JJR will prepare a summary report (approximately 10 pages in length) documenting the
    workshop recommendations in graphic and narrative form. Graphics generated during the
    workshop will be refined for consistency and clarity of content. Additional graphics, illustrating
    concepts and/or development potentials discussed during the workshop, will be prepared as
    part of the final schematic plan recommendations.

    The summary will be circulated to the project task team and the JJR team members for review.
    This summary will then be presented to the County Commissioners. (We re'commend that this
    be a public meeting.)

    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan
    29 September 1995
    Page 8

    B. Review/Comment and Preparation of a Draft Schematic Plan
    Review comments (clarifications and amendments) will be submitted to JJR as the basis forU
    preparing a draft schematic plan. This draft will once again be reviewed by the local task team
    and presented to the County Commissioners. (We recommend that this be a public meeting.)

    C. Final Schematic Plan
    Based on City/County and task team feed back a final schematic plan and summary report willI
    be provided. The report will be provided in both hard copy and electronic file. A color-laser
    reproduction (8 112"x I 1") of Framework Concept & Final Schematic Plan will be included. -Fifty
    copies (Xerox-reproduced) of the final report will be provided. The final master planI
    recommendation will be illustrated and submitted on a wall sized reproducible mylar plan and
    one "birds eye view" sketch of the project area.

    TASK 4 - BUSINESS PLAN
    The business plan will include a proposed organizational structure for the development and
    operation of the Great Lakes Resources Center. Capital and operation budgets will be
    prepared along with a table of potential funding sources. Implementation strategies will be
    discussed and integrated throughout the planning process.
    A. Identify Proarammina Ooiportunities

    It is envisioned that the Center will provide for a range of water-related public attractions
    environmental interpretator, a community sailing center, and 'office space for water-related
    public agencies, institutions and private firms." Alternative programming opportunities will beI
    discussed at the Workshop, and discussions during the Workshop will allow the JJR Project
    Team (the Team) to conclude an "optimal programming configuration" which will provide design
    guidance relating to the amount, and type, of space that the Center will include.
    In preparation for the Workshop, the Team will speak w(ith representatives of'similar facilities
    and educational institutions, as well as members of the local business community, to determine
    the type of synergy that might materialize, and Will identify the level of interest that might be
    shown by potential tenants and users of the Center. These conversations will lead the Team to
    propose a programming configuration which might include such elements as an environmental
    research and educational facility, exhibition and conference hall, laboratory-demonstratio'n
    space, office space and potentially, retail space offering books and other water-research and
    Great-Lakes-related materials.3
    The Business Plan will evaluate each element of the programming configuration. This
    evaluation may address such characteristics as: (i) attendance (or visitor)-generating3
    capability; (ii) revenue-generating capability; (iii) seasonality; (iv) associated operating costs;
    and; (v) staffing requirements. This evaluation will allow the Teanm to identify which program

    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan
    29 September 1995
    Page 9

    elements appear to be most economically viable, and which will likely represent the greatest
    level of financial risk to the Center.

    B. Define Oraanizational Structure and Staffina Reauirements

    Based on the array of program elements that the Center can accommodate, we will define
    staffing requirements that will be needed to organize, and provide for the continuous operation,
    of the Center. We expect that full- and part-time staffing requirements will be supplemented by
    a volunteer program; w~e propose to speak with representatives of the College, and other local
    community and educational groups to better determine the extent that volunteer-efforts can be
    integrated into the Centeres operations.

    We will estimate staffing salaries that will be appropriate to attract comnpetent management to
    the Center, and will prepare an annual staffing budget which wvill include all annual salary and
    related overhead expenses. We will also design an organizational structure for the Center
    which appears to best provide the technical, administrative, financial and marketing
    (promotional) skills that will be needed to assure the continued operation of the Center.

    C. Estimate Annual Ooeratina Revenues

    The programming elements that will influence the Center's design will also irnpact its annual
    operating revenues. We will evaluate programming elements and provide estimates of the
    gross operating revenues that might be associated with each. For instance, we will develop
    assumptions regarding the length and frequency of, and attendance at, specific educational
    programs that the Center might sponsor. We will estimate the frequency that exhibition space
    at the Center will be utilized, and we will develop assumptions relating to the length of, and
    attendance at, such exhibitions. We will estirnate the extent to which private, institutional or
    public-sector groups might lease space at the Center, and the level of rents that the Center can
    likely charge for such space.
    Based on this analysis, we Will evaluate each programming element as its own "gross profit
    center". This preliminary analysis will allow us to identify which elements represent the highest
    level of commercial success and which are likely to become self-sufficient.

    D. Estimate Annual Ooeratino Exoenditures

    There are no historic operations upon which to base estimates of forecasted operating
    revenues for the proposed Center. However, based on the experiences of similar (or
    comparable) facilities, and on personnel costs resulting from the organizational structure
    (defined in Task 4-B, above), we will estirmate annual operating expenditures for the Center, for
    from a five-year-to-ten-year period. In combination with operating revenues (developed in Task
    4-C, above), we will prepare estimates of annual operating income (or loss) for the Center for
    the same five-year-to-ten-year period. Based upon the Center's forecasted, annual operating
    performance, we may propose changes to the Center, its design, programming elements and/or
    expected staffing levels.

    Great Lakes Water Resources Center
    Traverse City, Michigan
    29 September 1995
    Page 10

    E. Strateaies for Meetina Fundina Reauirements and Oo)eratina Deficits
    The Design Study/Schematic Plan (Task 3) will document a design plan for the Center and
    estimate the total construction cost of the program. We wilt explore with the County options for
    funding the construction program, including grants, contributions and loans. To the extent that
    a sponsor-entity (possibly the County, or a to-be-formed, not-for-profit entity) borrows fundsI
    (either taxable or tax-exempt) to finance the construction of the Center, we w(ill evaluate the
    impact that resulting d6bt service will have on the prospective operations of the Center.

    To the extent that the Center is forecasted to provide insufficient operating revenues to offset
    both forecasted operating expenses and debt service, it will incur an annual deficit and wiill.have
    to rely upon supplemental grants or endowments to sustain operations. We will evaluate theI
    potential size of such deficits, and will explore available options (including federal and state
    programs). While we do not propose to carry out a detailed feasibility study for the Center, we
    will assist Grand Traverse County staff in determining whether the concept of the Great Lakes
    Water Resources Center appears feasible, subject to a specific set of operating and funding
    assumptions.

    PROJECT SCHEDULE

    The following schedule is proposed for the Great Lake Water Resource Center, Planning
    Assessment. This schedule depends heavily on the client's ability to assist in gathering
    "briefing book7 information and in scheduling local participation in interviews and the planning
    charrette.3

    Task I	Preparation/Site Constraints	4 weeks
    Task 2	Project Reconnaissance/Workshop	5 weeks
    Task 3	Design Study/Schematic Plan	6 weeks
    Task 4	Business Plan	I week
    Total Project Schedule	16 weeks3

    is~docsNproposaNraverse\WORKSHOP.DOC3

    JJR
     Great Lakes Water Resource Center  1'
    to:    .	. Week
    *   Tasks                                        1 2 3 4  5 6 7	8
    -                                    a~ ~
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
    -     1. Preparation I Site Constraints
    Collect Data
    Analysis
    *I      Determine Site Constraints
    Briefing Summary,
     2. Project Reconnaissance I Workshops            . ', ,nUl
    Workshop Preparation                        ', [
    Workshop at Traverse City                        i
    Workshop Summary Report
    3. Design Study / Schematic Plan
    Programming Summary             L
    I              a
    Preliminary Schematic Plan
    Preliminary Cost Estimate  ,,,	. ,       ', ,
    Final Schematic Plan          -	':
    Final Report
    4. Business Plan	a
    Potential Structure
    Funding Sources                         , e.
    Implementation Strategies
    10
    11
    13
    14
    15
    12
    16

    '
    '
    1
     . I

    1.
    . . .
    *1  *       A   LL
    * Workshop
    - Public Presentation
    *   Trip to Traverse City

    NMC MASTER PLAN

    JAN--13--95  FRI  11:18  CAMPUS

    THE NMC
    UNIVERSITY
    CENTER IS THE
    BElT VALUE
    IN HIGHER
    E�UCAITION.
    SERVICES

    WHAT IS 1
    9221399
    P.02

    r
    'HE	I U  "TQ
    t	dr �     ".
    rHE UNIVERSITY CENTEll? V; ).
    The University Center is a partnership among
    Northwestern Michigan College, the citizens
    of the five-county region, public schools and
    Midligan universities. Its goal is to bring more
    baccalaureate and advanced degree programs,
    continuing education, and high school
    curriculum enrichment to students, adults,
    employers, seniors-to all area residencs who
    seek to improve their lives through education.
    The University Center will not replace or
    change Northwestern Michigan College. NMC
    will remain a comprehensivecommunity college
    offering the first two years of a baccalaureate
    degree for students who wish to transfer to a
    university and over 30 health, business, and
    rechniical programs for students who wish to
    enter the workplace.
    From a central location at NMC's Boardman
    Lake campus, the University Center will
    coordinate a variety of educational programs
    bringing professors and experts to the NMC
    campus and also transmitting instruction
    througll the technology of interactive
    classrooms to 'satellite campuses' at
    participating area high schools.
    I
    If

    I
    *
    1
    I
    I
    4
    I
    I
    I
    ,
    2

    JAN-13-95 FRI 11:s9 CAMPUS SERVICES
    9221399
    P. 03    1
    I
    I
    Also in the interest of efficiency and economy, it may
    take sorne transition time to consolidate certain uses
    back into the main campus.
    I
    U

    N
    U
    B    SUB-CAMUS SITES
    Northwestern Michigan College is a commuter College.
    Ninety-four percent (94%) of current students drive to
    and from the campus center where their interests focus.
    There is little need to drive between campus centers as
    long as the student can deal with their interests on that
    campus in a given day. In this sense each sub-campus can
    be considered in view of how efficiently and effectively
    it can serve a given set of interrelated interests. For
    instance, some programs call for a special location such
    as an airport, a waterfront or a location close to a
    certain concentration of users.
    Given the difficulty of predicting future needs  and the
    Northwestern Michigan College mission to serve a broad
    range of educational interests, the sub-camnpus is an
    important mechanism for the College to be flexible,
    responsive and effective. But, the College must evaluate
    its physical facilities as a single network supporting an
    integrated teaching and learning system in order to
    determine when an investment is most cost-effectlve when
    made on the main campus, on a sub-campus or in some other
    outreach location.
    Following is a review of current sub-campus sites other
    than the main campus:
    I
    I
    I
    I
    U
    I
    I
    p
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    TECHNICAL CENTER SITU (5.32A)
    Once the site of a cherry processing plant, this site has
    long been the location for the Maritime Academy and its
    associated building, dock area, parking and boat
    launching point. Maintenance, supply and storage, auto
    technology and some office space have also been housed in
    one of the original industrial buildings along Front
    Street. The site is a prominent one, located between two
    public waterfront parks, fronting on Grand Traverse Bay
    (West Arm) and served by Front Street, Traverse City  's
    main business artery. The site is approximately one mile
    west of the main campus.
    In the interests of increasing the effectiveness of the
    main  campus as a singular,  more  compact  and more
    efficient academic community, it is reasonable to
    relocate  the maintenance  center  and  the  technical
    4
    I
    I
    I
    N
    N
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I

    JasN-13-95 FRI 1 1:19 CAMPUS SERVICES           9221399                P.04

    |.                     programs into close proximity of the campus core.  This
    move would open up the Front Street portion of the site
    to alternative uses.
    l~ U~~The Maritime Acalemy seems appropriately located on the
    Grand Traverse Bay.  Direct access to the Great Lakes is
    important to the program and the site works well and
    I
    there is a strong and fitting sybolism between the
    maritime  focus of the program and the Traverse Bay
    location. It is assumed that if the program needed to
    expand it could do so adequately within the footprint of
    the existing building.
    Assumi ng that the Maritime Academy remains in its present
    I|~~ -           location and the maintenance/technical operations are re-
    located to the main campus area, a fresh approach to site
    development is possible.
    I|~~~ Flanked by two waterfront parks, future development could
    include a strategy to open up broader views of West Bay
    from Front Street as well as allow for a greenway
    connection between the two parks along Front Street.
    Some building expansion could occur in the "shadow" of
    the existing Maritime Academy building and parking could
    be sustained within such an open space framework while
    increasing visual exposu r e to the Bay from the Front
    Street busin ess c     orridor.
    l~~~ |              ~These opportunities call for the removal of the original
    industrial building along Front Street and shaping a
    program that could fit with the unique water amenities of
    the site. Although the feasibility of this approach has
    not been fully determined it should be seriously studied.

    *bOARDMAN IK  SITE (31 acres)
    Because of its Boardman Lake waterfront and its central
    location in the City, there are long term development
    I|~~~ t           possibilities on this site. It could very well be a sub-
    campus unit in the overall NMC campus network. The most
    appropriate direct use of the site would be for those
    college related uses which do  not	call  for  close
    relationships to the campus core.	These uses could
    include such functions as applied research, exploratory
    programs and community outreach programs.
    Depending upon the extent of College needs for this type
    of  space, the property could be utilized by the College,
    leased out, or sold.

    I                                               S

    CITY MASTER PLAN

    -  ---------                                       --     mmmmm~
    ,3. River and Stream Banks

    Boardman River, Kids Creek and Mitchell Creek have played important
    roles in the history of Traverse City and in the creation of land forms. These
    river and stream basins are more than just carriers of water; thev represent
    a major part of the delicate hydrologic system of surface and subsurface
    waters that generate and maintain life in the region, Buildings should be set
    back an appropriate distance from river and stream banks. In all cases a pe-
    destrian wvay or bike path is intended. Adjacent upland development must
    be accomplished in a manner assuring that stormwater drainage properly
    reaches the river or creeks, and will not degrade the water quality.

    4. Wetlands

    These are among the most sensitive ecological zones in the region. If drained
    or filled, the region-wide ecological balance Nvill be altered, and the effects
    on fish, wildlife, vegetation and water resources would be detrimental. It is
    proposed that development be restricted in these zones.

    5. Hillsides

    Steeply sloped areas wvhere the ground falls awav more than 18 percent
    represent special challenges for development. Because steep slopes are more
    likely to erode, there is a greater chance that protective grasses, shrubs and
    tree will not withstand development pressures. Silt-laden waters and dam-
    aged fish habitat represent other by-products of uncontrolled billside devel-
    opment. Development in these areas shall be accompanied by performnance
    standards and roadway access controls. Suggested protective measures are
    clustering, avoidance of excessive c-urb cuts, reforestation and special prac-
    tices to minimize soil erosion during and after construction. It is recom-
    mended that ridge development follow guidelines in the Grand Traverse
    Bay Region Development Guide Book.

    9 ~~~~~~~~~~Resource Prote,  R Plan

    1. Grand Traverse Bay Shoreline

    Grand Traverse Bayp is perhaps the most important of the area's natural

    resources, Its Shoreline is of particular concern, because of development

    pressures to which it is exposed almost dailv. The Bay itself is a public re-

    source. Because of this, the City Plan encourages both visual and public

    access be maintained or enhanced to the greatest degree feasible.

    There are t-wo types of shorelines represented on the Plan. The first is open

    space; the second is developed shoreline. That wvhich is designated as pub-

    lic open space is proposed to be used for recreational, educational and con-

    servation purposes. In these public open space areas, structures and vege-

    tation should be designed and positioned so as not to impair viewvs of the Bay

    from public streets and back-shore properties. The pr-ivately ow,ned and de-

    veloped shoreline areas are quite another mnatter. As newv development will

    certanly occur it is proposed that public views and access be preserved, and/

    or enhanced through requirements of proper setbacks and placement of

    structures outside the 100-year flood plain.

    2. Boardman Lake Shoreline

    Until recently, Boardman Lake went largely unnoticed as a recreational

    resource. This Plan proposes that the comnmunity focus its attention on

    guiding the development of this inland lake to ensure a quiet residential and

    community recreational area.

    Key issues to be addressed are water quality, land use, public access and rec-

    reational usage. A lake management plan, jointly developed by Garfield

    Township and the City, is encouraged to address these concerns.
    I -
    S

    M  -    mm mm mm -  -  -  -m -  -  -  -               mm
    City of Traverse CitA
    Future Land Use Ma-

    OS	Open Space, Park - & Recreation
    R-C	Residential Conservation
    R-la	Single Famiily Residence- Large Lot
    R-lb	Single Family Residence- Small lot
    R-2	Two - Family Residence
    R-9	Low Density - Multiple Family
    - -  .15	Medi-um  Density - Multiple Family
    R-29	Multiple Dwelling
    R-5	Resort Areas
    R-60	High Rise Apartments
    C-I	Office -Service
    C-2	Neighborhood Center
    C-3	ComrmunitV Center
    C-4	Regional Center
    C-4a	Regional Center
    C-4b	Regional Center
    MX-I	Mixed Use - Iron Works
    MX-2	Mixed Use- Depot
    MX-3	Mixed Use - Red Mill
    MX-4	Mixed Use - Morgan Farm
    MX-5	Mixed Use- Rennie Hill
    141	Light Industrial
    T	Transportation
    G/I-	Goverment/ Public
    S	Schools
    GTC	Grand Traverse Commons
    Rla
    i,

    I !;.U~
    I -
    V..          ..     "-    ~
    i STATE 6
    I..... Ij..  -   .,
    i
    .- 1. .

    Rib               -W
    i
    :

    ib;
    SOi %T
    East (lay

    .	� . I    ,
    ;	'Rlb I
    i- I 11
    iRib
    "
    N

    .            .                   N~

    IRlb
    -
    Ih
    _
    "N<

    bU
    10.  -
    N

    _...:
    Boardm&n
    Lake

    Citv Limi

    W-
    -E
    -7
    --- 'I

    I
    I   .
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I

    I

    I
    c

    I --'---
    I I
    590.8                                 591.                                 59.6

    V /(;= coI
    z  ct".
    I
    I
    I
    I-
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    CWATER
    VALL
    n
    1111
    OL
    L
    0
    'z1L
    L
    0
    L
    0
    )
    5)
    591.6
    I
    59(.4

    S
    590.6

    '%.Olv I' 'M                       \, -," -. -t.         m                   -
    NoRTI4m
    ..... 1-1-1 ..
    .....
    ..
    _
    A
    I

    o200 400 600 800 1000  1200

    A-
    lqvff_

    'I      GRAPHIC  SCALE   IN   FEET
    p\_

    i _,;: Z_: i _ - -
    I- -            -

    I I -
    j _
    I I
    I ff - -,
    . (2 2). .
    -W -   i
    =-7- -.,:- 7

    .;.  -' _; -.-- ...

    - - - -.mw __: '. , -
    _--
    I

    !
    1
    1
    ;
    I I I
    RH.' `
    NME
    M

    L~.. * I.

    WV-                                                    -     --     1
    . . . I-  -    ;., 1.1_
    ... .. .

    I/I r,	.1-1	, I
    i	N

    a It A  Iti
    N. 11 1

    ~~~~~~LI

    CiY'-.IAES

    BOJ.......
    ~~~~~ :      --~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~......  ...A..
    **-~~~~~~~~~~.. .4 ...        .0NR   .........
    FlT P-fT,TTN
    Jr~.LEUh yiJNA Y                       to    n nl-n kIvdZ  IL VAG.A1.L  Mj.      ~1-.#J.a Im.T            %  g  .U%   a&J lA       w
    PLANNED  UNIT DEVELCIIMENT                               P UD.
    ~-)~EIGHT                YARD S
    U .3 E                          DISTRICT SYMBOL STiIGHIFET ~FOT SD       ER                                                        LOT AREA  PER  FAMILY

    LINGLE. FAMILY DWELLING. 'ISTP.ICT- SINGLE  FAMILY              ~-
    DWELLINGS. SCMOOLS. PARLS. GOLF  COURtSFS.                R-1        j:::..         2 1/2   3    35             3010                       3 5         1000    SO. ()C)T)S.
    PUBILIC BUILDINGS. HOM.E ')CUPATIONS
    SINGLE FALMILY	DWELLING_.DISTRICT -          2                     _________oZ5ooSO F
    SAME AS  IN R-1	AND	~.HUACHES                      ' -

    TWO	FAMILY	RESIDENCE	DISTRICT-USES  PERMITTED	5,ooo So. FT	ONE  FAMILY~
    IN R1-	AND	1-2 AND I1OFAIL   DWELLINGS                                P.6                                                               25	4000	50  FT	TW 5	6M2
    ~~~~~~OFMULIPLY DWLLN  ___	50 FT. TF~ WO  S	FAMILY,
    DISTLCT.   .	R4	~     ~     ~~~~~~~                           ~	~~~~~3  4 0	95	a	25	1 '-*tl SY	MULI P-A C1. L,'N	-__,_
    '~~I'MULTIPLE DWEtLLING DISTRIR. -	R4.        r~Z~	3. 40	2	I	25	P     O  -.	Z FAILY,30'.

    0'  ~~S   t..~,PEP-.rTPZ INR4  AID MOTELS	R:	- IILIIUIUIU                                         909 I  -0I * '005-u

    OFFICE   SERLVICE DISTR c -	I.'NONL  EXCEPT	WIIIN
    OFFICES,CLINICS.	I       C-i            3                   .     0           2 5      ADJOINING	A                 SAME  AS  K-4  DISTtICT
    I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~RESIDENCE	DISTKICT
    NEIGHB0P.HOOD	SHOPPING *QISTF!CT-USES PERMITT!D
    IN C-I. RETAIL	SHOPS,-' ANKS. FiLLING               j     -2                                     30           2 0                                     SAME  AS t.-4  DISTRICT
    STATIONS.I	2
    COMMERCIAL -DIS1P.ICT, LSES PERMITTED IN] C-1.                   C        3	3        4       520                    SM                            SK4DSKC
    SHOWROOMS. THEAT ES. SERVICE SHOPS. MOTELSC33420SM AS -   DTIT

    CENTKAL  BUSINESS	DlS I CT -USES PERMITTED  IN	I5.000	SO. FT. ONE	FAMICY
    C-3. WHOLESALE	ESTAIIVH~,MENIS WAREHOIJSS                C-4                         4           5 5           -	I2,500	50  FT  TWO	FAMILY
    ______  I	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1,000 50. FT, MUL.TIPLE	DWELLING
    RESTRICTED  INDUSTRY  CsTt7c-T - usEs  PEPMITTED	WHEN  PERMITTED,  SAME	AS
    :NC-4, FREIGHT TEMP~..SOA&YARDS. AND    .                M-1 i-	6           7 5          2 5IN -4DTRC
    * NDIJSTP.IES EMITTING 61::IINAL CUST, 000OR. GAS. ETC.	INR4DSkC
    :.IINDU519IA  VISTMICT -UV   ?EtMITTfD IN M-I. ANY                    cm;
    USE EXCEPT RESIDENCE -ID ENMRY                            m- 2                        6   .       75           2 5                         NNO  NEW  RESIDENICE  PERMITTED
    *NUISANCEI REQI"''N   $,"--IAL  PERMiT...
    OFF STREET  i .I<ING t NLY                                P-ISAME AS THE N.    RSICVEDJZNNDSTCT                                                   I AS PERMITTED IN SEC14
    _7M              IIIIIIIIR,- --. m- m-M.--   M  -m M
    I
    _m

    -, - m - -I I m m I -    -- --- - I  - -
    Land Use: Recommended Scale and Characteristics
    "ILAND) USE	SCA11X.!EPRESENTATE                                                  :CHA:'ACTER DSCi 'PTION
    CLASSIFICATION	HEIGHT(1i                           SE  (2i:

    Open Space, Parks	Pedestrian	Parks, Playgrounds, Ath-        Natural or park-like settings often linked with pedestrian & bicycle paths.
    & Recreation	(1-2 stories)	letic Fields, Wetlands,
    (OS)	Floodplains, Natural Areas,
    Cultural Buildings

    Residential	Pedestrian        Single Family.Dwellings,	These areas are classified as wetlands or are susceptible to erosion or flooding.
    Conservation	(1-3 stories).: '        Open Space	When privately owned, these properties should.be developed at low-density and.
    (R-C)                          ..	clustered in the least sensitive portions of the property to protectthe environment.
    Building within thefloodplains and wetlands should be avoided unless it is clearly
    .    : ':  :::    '  demonstrated that  ublic health,.safety and welfare is advanced by minimal devel-
    optment:in these areas: For areas with rather steep.s:lpes, densities for davellings
    :' '	'. . ' '':	:: :.: i':1.:i ;! i...:...:.11.: ..'should be kept low. :Overal l density:.up to 4.4
    dwealingslper;are is allowable.

    :� ....	..:�;	:.:: �:.i::"i: : :. . i :	�

    Single Family	Pedestrian	Single Family Dwellings,	These areas correlate with existing large-lot residential developments, or represent
    Residence-Large Lot	(1-3 stories)	Schools, Religious Facilities	expansion areas for the further development of this housing style. These areas are
    R-la	served by public utilities and will mark the limits for urban services. They are in-
    tended primarily to accommodate traditional single-family lots. However, cluster-
    ing (e.g., single-family attached, zero-lot-line detached) may be allowed on larger
    parcels within the designated density guidelines as a means to protect sensitive soils
    and provide usable open space. Overall density up to 4.4 dwellings per acre is al-
    lowable.

    (1) I stoy is equalto 10 feet
    (2) Accessory uses are allowed in each Land Use Classification.
    ,n
    Plan

    T _A   TT__/ t'
    Land USe/L
    ,25

    Park Characteristics
    PAR -YPE ..SZ	OUAINSRE                              OAINT?CLFCLTE/EA

    Playground Tot Lot   Less than	Young children in the im-	Neighborhoods; away	Swings, slides, creative play structures, basketball
    I acre	mediate area	from busy roads, well	courts; generally active recreation.
    protected fromn external
    influences
    Neighbrhoo.ak 16ars                 A   ages5 :i: the, immediat       egbohos  ofteni	Courtgaes   kati ngrnks, gaeields: intendedito
    hb~ ~~~~~nihorho                              .an~ s.. mgnie it co,	erebtpasvaNd cie eratinrmarl
    easy~~~E wakn.dsWce	frn~on-rani.ed Iiactivities.

    Commnunity Park    6-25 acres    Entire community (includ-	Steeply sloped terrain,	Often contain play fields, but also emphasize pic-
    ing near-city residents)	woodlands, wetlands,	nicking, hiking, nature study, boating, fishing and
    streamns, bayfronts, sites	siniilar outdoor activities that may contain both ac-
    of imnportant scernic value	tive and passive recreation but emnphasize natual
    resource preservation.

    fetre  farc idsg        wenurae         ofacitesuh as naue neqrtwi
    ricnew1igpnikg,winn....... ca.oigadse

    Play Field/Stadium  10-40 acres   Entire comm-unity (includ-	Along major arterials	To accommnodate organized activities such as track,
    ing near-City residents)	having good access	baseball, softball and soccer; a play field is usually
    large with several playing fields.

    Rep~ ~  ~ ~       ~ ~~n  visitor                         mak,saue,abr-	rclia iztertmayotanht6vlrce
    .y ~ ~ . tuns zos  a.d,s~	ooia~btnca   ronmna   etrs
    ...  ..... .. .urn
    Parks   creation and Open Space Plan  2
    -  --   -   ---n-r--                                       -  rn rn   mmmmm

    -  - - - -  - -        - -m I      - I   -   - - I I m
    Park & Open Space Standards

    Since demand for parks, open space and other forms of recreation will vary
    with time and with demographics, this Plan sets forth no specific standards
    for-the City to establish a minimum number of parks, or an overall acreage
    for these parks and open spaces. Instead, the Plan proposes a more flexible
    approach by offering to provide convenient parks of high quality, and by
    preserving open space in environmentally sensitive areas of the City. Steep
    hillsides, wetlands, floodplains and highly desirable natural features are
    areas planned to be preserved by acquisition, development easements or
    clustering development.

    The 1987 Recreation Survey indicates that residents are most interested in
    a higher level of maintenance of the existing park system. This is especially
    true in neighborhood parks, followed by quality recreation programs and
    new parkland development, respectively.
    Bike Trail Photo
    Park & Open Space Acquisitions

    The long-term goal of the Plan is to have virtually all properties along West
    Bay Waterfront held in public ownership by acquiring private properties
    when they are offered and funding is available. In cases where public own-
    ership is not feasible, easements for public access are sought. The Plan also
    seeks to develop parks through funding and market availability in areas cur-
    rently devoid of recreational sites. For more specific information regarding
    park and open space acquisition, see Traverse City Parks andRecreation
    Plan prepared by the Parks and Recreation Commission and adopted by the
    City Commission.

    Open Space along the bay front provides the public the opportunity to enjoy
    Grand Traverse Bay.

    " ~   ~                                                     T-,         ~? *  f  .....4 /"~          nt.r 'D,a
    I
    2�t
    7
    P"arks, Re~creation' anaupe
    Kw_,,lan

    Parks, Recreation and Open Space
    V
    ~
    4'.  "                4-1

    m
    . . _l 'V
    	1
    114
    'i	0

    9'. W, Z V    .	_g

    ffjrand Traverse                                                              -
    U1~~~	County Nature                                                   sE4uat
    II	~~~Education Reserve

    2 -5                                  Parks, Rcet�n-p                  ePa

    WM mm mm mm ------                                   - mmmmm
    3. Boardman Waterfront
    1. West Bay Waterfront
    The Plan envisions a narrow linear park along the banks of Boardman
    River and Boardman Lake, intermingled with development. In places
    the park may be as little as a pedestrian way. Primary activities include
    walking, picnicking, fishing, and nature and enjoying history and
    nature. Proposed park development includes heritage and nature trails,
    bikeways, hillside gardens, picnic sites, seating, observation and fishing
    platforms and an improved boat launch facility on Boardman Lake
    Bank erosion control is also proposed. North of Front Street, the park
    will include walkways that accommodate transient boat moorings on the
    river. These walkways will also accommodate downtown shopping
    activities. Boardman Lake could accommodate non-motorized small
    motor and special event boating as well. To ensure that Boardman Lake
    and the receiving waters of Boardman River remain a valuable public
    resource, a Boardman Lake/River management plan jointly developed
    by Garfield Charter Township and the City is proposed. This plan will
    address water quality issues, shoreline development and public access
    regulations concerning use of the lake.

    4. Grand Traverse Commons

    The Grand Traverse Commons District Plan was jointly adopted by
    Garfield Charter Township and the City in May of 1994. The Plan
    designates large portions of the site within the City and Garfield Town-
    ship as a conservation area. The wetlands encompassing Kids Creek and
    the forested hills west of the historic buildings are to be preserved as open
    space or low-intensity recreational uses, (e.g., hiking, skiing, nature
    walks). Planning for these areas is the responsibility of the Grand
    Traverse Commons Redevelopment Corporation in conjunction with the
    Planning Commissions of Garfield Township and Traverse City. This
    will help ensure integration with the historic campus. A park-like set-
    ting shall be preserved in the Commons district.

    Parks, Recreation and Opei.   ace Plan
    The West Bay Waterfront is primarily a linear, public open-space park
    punctuated by recreational, residential, historical, educational and
    cultural activity areas. It is designed to be attractive for both residents
    and tourists. The waterfront park is a succession of specialized small
    parks and marinas interconnected by open space and bikeway/walkway
    linkages. Activities include swirnming, boating, picnicking, fishing,
    biking, walking, and some court games. Clinch Park is a specialized
    park with a focus on cultural and historical appreciation. As in the past,
    the intent of the Plan is to purchase private lands as properties are
    offered to the City and funds become available. Every effort will be
    made to provide open spaces and public access along the shoreline
    without infringing on private property rights.

    2. East Bay Waterfront

    The City Plan portrays this area as a recreational and scenic resource
    to be developed in concert with private development. Much of the
    shoreline property, however, will remain privately owned. As was
    previously stated, every effort will be made to provide open space and
    public access along the shoreline without infringing on private property
    rights. The Plan recommends that regulations be developed for
    shoreline areas to prevent water quality degradation. It also recom-
    mends retention of a more natural appearing shoreline and prevention
    of building damage since this area is at high risk of coastal erosion. In
    addition, when redevelopment occurs, careful consideration must be
    given to opening up views of the Bay, and providing public access. For
    more specific information, the City Plan references the shoreline
    regulation section of the Grand Traverse Bay Region Development
    Guidebook. Implementation can occur in a number of ways, such as
    through the purchase of public access rights, acquiring property and
    allowing it to be sold with restrictions, and allowing redevelopment of
    property as a planned unit development (PUD).
    2,3