[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    ï¿½F/t'Rb,4'7e ./jiX	CI,-vU jfR    A,PPA'OV4t	6

/YXAN/"M'          4- 1F ' SInz    f	1 ï¿½/5    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




sï¿½                   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 ï¿½ 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.-  ï¿½ sa,	1-.
.1709          --. us:~Ped	1heI

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

9LOUL~ea,LLc~





ï¿½I;ï¿½



.i, P
__iï¿½ _ï¿½
_3_J' :ï¿½ï¿½
-- - - --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:
ï¿½ Key issues and priorities
* Site programming
* Innovative site utilization ideas
ï¿½ Community access and linkage
ï¿½ Bay access and use
ï¿½ 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
ï¿½ Programmatic Input - by participant group
ï¿½ 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
ï¿½ Staffing Requirements
ï¿½ Annual operating revenues
* Annual operating expenditures
ï¿½ 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
ï¿½
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
ï¿½ 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.

ï¿½  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



ï¿½  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.

ï¿½  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.

ï¿½  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.

ï¿½  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
ï¿½  An indigenous fish pool
ï¿½An outdoor weather station                                                       7
ï¿½Hands on sampling areas
ï¿½	Fishing pier
ï¿½	Excursion tours                                                      clI
*	Educational boat tours                                    >       ~~
* Programming seasonal Bayside events-
ï¿½ A trail system linking bay and community
ï¿½  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.
ï¿½  Minimize visual impact an the Bay
ï¿½ Minimize impact on the Maritime Academy
ï¿½ Capitalize on the s'ite development concepts promoting
environmental education
ï¿½  Capitalize on having a Bayside presence
ï¿½ Create a structure that can be shared by allied water
resource organizations and provide exhibit space
ï¿½ 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

ï¿½.  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:

ï¿½ Phasing allows the project to move forward without having all of
the capital in place up front.
ï¿½ 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.
ï¿½ Phasing creates an opportunity for the Water Resource Center to
have an immediate presence on site.
ï¿½ 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
&A14Jï¿½nnd 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.
ï¿½  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.
ï¿½  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 OlMIï¿½03.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~"ï¿½3'T~












L~~L








L~~~~~~~WL






I.                                          I ï¿½.
0    OL L
CL~~.















L   1.   ï¿½~i~,-t t~ï¿½ 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  ï¿½CI 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:  !   oï¿½
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.

ï¿½ 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
ï¿½ Current downtown development strategies can be strengthened by promoting access and
positive interaction with the waterfront.I
ï¿½ 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.
ï¿½ 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.

ï¿½	Efforts should be focused on achieving community consensus as a mandate for action.
ï¿½	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.
ï¿½  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
ï¿½ Site programming
* Innovative site utilization ideas
* Community access and linkage
* Bay access and use
ï¿½ A clear strategy for implementation and follow through
* Community consensus

The workshop approach, described in the following pages, is structured in three parts:
* Preparation
ï¿½ 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
Eï¿½UCAITION.
SERVICES




WHAT IS 1
9221399
P.02

r
'HE	I U  "TQ
t	dr ï¿½     ".
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




.	ï¿½ . 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.


:ï¿½ ....	..:ï¿½;	:.:: ï¿½:.i::"i: : :. . i :	ï¿½

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
2ï¿½t
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, Rcetï¿½n-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