[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCE CENTER FINAL REPORT COASTAL MANAGMENT GRANT 95D - 10.07 Grand Traverse County Northwestern Michigan College FINAL REPORT GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT This final report summarizes the background, goals and objectives, tasks, accomplishments and next steps for the Great Lakes Water Resources Center, under a Coastal Management Program Grant (No. 95D-1 0.07). Proiect Goal The goal of the Great Lakes Water Resources Center Redevelopment Project is provide a comprehensive foundation of information for the planning and development of a Center to host a diverse range of water related public attractions and office space for water related public agencies, educational institutions and private firms. The proposed location for the Center is the Great Lakes Maritime Academy, situated at the base of the West Arm of grand Traverse Bay, w(ith walking distance of downtown Traverse City and visibly located on the heaviest traveled section of road in northern Michigan. The Northwestern Michigan College property encompasses approximately 7 acres, containing the Great Lakes Maritime Academy building with a deep water, protected harbor capable of handling a number of very large vessels, In addition, Technicallvocationai Division and warehousing functions are presently housed in the old Cannery Building.. Proiect Fundina and Particioants Funding for the project came from a $30,000 grant from the Coastal Management Program, MDNR, and a $15,000 matching grant from Rotary Charities. In-kind services were provided by the project participants. The project participants include: El Grand Traverse County 03 Northwestern Michigan College 03 MSU Extension Sea 13 Great Lakes Water Resources Grant Program Task Force The project team included: Mae McClelland, Deputy Administrator, Grand Traverse County Chet Janik, Director for Special Projects, NMC John Tanner, Director, Great Lakes Maritime Academy Bob Brick, ReMax Realty Michael Wills, Harbor Boat Shop Tim Reardon -1I- John McKinney, MSU Extension Sea Grant AgentI Proiect BackaroundI For over two years, a small group has been exploring the concept of establishing a Great Lakes Water Resources Center. With the assistance of Rotary Charities of Traverse City, funding was obtained from the Biederman Foundation and the Slaughter Foundation to engage the Waterfront Center of Washington, D.C., a consulting firm specializing in waterfront development, to undertake a professional assessment of the concept. A reportI was prepared and presented to various key community groups in May, 1993. The report, in summary, made the following assessments and recommendations: Ii The Maritime Academy site is a gem and should be retained in a public educational role, a sentiment with apparent widespread support in the community. Together with adjacent, publicly owned parcels, the site offers aI prime public access point to Traverse Bay. cl The basic concept for a public educational facility is sound. It now needsI refinement and direction, which the Waterfront Center's report attempts to provide. EJ The mission of the facility should be focused on public education about all aspects of the Bay, ecological and cultural, and through this, convey insights into the Great Lakes system. Ancillary activities would be restricted to the Maritime Academy, a shop/cafe and offices; research would not be envisioned here, but rather the results of research done in the area might be displayed and explained here. 13 Steps should be taken to formalize the plan, to broaden and incorporate its organizing committee, to begin a public education program, to employ a staffI director ($1 a year), and take beginning steps to relocate to the site activities that naturally fit. cl A number of important early steps can begin right away, such as investigation of how to possibly upgrade and expand the existing marina, to properly evaluate the old cannery structure and to make sure the needs and plans of Northwestern Michigan College and its Maritime Academy are fully incorporated. The report concluded that "the idea of a Traverse Bay Center, with a sharpened focus and done well, is an excellent one." Northwestern Michigan College has conducted a study of the site to determine the buildout capacity in the context of their overall Master Plan. In addition, NMC recently launched a University Center which provides four degree programs in conjunction with a number ofI Michigan universities. An important consideratiion was to ensure that site planning was -2-I integrated closely with the needs of NMC. Proiect Process The project team met in early 1995 to outline the process in order to move forward toward the ultimate goal of redeveloping the Maritime Academy site into a Great Lakes Center. These steps included developing the work scope or project tasks; hiring a qualified consultant to carry out the work, conducting the project, and determining the next steps. Project Tasks Based on the report frorn the Waterfront Center and discussions with NMC, the Project Team developed the project tasks which would need to be accomplished. The tasks formed the basis of the Request For Proposals for consulting services. Listed below are the primar tasks of the Great Lakes Water Resources Center Planning Assessment Project: Task 1: Determine Site Constraints The site has tremendous potential and significant constraints due to its size and location. This task will identify the significant site contraints and outline the maximum carrying capacity of the site for development. Task 2: Proiect Reconnaisance The outcome of this task will be to identify priority uses for the Great Lakes Water Resources Center. There are three subtasks: a) Community Consensus - A forum or design charette will be conducted to identify and prioritize key uses for the Center. The Center Task Force will provide the space and assist in the publicity of and invitations to the charefte. Proposers should outline the specific considerations in developing and conducting a consensus forum including a proposed agenda, marketing efforts, and consensus tools. b) Identify Organizational Participants in the Center - From information provided by the County and culled from other sources, locate and identify organizations which may become tenants and/or exhibitors. Search efforts will focus on entities that provide serviceslproductslregulations related, but not limited to, environmental, ecological, economic and recreational aspects of the Great Lakes Basin. The NMC University Center plans will need to be closely considered -3 - during this task.I c) Report - Provide a report on the key priority uses of the Center and users groups to target discussions for participation.I Task 3: Desian Studv Based on the site contraints and the priority uses, the next step is to conduct a design study to more completely determine the site potential. The specific components of the design study will include the following subtasks: a) Programming -Meet with the organizational participants identified above toI determine space requirements and operational integrations with other potential facility occupants.I b) Schematic Design - Prepare schematic planning documents which indicate clearly the consideration involved and the alternate solutions available to the owner. The schematic design will include schematic layouts, sketches and preliminary design criteria and set the Professional Contractor's recommendations and establish the scope of the project. c) Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate Task 4: DeveloD) Business Plan The business plan should include the optimal organizational structure for the development and operation of the Great Lakes Resources Center and include a capital and operating budget with revenue sources. Potential funding sources will be identified and defined. These will include applicable federal, state, and local government programs, foundations,I trusts, and potential tenants/exhibitors among others. In addition, funding request criteria, parameters and deadlines will be defined for funding sources when applicable.3 Consulting Services A Request for Proposals was developed and distributed on May 1, with proposals due MayI 25. Unfortunately, no proposals were received in response to the RFP. Informal communication with potential bidders indicated that the work scope was too aggressive for the available funds. Two areas in particular were identified as resource intensive and lower priority: data collection and marketing. As a result, the work scope was revised to narrow the focus to the most important aspects: site constraints, community input, design,3 and business plan. The RFP was reissued on July 24, with proposal due August 23. The evaluation team3 comprised of Chet Janik, Bob Brick, Ti'm Reardon, Mike Wills, and Mac McClelland -4 - reviewed and scored the four proposals submitted in response to the Great Lakes Water Resources Center RFP and met on Monday, August 28 to discuss the proposals. Listed below are the summary scores for each firm: FIRM CITY TOTAL Johnson Johnson & Roy, Inc. Madison 80.83 Economic Research Associates Chicago 72.21 Beckett & Raeder Inc. Ann Arbor 71.95 Blue Northern Traverse City 57 .03 The evaluation unanimously recommended Johnson, Johnson, and Roy (JJR). The contract was approved by the County Board of Commissioners at their August 30 meeting. Project Implementation Kickoff Meetina A kickoff meeting with JJR and the Project Team was held October 2. The purpose of this meeting was to set the project parameters, provide direction to JJR on community input, and set the project schedule. The Project Team developed the scope and agenda for the public input meeting, scheduled for October 26. In addition to meeting with project team, JJR met with a number of local officials to gain input on the project. These local officials included representatives from NMC, City of Traverse City, Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative, Maritime Heritage Alliance, Inland Seas Education Association, and others. Also during this time, JJR collected information about the site and the constraints which would determine the carrying capacity of the site. Meetings were held with the City Planner and Zoning Administrator to determine the standards for site development. Floor plans and design drawings, along with the NMC master plan, which includes this site, were obtained. Other site assessment information from NMC was also collected. At this meeting, NMC agreed to take a leadership role in facilitating the project. Understanding that the final outcome of the project would require Board of Trustee approval and would need to fit in with the overall vision of the college, Chet Janik, Director of Special Project for NMC, assumed the lead role as project manager and took over responsibility for communication between and among the project team, the community, and the consultant. This leadership was crucial in the successful implementation of the project and integration with NMC, the key partner in the project. - 5- Public InDut WorkshoD On October 26, a community input session was held with over 30 participants. TheI participants were divided into small groups to develop programming issues and concerns, and develop an overall vision of the project. The results of that session are detailed in the consultants report, attached to this final report. In addition to the community input session, the project team met with representatives of the NMC Board of Trustees. The Board had an opportunity to hear the overall scope ofI and consultant's approach to the project and to provide input on the boundaries of the study from the Board's perspective. Desian Rer)ort JJR then took the input for the community session, the meeting with the Board of Trustees, and the input of the project team, along with the data and informnation collected on the site and produced a draft report for reveiw. The report included an executive summary, site and architectural feasibility,and project budget and operations summary. The report identified an overall mission statement, goals and objectives, and a phased implementation plan. Mission StatementI The creation of a center consisting of both public and private entities committed to public education and promoting an awareness of all environmental and cultural aspects of grand Traverse Bay. This center will complement the broader educational mission of Northwestern Michigan College. The new facility needs to reach out to the broadest community base as well as a appeal to the visiting tourist reinforcing the concept that theI water quality of the overall watershed as well as its intricate relationship to the Great Lakes System is what makes the Grand Traverse Bay Area such an exceptional place. Concept The creation of a non-profit facility sharing the NMC Technical Cetner Site on the bay,I downtown Traverse City. The proposed center will build on the presense of the Great Lakes Maritime Academy, and introduce a range of activities providing educational opportunities promoting maritime heritage, research and vocational training, recreation, freshwater ecology and economic issues related to the watershed of the Grand Traverse Bay Area.3 Goals and Objectives3 -6-I The facility's intent is to build on existing organization, (Maritime Academy, Watershed Initiative, Inland Seas Educational Association, Maritime Alliance, University Center, aet.), and create a synergistic environment resulting in a facility which shares information, becomes a clearing house, attracts research, develops educational programs on all levels, and provides access to the Bay. The resources developed need to celebrate the Bay and show the impact on the daily lives of local residents, as well as the impact on their activities on the watershed. The resulting reputation and effort will expand Grand Traverse Bay's importance within the academic ancd scientific community nationally. An indirect benefit will be the ability to offer seasonal tourists a reason to lengthen their stay and expand their understanding about the regions environments quality. Specific objectives include: 0 Provide Public Access to the Bay * Create a Clearinghouse and Exchange of Information 0 Provide Vocation/Technical Training Opportunities 0 Foster Scientific Research which includes the private sector. 0 Create an opportunity for notoriety and economic development on a variety of levels. Phased Implementation Due to the nature of pursuing and obtaining grants and the reliance on a variety of fundraising options, the consultants recommended, and the project temam agreed, that the project be phased. Phase one would include demolition of the cold storage building and marina improvements, phase two would include parking lot and landscaping improvements and the relocation of labs and shops in new facilities, phase three would include the development of an outdoor exhibit area and phase four would include remodeling the existing Maritime Academy building, adding 35,000 square feet of offices to incorporate the Water Resources Center. Next Steps Over the next six months, the final report will be presented to the NMC Board of Trustees for consideration. An implementation plan is being developed to identify a project leader (a highly qualified community member has volunteered to fulfill this role), expand the advisory board, finalize an organization structure, and develop the terms of a formal relationship with NMC. This implementation plan will be presented to the NMC President and Board of Trustees for consideration of adoption. Once the plan is adopted by the - 7- NMC Board, the project leader and advisory board will begin the task of fundraising andI forming formal partnerships with organizations and firms which will be a part of the Great Lakes Water Resources Center. This study has provided invaluable information and community impetus to the concept of a Great Lakes Waters Center. The support of the Coastal Management Program and Rotary Charities was crucial to continuing progress on this project. Any redevelopment on the site can be directly related to the financial and staff support of Coastal Management Program and Rotary Charities.I PROJECT FINANCIAL REPORTS DEPAR0TEH0T OF NATURAL RESOURCES LAND AND WAITE MANAGEMENT DVITSION COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COlT.-ACTOR/SUBG.RANT=E IS QUARTERLY FUIANCIAL REP0RT+ Contract Io. 95D-10.07 -or Quarter/Peri4d October 1, 1995 through Decexaer 31 , 19 95 Subgrantae's Name Grand Traverse County Date: May 15, 1995 Subgrantae's Federal M.D. Number 38- Amount Spent During Qua--ter Personnel Fringe Benefits Travel Equinment SupplIes Ot.her Contractual Serviaes Total .. Personnel~ Frinzge Henef-fit's Tra,rel Equipment Supplies Other Cont--actual Services CZDI Grent Funds Contribution Data $30,000 SiZata/Federal CZ23G~iFunds $40,261.66 CZgranr-Funs HSugatchiane Contributlt.f. Amount Seent,' irscal Year to I -$16,922.50 $7,252.50 -0- $500.00 $586.66 $45,000 Total .... $70,261.66 Fxzenditur- 'a iaeacries lizted naa be aodified to a reasonable dede to cOZ~O~ to csntractor's acccu:.-cng system. nup"/-'iNll 2/988 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER LOCAL MATCH ROTARY GRANT STAFF TIME COMMUNITY EFFORT SUPPLIESIMATERIALS MAILINGS PRINTING TOTAL $15,000.00 $10,150.00 $14,025.00 $500.00 $353.06 $233.60 $25,261.66 No. B 20619-1 S.TR 1/09/96 D~ATE PAYEE --- 101, i.c3'500.00 57462572 COMMENTS. 13,500.00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~COMNACON U j.THE A~TTACHED WARRANT IS TE:_NOERED'TO YOU HEREWITH 002 0 2 06 1'9T7" 114I:FPULL SETTLEMENT OF YOUR ACCOUNT AS DETAI LED ABOVE. No. B 269 ~~~GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY.DT Travese (OVgFtNMENTAL CENTER *400 BOARDMAN AVE. tyT-RA-VERSE CITY, MICHIGAN 496a84- ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~AMOUNT I 7HWTW~ THOUISAND, FIVE ..HU3D DOLLARS AND,NO CENTS 1. ~~~~~VOID IF NOT CASHED IN 60 DAYS ***1,500 EMPIRE NATONAL BANK74143 ~~~~JOHN4SON JIDHNSOI AWVE0 CiTY MICIAN72 11M?ILLER *.1 -fARBOR 31 80-39COUNTY CLERK COUNTY TREASURER NT 9R LD i Io~q &us :?10i31 7nO081'a377sla 4 mm - I I I I Johnson Johnson & Roylnc 110 Miller Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104-1339 313662 4457 NOVEMBER 27, 1995 INVOICE NO. 57462 PROJECT NO. 17791.00 GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY 400 BOARDMAN AVENUE TRAVERSE CITY, MI 49684-2577 ATTN: MR. MICHAEL J. MCCLELLAND DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR: GREAT LAKES CENTER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING OCTOBER 31, 1995 FEE 45,000.00 TOTAL FEE 25.00 FEE EARNED 11,250.00 PERCENT COMPLETE TOTAL EARNED 11,250.00 PREVIOUS FEE BILLING CURRENT FEE BILLING TOTAL THIS INVOICE 11,250.00 $ 11,250.00 D, 1 o I Due and payable upon receipt. Should there be any questions in connection with this invoice, you are requested to contact the Accounting Departmentl a Billing Section. INVOICE 77; IN'VPICE # 4 P--.o. # 1o,-.,r ,7 ACOi.vi :fREAT /.41c. -,E ,7 Z,, A j /,,4? - lCOMatMENi 'S: 6R$EJ 1-kKEi �F/t'Rb,4'7e ./jiX CI,-vU jfR A,PPA'OV4t 6 /YXAN/"M' 4- 1F ' SInz f 1 �/5 SS5 /' Ai . 1'1 .. - - , .- 17 &I /i A J / ) < l, I Al 0 J I/ (1 _ - - - . _ -- X . -vn A f ; r Z-t, rK K t ,. 9JvR/ Johnson Johnson & Roy/inc , ,- 7 110 Miller .. . . Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104-1339 313 662 4457 Iw I I I DECEMBER 4, 1995 INVOICE NO. 57626 PROJECT NO. 17791.00 GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY 400 BOARDMAN AVENUE TRAVERSE CITY, MI 49684-2577 ATTN: MR. MICHAEL J. MCCLELLAND DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR: GREAT LAKES CENTER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 1995 I I I I FEE I TOTAL FEE 45,000.00 I PERCENT COMPLETE 30.00 FEE EARNED 13,500.00 TOTAL EARNED PREVIOUS FEE BILLING CURRENT FEE BILLING TOTAL THIS INVOICE 13,500.00 11,250.00 2,250.00 I I $ 2,250.00 I OUTSTANDING INVOICES NO. 57462 DATE 11/27/95 11,250.00 I TOTAL 11,250.00 11,250.00 I TOTAL NOW DUE $ 13,500.00 lIqs P, eorl I I I s� BPP4WTh)VA: /~C cr- - .. .) lw - 500 g4t, ,,_^ppassvat - . r , V;r.4Lj ACe .S A o Due and payable upon receipt. Should there be any questions in connection with this invoice, you are requested to contact the Accounting Department Billing Section. 2p. Bo ff I /I z 250,00 ,O'~.2. ),%~t' ./ No. B 21 2361 mE JJR DATE 5/14/96 I * *B- - 15,705.00 57962 58209 58424 COMMENTS: 15,705.00 002 02123VO"MON ACC No. B 212361 DATE 5/1 4/96 T IS TENDERED TO YOU HEREWITH YOUR ACCOUNT AS DETAILED ABOVE. GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL CENTER � 400 BOARDMAN AVE. TRAVERSE CITY, MICHIGAN 49684 AMOUNT 'IFTEEN THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED FIVE DOLLARS AND NO CENTS VOID IF NOT CASHED IN 60 DAYS S*****15,705.00 EMPIRa NAtIONALV ANK 74143 TRAVERSE CNY MICHIGAN 724 NOi HEQTGADA7 m* JOQHNSON JOHNSON & ROY, INC. .,,L 110 MILLER I 7 ANN ARBOR IL MI 48104-1339 I COUNTY CLERK COUNTY TREASURER :0o 7 2I40 L, 3 31: 7'"O0BB 7 7?, 3:' t'I 2 , 2 3 6 & i' I 1 C1 - AFOWIFT- I Johnson Johnson & Roy/inc 10 Miller Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104-1339 313 662 4457 JANUARY 31, 1996 INVOICE NO. 57962 PROJECT NO. 17791.00 GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY 400 BOAPDMAN AVENUE TRAVERSE CITY, IdT 49684-2577 ATTN: MR. MICHAEL J. MCCLELLAND DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR: GREAT LAKES CENTER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1995 FEE I TOTAL FEE 45,000.00 PERCENT COMPLETE 51.00 FEE EARNED 22,950.00 I I I 22,950.00 13,500.00 9,450.00 TOTAL EARNED PREVIOUS FEE BILLING CURRENT FEE BILLING TOTAL THIS INVOICE $ 9,450.00 I OUTSTANDING INVOICES NO. 57462- DATE 11/27/95 NO. 57626 DATE 12/04/95 11,250.00 2,250.00 I TOTAL 13,500.00 13,500.00 I I I I I TOTAL NOW DUE $ 22,950.00 -.' 1 DAT!2, A - ) c.- � sa, 1-. .1709 --. us:~Ped 1heI Pk m re-% IR . . # (LON(gAm 9LOUL~ea,LLc~ �I;� .i, P __i� _� _3_J' :�� -- - - --l. -- -_j II 6JL444-1-;~ SeAA. I ,ww---Johinson Johnson & Roy/inc 110 Miller Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104-1399 313 662 4457 FEBRUARY 15, 1996 INVOICE NO. 58209 PROJECT NO. 17791.00 GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY 400 BOARDMAN AVENUE TRAVERSE CITY, MI 49684-2577 ATTN: MR. MICHAEL J. MCCLELLAND DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR: GREAT LAKES CENTER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY 15, 1996 FEE 45,000.00 /l6 ,P9 100.00 FEE EARNED *o '0 .ooo.Cr 45,000.00 w*s- ,fi TOTAL FEE PERCENT COMPLETE TOTAL EARNED PREVIOUS FEE BILLING CURRENT FEE BILLING 45,000.00 40,500.00 4,500.00 A RETAINAGE 10% OF $4,500.00 450.00- $ 4,050.00 ======= TOTAL THIS INVOICE OUTSTANDING INVOICES INVOICE TOTAL 9,450.00 17,550.00 NET DUE 9,450.00 15,795.00 / NO. 57962 DATE 01/31/96 NO. 58038 DATE 01/15/96 TOTAL 27,000.00 25,245.00 25,245.00 TOTAL NOW DUE $ 29,295.00 /R P. Bof/ / ~ S/o/Ojy Due and payable upon receipt. Should there be any questions in connection I with this invoice, you are requested to contact the Accounting Department/ I Billing Section. INVOICE # - r:, la,.P A# N14- c, J, 'A -_ I'mlu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~-'t Johnson Johnsonl & Roy/inc 110 Miller Ann Arbor. Michigan 48104-1399 313 662 4457 I APRIL 25, 1996 INVOICE NO. 58424 PROJECT NO. 17791. .o01 I / GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY 400 BOARDMAN AVENUE TRAVERSE CITY, MI 49i I I 684- 2577 ATTN: MR. MICHAEL J. MCCLELLAND DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR: GREAT LAKES CENTER FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 31 MARCH 1996 RELEASE OF OUTSTANDING RETAINAGE: I I I INV. #58038, DATE 01/15/96 I NV. #58209 DATE 02/15/96 TOTAL THIS INVOICE $ 1,755.00 450.00 $ 2,205.00 I I I I I I I.P Bog aJ I Due and payable upon receipt Should there be any questions in connection with this invoice, you are requested to contact the Accounting Department/ Billing Section. I I PAE JJR DATE 4/96NO8207 i a 15,795.00 - WIN FULL SETTL-EMENT OF YOUR ACCOVNT AS OF-TAI LED ABOVE. 002 02 0 oB210774 radGRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY DATE Traver 'GOV6RNMSNfAL CENT R *400-BOAROMAN AVE, 4/09/96 TRA f~NY VE OL RSE CMIHGANDN 4E484 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AMUT iMPhSE t4A~Q~IA W4I~74-143 'r~~a o M, LANR ARDOR ~~~Ill 40104-1399 COUNTY CLERK '?03'~~ONt TES UE NaOT 01;211N 019 L -~~~ ~~~~~~o -1. -'a - - I I AJR/ ,__I ritim I - Johnson Johnson & Roy/inc 110 Miller Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104-1399 313 662 4457 I J. " r:.' 3V ( I I JANUARY 15, INVOICE NO. PROJECT NO. GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY 400 BOARDMAN AVENUE TRAVERSE CITY, MI 49684-2577 ATTN: MR. MICHAEL J. MCCLELLAND DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR: GREAT LAKES CENTER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JANUARY 15, 1996 FEE 1996 58038 17791.00 I I I I I TOTAL FEE 45,000.00 I 90.00 FEE EARNED 40,500.00 PERCENT COMPLETE 40,500.00 22,950.00 17,550.00 TOTAL EARNED PREVIOUS FEE BILLING CURRENT FEE BILLING I RETAINAGE 10% OF $17,550.00 1,755.00- $ 15,795.00 TOTAL THIS INVOICE OUTSTANDING INVOICES NO. 57962 DATE 01/31/96 TOTAL INVOICE TOTAL 9,450.00 9,450.00 NET DUE 9,450.00 9,450.00 9,450.00 TOTAL NOW DUE $ 25,245.00 I I I Due and payable upon receipt. Should there be any questions in connection with this invoice, you are requested to contact the Accounting Department/ Billing Section. INVOICE DATES - Ii voice # -0t7- FD/DPT/L AcO MdT S: ' 17.S_/ Q Hct . ajtq D e s i g n S t u d y Great Lakes Water Resources Center M i c h i g a n T r a v e r s e C i t y, April 1996 J o h n s o n J o h n s o n & R o y / i n c . TAI AAI ERG A C K NOWL E DG MEN T We would like to acknowledge and thank the following for their joint efforts and the resources dedicated to this study. K. Ross Childs, Administrator, Grand Traverse County Michael J. McClelland, Deputy Administrator, Grand Traverse County Dr. Timothy G. Quinn, President, Northwestern Michigan College Chet Janik, Director of Campus Services, Northwestern Michigan College John Tanner, Director, Great Lakes Maritime Academy This project would not have been possible without the funding provided by Cathie Cunningham, Coastal Management Program Land & Water Management Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Rotary Charities of Grand Traverse County The dedication and involvement of the project steering commiftee: Robert Brick Timothy Reardon Chet Janik Russ Soyring John McKinney Mike Wills Michael McClelland The enthusiasm and participation of the local citizens who took part in various workshops. Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan Table of Contents Executive Summarv 1. Mission Statement 2. Concept 3. Location/The Site Site/Architectural Feasibilitv 1. Design Approach 2. Program 3. Site Design Concept 4. Building Design Concept Project Budaet/Ooerations Summarv 1. Capital Outlay Requirements 2. Phasing Strategy 3. Business Plan Summary 4. Public Funding Sources Appendices Appendix One - Existing Site Plan & Aerial Photo Appendix Two - Workshop Feedback ... the evolutionary process for an ethic is simply this: quit thinking about decent land-use as solely an economic problem. Examine each question in terms of what is ethically and aesthetically right, as well as what is economically expedient. A thing is dght when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. " - Aldo Leopold (from T'he Land Ethic," in a Sand County Almanac, 1949) I Great Lakes Water Resources Center Tra,verse City, Michigan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Mission Statement The creation of a center consisting of both public and private entities committed to public education and promoting an awareness of all environmental and cultural aspects of Grand Traverse Bay. This center will complement the broader educational mission of Northwestern Michigan College. The new facility needs to reach out to the broadest community base as well as appeal to the visiting tourist reinforcing the concept that the water quality of the overall watershed as well as its intricate relationship to Great Lakes System is what makes the Grand Traverse Bay Area such an exceptional place. Northwester~ihgn 2. Concept The creation of a non-profit facility sharing the Northwestern Michigan College Technical Center Site on the bay, downtown Traverse City. The proposed center will build on the presence of the Great Lakes Maritime Academy (GLMA), and introduce a range of activities providing educational opportunities promoting maritime heritage, research and vocational training, recreation, freshwater ecology and economic issues related to the watershed of the Grand Traverse Bay Area. Goals and Objectives The facility's intent is to build on existing organizations, ( Maritime Academy, Watershed Initiative, Inland Seas Educational Association, Maritime Alliance, University Center, etc.), and create a synergistic environment resulting in a facility which shares informatfion, becomes a clsaring house, attracts research, develops educational programs on all levels, and provides access to the Bay. The resources developed need to celebrate the Bay and show the impact on the daily lives of local residents, as well as the impact of their activities on the watershed. The resulting reputation and effort will expand Grand Traverse Bay's importance within the academic and scientific community nationally. An indirect benefit will be~ the ability to offer seasonal tourists a reason to lengthen their stay and expand their understanding about the regions environmental quality. Specific objectives include: Provide Public Access to the Bav. This objective will be achieved physically, visually and through educational programming. The removal of physical barriers and the creation of "hands on" exhibits will promote direct access to the bay. The removal of the old cannery building and limiting new building construction around the existing Maritime Academy building will enhance visual access to the Bay. The development of 2 G re at Lakes W ate r Re so uroes C ente r Traverse City, Michigan INLAND SEAS EDUCATIONj,ASSOC. =HE~ - , NMC Univerity center educational programming, public exhibits and hands on outdoor demonstration/interpretive facilities will provide access through knowledge of the importance of the area's water resources and the need of maintaining a high level of water quality which enhances and sustains H ~~environmental quality. All of the above collectively will foster regional, stat andnatinalrecognition and the desire to tap into this resource. Create a Clearinahouse and Exchanas of Information. No mafter what the focus whether it be freshwater ecology, maritime heritage, recreation, vocational opportunities or tourism the proposed facility will enhance I ~~accessing information, promote research, enrich the history of the region and celebrate the environment. This can be achieved by reducing redundancy, establishing both traditional and electronic library resources, public exhibits and facilitating events ranging from workshops to major Provide Voc'ation/Technical Trainina ODDortunities. The current Maritime Academy, Northwestern Michigan College and Universit Center Will have a unique opportunity to expand existing water related vocational curricula to include scientific and environmental careers. The existing Maritime Academy curriculum can be expanded to include Marina Management. All of these programs can provide better educational and employment * ~~opportunities serving the local population. Foster Scientific Research which includes the Drivate sector. The institutions of higher learning could expand their network to include the I ~~private sector through innovative partnerships. The site does not have the capacity to physically support large laboratory facilities, but could certainly become a symbolic place to meet, process informatilon, share I information, become a clearing house for funding, and become a focal point for inspiration. Create an oDnortunitv for notorietv and economic develooment on a varietv of levels. The Center can promote economic development on both a local and tourist'level. The facility can extend the seasonal tourists' visit and increa'se the economic benefits without necessarily increasing the numbers of tourists. This has a direct economic impact by providing more opportunity for local employment. As the area becomes more popular due to publicity and marketing efforts there needs to be an awareness as to the environmental impacts of such growth. The Center can demonstrate that growth can take place With appropriate growth management techniques. And lastly the center can enhance the exposure and Visibility of the Maritime Academy resulting in funding and growth potential of both the program and the physical facility. GRAND TRAVI"RSE BAY WATERSH~ED WITIATIVE 3 G re at Lakes Water Re sources Ce nte r Traverse City, Michigan 1 ~~3. Locatior/Site Location: Traverse City, Michigan Ownership: Northemwestem Michigan College Site Characteristics: 5 *~~~ Highly visible at the base of the West Arm of Grand Traverse Bay a Commanding view of the Bay * Direct physical access to the Bay SITE * Approximately 5.32 acres 0 Minimal topographic relief I ~ ~~* Small protected harbor o Two vehicular access points (Hope & Barlow Streets) 0 Two existing buildings (Maritime Academy / Voc. Tech Programs i ~ ~~~Building and an old cannery cold storage building used primarily * ~~~~~for storage.) o The remainder of site developed as surface parking. Site Context/issues:SIELCTOMP * The site is flanked by two publicly owned properties (west - Sunset Park, east - Seniors Center) * It is within walking distance of the downtown and riverwalk 0 It is located along the heavily traveled State Highway 31 (Front S ~ ~~~Street) & The site is flanked by major lodging (west - Holiday Inn, east - Bayshore Resort) 0 Located within reasonable distance of the NMC core campus c m. _ S., - ~~* The primary user of the site is the Great Lakes Maritime Academy _______ Zoning: Currently the college is exempt form local jurisdictional controls. As the center is developed however it Will want to be a good neighbor and be sensitive to minimizing impacts on the Bay. If I ~~~~~the property were not controlled by the college the site would be zoned 0-3 and need to follow guidelines applicable to that zoning designation. 3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~4 If I I , 4 Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan SITE / ARCHITECTURAL FEASIBILITY 1. Design Approach I ! Before a concept plan could be developed, it was important to assess the site's context and opportunities. In addition to the technical aspects of site analysis, a key component of design was to solicit meaningful public input. The Great Lakes Water Resources Center design approach included the following elements: Site Reconnaissance: Time was spent assessing the physical ,eharacteristics and understanding the opportunities and constraints of the site. This evaluation went beyond the physical boundaries to better understand the community context as well. A number of interviews were held to better identify stake holders and community perceptions. I 6:7J . Z:7 /7-0 i_E--;57'- ' 0:XDL->9 ! LZ 7I '-- I Community Input: A critical part of the process was to facilitate a public workshop. It was important to receive the community's input early in the process. The workshop generated ideas in a public forum with the intent of creating consensus on the following primary planning issues: � Key issues and priorities * Site programming * Innovative site utilization ideas � Community access and linkage � Bay access and use � A clear strategy for implementation and follow through Workshop Feedback: The information obtained during the workshop was summarized in a series of lists and charts. This information is documented in Appendix Two. * Program Issues and Concerns: feedback � Programmatic Input - by participant group � Development Scenarios - by participant group Steering Committee: Throughout the design process, the steering committee participated in project meetings, provided review and comments on the program development and approved the schematic concepts. This committee had representatives from NMC, the Maritime Academy, the Grand Traverse County, the city of Traverse City as well as citizen input. Schematic Plan: The workshop process and ongoing involvement of the steering committee resulted in the criteria used to develop the schematic site and building plans. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan Business Plan: It wasn't enough to develop schematic concepts. With a concern for how to best implement these plans and longer term operational issues it was critical to start formulating a Business Plan. This plan, which is elaborated on in a later section, incorporated the following: * Organizational structure � Staffing Requirements � Annual operating revenues * Annual operating expenditures � Funding strategies 'it would seem that the time has come for the creation of a vast new public landscape.. By interweaving man's construct with the profuse phenomena of nature - water, geological formations, plants and animals in their natural habitats - it might be possible to shift away from a world oriented to power and profit, to a world oriented to life." -Patricia Johanson (from "Garden-Cities," unpublished manuscript for House and Garden. 6 l I * 4 1 I a t ! I t � m l jI J o Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan 2. Program The following building and site development program was developed working closely with the college, the steering committee and incorporating feedback from the public workshop. The program went through multiple reiterations and is the basis of the schematic plans which follows. Buildina Proaram: t i' 1. Maritime Academy (Includes Circulation and Int. Walls) 2. Entry/Lobby (Resources Center/ Maritime Academy> Reception * Visitor Information � Ticketing Security/Control 3. Public Restrooms 4. Gift Shop 5. Exhibit Area 6. Theater/Assembly Area Theater/Assembly Are 100 people (@ 22,5 per person) Audio Visual Projection Booth No Stage Approx. S.F. 30,000 Approx. S.F. 400 Approx. S.F. 500 I Approx. S.F. 975 Approx. S.F. 5,000 Approx. S.F. 2,250 I I I I I I I I :1 7. Food Service/Seating and Preparation Approx. S.F. 1,000 (Could combine public/maritime academy use) (Facilitate catering) 8. Exhibit Support * Storage * Preparation Area * General Maintenance Approx. S.F. 1,200 725 250 225 Approx. S.F. 400 Approx. S.F. 200 9. Resource Center Administration (Full Time & Volunteer Staff) 10. Volunteer Staff Lounge I 7 I Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan 11. Shared Office Space for Related Approx. S.F. 800 Water Resource Groups (could be one large or multiple rooms) 12. Common Kitchen Facility Approx. S.F. 540 (maybe it's tied in with public food service) (16x20=320+Ref. Stg @ 220) 13. Office Storage Approx. S.F. 100 14. Shared Conference Room Approx. S.F. 576 Small 12x16=192 15. Shared Work Room Approx. S.F. 250 * Mail * Publication Preparation 16. Learning Center Approx. S.F. 270( [Classroom/Lab. (3@900)] 17. Common Resources Center/ Approx. S.F. 100l Library(approx. 28x36) 18. Custodial Storage 19. Trash Approx. S.F. 500 20. Shipping & Receiving 21. MechanicaVElectrical Equipment Approx. S.F. 500 0 0 I I Subtotal 48,891 square feet Min: 25% for circulation, interior walls (not inc. maritime academy) 48,891-30,000=18,891 18,891x25%=4,722.75 4,723 S.F. Subtotal 53,614 S.F. Gross S.F. of office use (Assume 85% efficiency for parking calculations) 35,000 S.F. TOTAL 88,614 square feet 8 G re at La kes Wate r Resourcess C ente r T rave rse Ci1ty, Mi1c hi1g an SITE PROGRAM: 22. Outdoor Exhibit Space a Open Plaza 0 Fish Pool 0 Weather Station 0 Outdoor Exhibit Tanks * Maritime Heritage . * Maritime Academy Drill Area 0 Upgrade Marina 32 Slips * Excursion/Science Ship Docking 23. Potential for Traveling Exhibits that are circulated by Tractor/Trailer ... Trailer is Actual Exhibit 24. Service Access 25. On-site parking 300-+ cars 26. Bus drop-off In creating the program for the Water Resource Center there are numerous references to "shared"l classrooms, office, support facilities, library and conference needs. The desire is to create an opportunity to serve many allied water resource focused groups which already exist. Some examples of these organizations, but not necessarily limited to these, would include the following: * Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative. A function of the Northwest Michigan Council of Governments. Dedicated to preservation of water quality in the Bay area. * U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Great Lakes Coordination Office. Expected to employ up to 20 scientists involved in fisheries research. � Great Lakes Environmental Research Center as suggested by the University of Michigan Graduate Student Study in 1990. Research facilities and programs could be shared by the Michigan universities currently engaged in Great Lakes Research: University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Grand Valley State University, Lake Superior State University, Western Michigan University, and others. I 9 Great Lakes Water Resources CenterU Traverse City, Michigan � Michioan Fisheries Center as outlined in the 1987 study by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Bringing theI results of fisheries research to the people, and showcasing the DNR's stewardship role of the resource. Fresh water aquarium, exhibits, displays, presentations are possible features. * Maritime Heritaae Alliance. A permanent home for display of historical nautical artifacts, antique and replica watercraft, and the, preservation of our maritime heritage. � Groundwater Education in Michican (GEM). A program designed to educate the public about the importance of our groundwater, and sources of contamination and the individual's role in preservation. * Inland Seas Education Association, Providing educationalI experiences aboard a large Great Lakes schooner. Teaching students about history, culture and ecology of the Great Lakes in order to foster their stewardship of the resource in the future.I Facilitation of pre-boarding orientation. *Michiaan Sea Grant. Jointly administered through both theI University of Michigan and Michigan State University wvith an extension office in Traverse City. Both universities have ongoing research programs that may benefit from a presence here. * NOAA. Coast Guard. Corns of Enoineers. These various federal agencies are involved in lake surveys, weather research and forecasting, navigation, safety, search and rescue and regulatory functions. � Great Lakes Reaional Oil SDIII Control and Resoonse Center. While the federal program is centered in Detroit, there is a recognized need to provide training to the industrial clients and the shipping industry. This function could be performed by Great Lakes Maritime Academy. � Center for the Great Lakes and Intemational Joint Commission. These and other organizations and foundations may desire a presence in the Center because of the level of activity that would be generated. 10 G-reat Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan Conceivably, there are many other groups and/or programs that would fit in to the Center, such as: Michigan United Conservation Club (MUCC), County Soil Erosion, Drain Commissions, EPA, Fishing Hall of Fame, Sportfishing Associations, Underwater Preserve Council, Coastal America, Coastal Zone Management, Nature Conservancies, DNR agencies (Recreation, Submerged Lands, Waterways, Wetlands), Great Lakes Shipping Industry Associations, Charter Boat groups, Nature groups, Visitor & Convention Bureau Visitor's Center, Haggerty Marine Insurance, Michigan Boating Industry Association, etc. OA sustainable society is one that satisfies its needfs without jeopardizing the prospects of future generations." _ Lester R. Brown, Christopher Flavyin, and Sandra Postel (from Worldwatch, 1990) 11 IAYSHOMEREMRT ftmtsfRm t ' N * L I" ""313 2 SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN ldww. lo'~ &-AN.ll c,.. N.* r- St,dy%. M.dLom4 Wh2flm gm? M flu ERr. GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER TRAVERSE CMT, MICHIGAN - - -- - -- - m MM - - Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan 3. Site Design Concept Maintaining visual access to the Say was repeatedly reinforced throughout the design process. In addition to this criteria, it is desirable to link the public open space (Sunset Park and the Seniors Center) which flanked both sides of the site with landscaped promenades and trails. This allows the site's development to create substantial green space parallel to Front Street, provide good public access along the shoreline and allow for linkages to the community through the creation of the 'Traverse Trail." In terms of site development within the boundary of the NMC site, it was agreed to limit development around the existing Maritime Academy Building. The existing cannery building will be replaced with open space and parking. The site's development evolved into three zones. The southerly portion of the site provides landscaped parking and vehicular circulation with some trail development. The central area to the west Will support most of the building program. The remaining portion of the site is Bay frontage consisting of a marina, fishing pier, and outdoor exhibit areas. An important part of the site's development is the incorporation of areas for hands on interpretive exhibits and public displays. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the buildings and exhibits is accomplished while improving visual and physical access to the Bay. Maintaining the existing site access at Hope and Barlow Streets also creates an opportunity to maintain visual access to the Bay at those points. An equally challenging task was to provide adequate parking spaces and not have it result in the appearance of a regional retail facility parking lot on the Bay. This can be accomplished by careful siting and landscape design. The site development needed to embrace and promote the concepts outlined in the Grand Traverse Bay Region Development Guidebook incorporating the primary goal "to preserve and enhance the quality of our 4 natural resources and environment as the basis for a healthy economy. . improve the quality of life of the people who live here and of those in future generations.' It is in response to this community desire that outdoor exhibits and programming events can fulfill a major educational role in reinforcing the Bay's value. The importance of understanding how to protect and maintain a high level of quality of the community's water based resources is emphasized throughout the design of the project. 13 G reat Lakes Wate r Reso urces Ce nte r Traverse City, Michigan I Some of the proposed elements which can help achieve this goal are: I * Changing exterior exhibit � An indigenous fish pool �An outdoor weather station 7 �Hands on sampling areas � Fishing pier � Excursion tours clI * Educational boat tours > ~~ * Programming seasonal Bayside events- � A trail system linking bay and community � Provide areas for outdoor classroom instruction The resultant center will be visionary in its purpose and will become a landmark facility and a community asset. Imagine yourself as a tourist or student visiting the site with a specific purpose or a community memberI at large passing through. The first thing that impresses you is the view of the Bay and the trails and walks that link the adjacent properties to the Bayshore. The parking areas are well landscaped and it is pleasant to walk through these areas. As you approach the Maritime Academy Building/Water Resource Center there is an inviting entry highlighted by a small plaza with attractive lighting and signage. There is adequate space for school buses to drop- off local school children who have come to see a special exhibit on commercial use of the Bay. There is another group of students and parents walking through the siteI to interact with a self-guided tour of "hands on" environmental outdoor exhibits.3 The marina is viewed with great admiration. It is in a wonderful setting, 'ship shape' piers and animated through the fluttering of banners and clanging of halyards. As one ventures further out the pier a variety of other experiences are encountered. The smile of a successful fisherman along the fishing pier.I The precision and business like manner of Maritime Cadets running a life boat drill. The anticipation of a group walting to board either a historic wind jammer, participate on a water sampling excursion or eager to tourI the bay to experience the sunset. Whether used formally with a programmed group or as an individual, the site development celebrates the bayfront, providing the user withI numerous activities and leaving them with a better understanding of the environment and its uniqueness.3 143 Great Lakes Water Rtesources Center Traverse City, Michigan 4. Building Design Concept In developing the building program a few principals need to be restated. � Minimize visual impact an the Bay � Minimize impact on the Maritime Academy � Capitalize on the s'ite development concepts promoting environmental education � Capitalize on having a Bayside presence � Create a structure that can be shared by allied water resource organizations and provide exhibit space � Enhance the image and visibility of the Maritime Academy The proposed center has the potential of being a community landmark along the Bay. As the design program evolved, it was important to recognize the need to respect the physical plant and operational needs Of the Maritime Academy. The resulting situation created an opportunity to develop a public facility as well as highlight the Great Lakes Maritime Academy. The GLMA has an opportunity to establish a presence and image that was not previously obvious. The remaining exterior portions of the Maritime Academy Building would be reclad and architecturally integrated into the newer building components. The entry into the new complex is odiented to the south creating a public entry serving both the Maritime Academy (with controlled access) and the Water Resource Center. The first floor of the Maritime Academy, except for the relocation of the administrative offices, would remain as is. The new portions of the ground floor would provide the center with a collection of classrooms, shared suppor-t services, a library resource center and a major exhibit space. There would be a large two story open area for programming exhibits and events with view to both outdoor exhibit areas and the bay. A new small centrally located theater could be shared by both the Maritime Academy and the Water Resource Center. A mezzanine level is proposed to provide access to an overlook viewing area which can take advantage of the two story exhibit area to allow views of the Bay. This level would also incorporate the relocated Maritime Academy administrative offices as well as create an opportunity for a shared conference facility. An overlook area could also be provided which views the public display areas below. The upper floors of the proposed Water Resource Center area would be developed as either office or classroom space. The building's structural bay spacing and floor to ceiling clearance would allow the maximum flexibility for either option during future programming of the building. Is I Great Lakes Water FResources Center Traverse City, Michigan It is through this flexibility that a variety of future programs or financial needs can be addressed. This zone of the building can be developed for private office use to generate revenue, expand current NMC programs with a Bayside location, build on the current success and expand on the University Center program or simply expand on encouraging water resource related user groups. I I I I I FtFflm I I I I The development of the Great Lakes Water Resources Center is an opportunity to demonstrate the community at large's role and relationship to the Bay and its linkage to the Great Lakes System. The architecture and the use of materials tell a story of a public facility which symbolically represents a vwindow to the Bay helping convey a better understanding of the scientific principles and elements of the regions aquatic ecosystem. In addifion there is an influence of the maritime history of the waterfronts use and commercial activity on the Bayfront. The nautical theme, reflected through the activities and presence of the Maritime Academy, Will also be reinforced in the architectural detailing. The glass enclosed large Exhibit Area allows for views of the Bay but more importantly becomes a beacon of the activities going on inside. This reinforces the opportunities of year round programming whether educational or seasonal in orientation serving the community during those long winters well after the summer tourists have gone. Ultimately this beacon will aftract scientists, educators and environmentalists from around the country. Not only does the use of metal on the exterior reflect the nautical vocabulary but it will age and develop a patina over time providing an aesthetic and sense of long term commitment. All of the above metaphors not only celebrate the Great Lakes Maritime Academy but create a flagship for Northwestern Michigan College as well as the community at large. E-tTh-IH--jjjj2l SCMDU RUT " I I I I I is I �. SCHEMATIC: FIRST FLOOR 0 16 32 64 GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER TRAVERSE CITY, MICHIGAN Johnson, Johnson and Roy/inc One North Pinckney Street Madison, Wisconsin 53703 with AAI TAI ERG February 23,1996 I S MECHEMATIC: MEZZANINE One North nckney Street Ma son, Wisconsin 53703 , . AAI TAI ER G ebruy 23,.1996 w ih I February 23,1996 I i I 1 1 I 1 - 4 3 a I 0 16 32 64 SCHEMATIC: TYP. OFFICE FLOOR LT LAKES WATER RESOURCES ( TRAVERSE CITY, MICHIGAN Johnson, Johnson and Roy/inc One North Pinckney Street Madison, Wisconsin 53703 CENTER GREA with TAI February 23,1996 ERG AAI Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan PROJECT BUDGET/OPERATIONS SUMMARY 1. Capital Outlay Requirements In response to the previously described design program and design concepts, the following opinion of probable construction costs were developed for planning purposes only. OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION 1. Demolition of Cold Storage Building & Relocation 2. Rebuild Maritime Academy Offices Separately 3. Demolition Cost for Building and Site 4. Relocation of Labs and Shops in New Facilities 5. Reface Remaining Existing Mansard 6. 35,000 S.F. of New Office Space 7. New Water Resources Center Facility Subtotal (Items 1-7) $7,854,00( CO S 0.00 STS $500,000.00 $408,000.00 $172,000.00 S1,440,000.00 $109,000.00 S2,975,000.00 52,250,000.00 $430,000.00 $246,000.00 $200,000.00 $256,000.00 $242,000.00 $30,000.00 $100,000.00 $205,000.00 $60,000.00 $10,000.00 $250,000.00 c 8. Marina Improvements 8.1 New Breakwater 8.1.1 Bulkhead Paving 8.2 Modifications to Existing Breakwater 8.3 32 Boat Slips 8.4 Maritime Deck Improvements 8.5 Dredging 8.6 Marina Building (Toilets and Showers) Subtotal (Item 8) $1,504,000.00 9. Outdoor Exhibit Area 9.1 Fish Pool with Pump Building 9.2 Aquarium Exhibits with Signage & Structures 9.3 Landscape Plantings 9.4 Hardscape Subtotal (Item 9) $525,000.00 20 Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan 10. Weather Station Overlook @ Base of Breakwater by Walkway from Parking $48,000.00 11. Parking Lot and Landscape @ Front Street (Paving, Curbs, Trees, Lawn, Sidewalks, Trails) $445,000.00 12. Site Lighting $120,000.00 13. Site Utilities $50,000.00 Subtotal $1 0.546.000.00 14. Contingencies (15%) $1,581,900.00O Subtotal $12.127.900.00 I $970,232.00 S13.098.132.00 - Professional Fees (8%) TOTAL NOTE: The above opinion of probable cost is based on the assumptions that the site has been filled. Soil borings should be undertaken prior to building and site design and preparation of final budgets. 21 Great Lakes Water Resources Center- Traverse City, Michigan 2. Phasing Strategy Due to the nature of pursuing and obtaining grants and the reliance on a variety of fundraising options we are recommending that the project be phased. This development strategy accomplishes a number of things: � Phasing allows the project to move forward without having all of the capital in place up front. � There are site issues that are becoming a liability and need to be attended to immediately: 1. The current harboes condition 2. The cannery building's condition * The site improvements provide better visual access to the Bay. * The site improvements provide better physical access to the Bay and to the Center, both from land and from water. * The Maritime Academy will have better visibility. � Phasing creates an opportunity for the Water Resource Center to have an immediate presence on site. � Phasing will allow for immediate Water Resource Center educational programming of limited events on site. * All of the above will give the idea of the Water Resource Center visibility and an element of reality creating momenturm helping promote the vision. The following outline shows the various elements and how they could be combined in terms of a phasing strategy. Phase One 1 .Demolition of Cold Storage Building 2. Marina improvements 2.1 New Breakwater 2.11 Bulkhead Paving 2.2 Modifications to Existing Breakwater 2.3 32 Boat Slips 2.4 Maritime Dock Improvements 2.5 Dredging 2.6 Marina Building (Toilets and Showers) 22 Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan3 Phase Two 1. Parking Lot and Landscape @ Front Street3 (Paving, Curbs, Trees, Lawn, Sidewalks, Trails) 2. Relocation of Labs and Shops in New Facilities3 Phase Three 1. Outdoor Exhibit AreaI 1.1 Fish Pool with Pump Building 1.2 Aquarium Exhibits with Signage & Structures 1.3 Landscape Plantings ' Phase Four 1. Rebuild Maritime Academy Offices Separately 2. Demolition Cost for Building and Site S. Reface Remaining Existing Roofed Portion 4. 35,000 S.F. of New Office Space 5. New Water Resources Center FacilityI 6. Site Lighting 7. Site Utilities Please refer to Exhibit - 1 which follows the phasing strategy outline. This illustrates the breakdown of the costs related to each proposedI phase. A critical consideration for the phasing is that the concept be approved in its entirety. Local jurisdictional as well as public understanding andI support of the complete vision as described by the four phases is essenfial. This will safeguard from any misunderstandings during subsequent phasing as key people's involvement and roles changeI during the course of the projects implementation. 233 Exhibit 1. Opinion of Probably Construction Costs The Great Lakes Water Resources Center April 1996 Phase Phase Phase Phase Total Cost Item One TwO Three Four Costs 1 Demolition of Cold Storage Building 500,000 500,000 2 Marina Improvements 2.1 New Breakwater 430,000 430,000 2.11 Bulkhead Paving 246,000 246,000 2.2 Modifications to Existing Breakwat 200,000 200,000 2.3 32 Boat Slips 256,000 256,000 2.4 Maritime Deck Improvements 242,000 242,000 2.5 Dredging 30,000 30,000 2.6 Marina Building 100.000 100,000 3 Parking Lot + Landscape @ Front Street 445,000 445,000 4 Relocation of Labs & Shops 1,440,000 1,440,000 5 Outdoor Exhibit Area 5.1 Fish Pool + Punb Puilding 205,000 205,000 5.2 Aquarium Exhibits 60,000 60,000 5.3 Landcape Plantings 10,000 10,000 5.4 Hardscape 250,000 250,000 6 Weather Station Overlook 48.000 48,000 7 Rebuild Maritime Academy Offices - 408,000 408,000 8 Demolition Costs for Building + Site 172,000 172,000 9 Resurface Remaining Mansard 109,000 109,000 10 Construct 35,000 sq. ft of New Ofice Space 2,975,000 2,975,000 11 ' New Water Resources Center Facility 2,250,000 2,250,000 12 Site Lighting 120,000 120,000 13 Site Utilities 50.000 50,000 14 Subtotals 2,004,000 1,885,000 573,000 6,084,000 10,546,000 15 Contingencies 15.0% 300,600 282,750 85,950 912,600 1,581,900 16 Professional Fees 8.0% 184,368 173,420 5.Z16 559.728 970,232 17 Totals 2,488,968 2,341,170 711,666 7,556,328 13,098,132 Source: Johnson Johnson Roy I Inc. (April 1996) TAI RF4ALT ADJ'7SORS -t - - - o GLWRCo04XI _PHASING PLAN I I I I I I ! r-- EIosting Maritime I Academy I I I I I I I ~~Z---- I I I JI r- - i ! I -ICl I I I I 0- 0----- I I I I I FRtNTsrER I PHASE ONE I N J" I"M I0a a . _-_ SCL U .... I I I M..)oN. ,,d 71 1/W 0,. Nhd, phwjy Sw M-daT WIE nG i AXU TX ERG GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER April 1996 TRAVERSE cmrr. MICHIGAN PHASING PLAN. nwmcn- r. EIdsting Maritime I Academy I arkingL ota nd I I I I Relocation of Labs and Shops in New Facilities Parking Lot and F K *vDW9ntEE i N I Ti r PHASE TWO a 2J n I I. am Beu 0 PUT GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER Arann!1QE CM,U MIMAICAN &A14J�nnd RAW/WK h,~rrc~c . .&.WhWWwmwfin M"M Alnril 19%~ I I PHASING PLAN I I I I I ymeG FM Exhibit Area -Weather Stali I I I I I I I I I _-_ I I I I * 1_ FRONT STrEET f I I I A , I PHASE THREE I I a u " US 0u w r,_e-- _ . edJu l[ Sr wt Mad- Ww. iI GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER TRYERSE CITY, MICHIGAN Anril 1996 PHASING PLAN . I ~~~~~~~~~~I 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~I 4~rtime Academy/Great Lakes _ ;Water Resources Center p 1 i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* f0'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I . _ _ _ _~~~~~~~~~. i I ;I i 110. lis k !s~ 6%11 --t~ L 1M'. .. 0 ; K. I e I ,r i -)E I I PHASE FOUR GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER TRAVEASE CrTy, MIOUGAN lwymftkhrbr WWOM &-A KMAMC~ - -mww-6- SM April 1996 Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan 2. Business Plan Summary Establishina an Entitv. Identity and Savside Presence It is strongly recommended to immediately establish a non-profit entity whose purpose is the creation and establishment of the center. This entity needs to focus on establishing an identity of its own. It can not burden another existing non-profit group nor should it dilute the importance of its mission. The new entity should reinforce the concerns of other allied environmentaVeducational organizations and at the same time build on the resources and network that those organizations can provide. In establishing this entity the proposed name used should receive some reconsideration. The primary concern there is whether or not its name should have stronger ties with the immediate area given the notoriety that the Grand Traverse Bay area already has. As this non-profit group is established it is imperative that a development board be created. The interest and activifies related to the idea of creating the center have been around long enough. It is now at a critical point where the appropriate mix of influential members of the Greater Grand Traverse Bay community need to pool resources to solicit the financial and political support required to make it happen. The third consideration for immediate action is to establish a presence on the NMC site. This is important from both an identity as well as visibility issue. The use of a small space within the existing Maritime Academy to start facilitating on site educational programs is a very effective way to start creating a "very real" community presence. Ownershin Entitv It is assumed that NMC will not sell the site, but wVill likely execute a long- term ground lease with a not-for-profit (possibly related) developing entity. Sometime during phase three the ownership entity will issue an RFP to potential fee developers to construct the Great Lakes Water Resources Center (the Center). Construction of the Center would commence in the year 2000 and continue for approximately twelve months. Therefore, the fee developer would retain no ownership interest, but would be paid a development fee of approximately 3.0 percent of total construction costs (approximately $350,000). Ownership of the improvements would reside with the not-for-profit developing entity, for the duration of the ground lease. It wVill generally be necessary for that ground lease to extend for at least the term of the financing (assumed to be 25 years). After that term, the ground lease wVill expire, and ownership of the Center will revert to the NMC. Manaaement and Onerations (See Exhibit 4, Exhibit 5) It is assumed that the Ownership Entity will hire a full time Director for the Center, who will have operations, leasing and program development responsibilities. The size of the Center, and its varied tenant activities 29 Exhibit 2. Financing and Operations Plan The Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan April 1996 Phase Three 12 Phase One Phase Two 6 Phase Four totals Estimated Start Date Estimated Completion Date Duration (montlls) 24 12 54 Total Probable Costs 2,488,968 2,341,170 711.666 7,556,328 13,098,132 Add: Interim Operating Costs Prefunded Operating Deficit Financing + Transaction Costs Developer Fee 90,0 00 132,000 50,000 200,000 250.000 382,000 50,000 200,000 250.00 Total Development Costs (rounded to:) Possible Fundine Sources: I Corporate Fund Raising 2 Federal Funding (?) 3 State Boating Facilities Grant 4 Coastal Zone Management Grants 5 Inland Fisheries Resource Grants 6 Land + Water Conservation Fund 7 -Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund 8 Private Fund Raising 9 County/Municipal Contributions 10 State Contributions 11 Mortgage Loan Proceeds Total Sources of Funds 2,608,968 2,381,170 2,600,000 2,400,000 801,666 8,188,328 13,980,132 800,000 8,200,000 14,000,000 600,000 3,700,000 5,700,000 00 0 30,000 50,000 20,000 50,000 350,000 1,500,000 3,850,000 100,000 200,000 550,000 100.000 300,000 900,000 2.500.000 2.500.000 800,000 8,200,000 14,000,000 I I I I I I 1,200,000 0 30,000 50,000 20,000 50,000 350,000 850,000 50.000 200,000 0 1,500,000 200,000 500.0 00 2,600,000 2,400,000 I Source: TAI REALTYADVISORS I 415/96 I .41 REALTYADI7SORS GLWRC004-.,S Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan (including the Maritime Academy, marina, multiple office and retail tenants, exhibit and assembly hall space) will require that a Maintenance Director be hired, along with two maintenance staff personnel. The Center Director will likely delegate all exhibit responsibilities to a full-time Program Curator, who will design and implement all leaming-center activities. We further assume that the Director will have a full-time secretary, and the Program Curator will have a part-time (50%) secretary- support person. We assume that a volunteer staff, Comprising three full- time equivalent (FTE) persons, will be available to assist the Program Curator in supporting the use and care of exhibit space. Sources of Fundina (See Exhibit 2) We have identified eleven possible funding sources which would be used to finance the estimated $14 million cost of the proposed Center. A range of municipal, county, state and federal sources are available, and we assume that almost $2.0 million in such funds will be committed to funding the Center. A local fund-raising program will likely have to be initiated, and we assume that this program, relying heavily on local corporate contributions, would provide an estimated $5.7 million to the Center. The NMC currently assumes financial responsibility for maintaining the site and for providing for capital improvements at the Maritime Academy. This Business Plan is based on the assumption that the College would provide the site, and that some fundraising activity would be required. The amount needed would increase, or decrease, depending upon the level of contributions or grants secured from other sources. The estimated funds required through these fundraising activities currently is approximately $3.85 million. Financing (See Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3) We assume that upon completion of phase four (or at the start of the year 2001), a $2.5 million mortgage loan will be originated. Based upon a 7.25 percent interest rate, and a 25-year amortization period (equivalent to the presumed term of the ground lease), the Center will face an annual debt service payment of approximately $222,000. During year one a projected operating deficit of approximately $40,000 is forecast, but reserves to fund this deficit will have been set aside. Operating income in year two is estimated at $10,000; this operating surplus increases to $143,000 by year five. Sources of Potential ODeratina Revenue (See Exhibit 4) The Business Plan assumes that there are four business activities, or sources of potential revenue, within the Center. Annual rents for each are estimated, as described below. The Business Plan assumes that rents increase at a 3.0 percent annual rate, and that operating expenses increase at slightly more than this, or at a 4.0 percent annual rate. m 31 Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan 1. Rental Revenues from the Gift ShoD. A small gift shop, containing 975 rentable square feet (rsf) is included in the development plans. We estimate that this gift shop will be leased to a private retailer, who will pay a gross annual rent of $12 per rsf. Over the forecasted ten- year planning period, these revenues represent less than 1.0 percent of total potential revenues of the Center. 2. Rental Revenues from Office Space. Thirty-five thousand gross square feet of office space would provide approximately 29,750 rentable square feet of space. At an average rent of $15.00 per rsf, this space, if fully leased (with no lease concession and net of any leasing commission liabilities) would provide $446,250 in gross potential revenue. 3. Attendance-Generatina Caoacitv based on Exhibit SDace. We I assume that exhibits portraying ecological, environmental and fresh water-related demonstration programs will be developed and housed within the 5,000 square-feet of space of proposed exhibit space. We cannot reasonably estimate the ability of this space, and of these demonstration programs, to attract visitors without a more detailed description of the characteristics and uniqueness of a Exhibition Program. However, project costs assume that only a small investment will be made in developing an aquarium program, and that such a program will not become a 'paid-attendance generator'. Instead, we assume that a nominal entrance fee will be charged to view the exhibits developed under the sponsorship of the non-profit entity. We assume that, in Year 1, approximately 120,000 attendees would pay $2.50 each to view the exhibit, representing approximately 20,000 visitors monthly during the summer months and 7,250 visitors monthly during the balance of the year. Annual attendance is 3 conservatively estimated to increase by approximately 3.0 percent annually. 4. Rental Revenues from Assembly Hall. The 2,250 square feet of I assembly hall space can be leased to local businesses and citizen groups, as well as to members of the educational community. We estimate that this space can generate rental income of approximately $650 per week ($15 per rsf per year, or $33,750 annually), based on use and pricing variables that are established to maximize potential revenues. For instance, management may not wish to compete directly with the two adjacent hotels, both of which offer public space options, but the Center may determine that it is desirable to offer this space to non-profit and educational users at moderate cost. The Business Plan assumes that of these four business activities they will experience some loss attributable to vacancy or credit loss. The I likelihood that no vacancy loss would be experienced is remote, I 323 Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan particularly subject to the expectation that the commercial office space will be leased to a number of small, and possibly, not-for-profit, tenants. Vacancy loss is estimated at 25% during year one; this loss is estimated to decline to 5% by year five. However, vacancy losses could be further minimized if development of the Center is postponed until commitments to pre-lease all of the office space have been negotiated. Timina and DeveloDment Flexibilitv (See Exhibit 1) The Business Plan assumes that the proposed development program is carried out over four phases extending over six years. In order to commence this development program, however, project funding, in the amount of $14.0 million, must be committed, and a fund raising program must be successfully completed. The program provides for a high level of flexibility in completing alternative combinations of components of the program. It may become desirable to more closely evaluate alternative development programs that can be accomplished, depending upon the level of funding that materializes. Implications of Business Plan There are a number of important financial and operational implication of this Business Plan. Some of these might be deemed to be advantages; others not. Nonetheless, they are important considerations, and some are summarized below. � Operating maintenance (and responsibility for related capital expenditures) would likely transfer from NMC to the non-profit entity a NMC would receive a ground rent that would likely be payable by the ownership entity from available cash flow after debt service. The assumptions inherent in the Business Plan indicate that these ground rent payments to NMC would represent more than one million dollars over the ten-year planning horizon. * If the ownership entity were thinly capitalized, it could potentially represent a financial liability until such time as vacancy losses are eliminated, and operating revenues achieve the level of gross potential revenues illustrated in the Business Plan. � A mixed-use, waterfront, commercial development could provide excellent public spaces and cause the site to be developed to its likely highest-and-best use. However, more intensive commercial development of the site could potentially disrupt, and compromise, the mission and operations of the Maritime Academy. 34 I - _ .__ - - -- -- - ~-- - - - - W " - _ _ - - _ -w. --. Exhibit 3. The Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan Prospective Operating Performance I rent Gross Potential Revenues per rsf Gin Shop 975 rsf $12.00 Office Rent 29,750 rsf 15.00 Exhibit Space 5,000 rsf 60.00 Assembly Hall 2. 2 rsf 15.00 total space 37,975 rsf Total Potential Revenue Less: Vacancy Loss (Exhibit 6) Annual Operating Revenue nar 9 14,821 565,296 380,031 42.753 1,002,90 2 f49.40 4) 953,498 90,950 0 25,986 20,789 12,993 82,114 318,466 12.993 564,290 15,26 6 582,25 5 391,43 2 44.036 1,032,9 89 (50.88 6) 982,10 3 94,58 8 0 27,02 5 21,62 0 13,51 3 85,39 9 331,20 5 !3.5 13 586,86 2 year 13,168 502,258 337,653 37.986 891,065 (43.89 5) 847,170 77,744 0 22,213 17,77 0 11,10 6 70,192 272,226 11.106 482,358 Year-6 13,56 4 517,32 6 347,78 2 39.126 917,797 (45.21 21 872,58 6 Year 7 13,970 532,846 358,216 40.299 945,331 (46.56 8] 898,763 14,39 0 548,83 1 368,96 2 41.508 973,69 1 (47.96 5) 925,726 87,452 0 24,986 19,98 9 12,49 3 78,95 6 306,21 7 542,58 7 542,587 Year 2 12,051 459,638 309,00 0 34.763 815,45 1 (154.88 6) 660,56 5 69,115 0 19,74 7 15,79 8 9,874 62,400 242,00 8 9.874 428,814 Year3 12,41 3 473,42 7 318,27 0 35.805 839,91 5 (118.15 81 721,75 7 71,87 9 0 20,53 7 16,43 0 10,26 8 64,89 6 251,68 8 10.26 8 445,96 7 Year 4 12,785 487,629 327,818 36.880 865,112 (85.233 ) 779,879 74,754 0 21,358 17,087 10,679 67,492 261,756 10.679 463,805 Yesrl 11,70 0 446,250 300,000 791,700 (197.92 5) 593,77 5 ODerating Exenses:. p Utilities S Taxes Insurance Supplies + Repain Replacement Reserve Exhibit Program Costs Personnel Costs (Exhibit 4) Contract Services Operating Expenses S Operating Revenues Before Debt Service and Capital Contributions er Ur S1.75 66,456 0.00 0 0.50 18,9 88 0.40 15,190 0.25 9,49 4 60,000 232,70 0 0.25 9.49 4 13.15 412, 321 80,854 84,088 0 0 23,1,01 24,02 5 18,481 19,22 0 11,551 12,01 3 72,999 75,919 283,115 294,44 0 50165 ., 1213 501,652 521,71 8 181,454 231,751 275,790 316,074 364,813 370,934 377,045 383,139 389,208 395,241 Source: TAI REALTY ADVISORS _I OlMI�03.X'N I I I I . mn ain - morl. * -r INW " N -a .2 f Mg bo -a b'CA Exhibit 4. The Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan Prospective Personnel Costs Year 9 62,954 36,951 54,743 49,268 41n.57 Year10 65,472 38,429 56,932 51,239 Yewr 7 58,205 34,164 50.613 45,551 37.960 Year S 60,533 35,530 52,637 47,374 39.478 Year 4 51,744 30,371 44,995 40,495 3jj7.4 Yew 5 53,813 31,586 46,794 42.115 35.096 Year 6 55,966 32,850 48,666 43,800 36.500 ymar 22 47,840 28,080 41,600 37,440 113-0- 49,754 29,203 43,264 38,938 32.448 EnE 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.50 3.00 9.50 Year 1 46,000 27,000 40,000 36,000 I2.2QM Diketlr Maintenace Director MaintenanceStafr Progam pCuator Secretariat Support Exhibit Voluntees Total 209,405 217,781 226,492 235,552 244,974 ' 254,773 179,000 186,160 193,606 201.351 62,21 65.334 272,226 283,115 67.948 700666 294,440 306,217 318,466 331,205 58.082 251,688 60A,05 261,756 Taxes + Benefits @ 30.0%/0 Total Peronnel Costs 53.700 232,700 55.848 242,008 Soume: TAT REALTY ADVISORS 4/196 OLWRC003.XLS Exhibit 5. The Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan Prospective Financial Operating Performance 389,208 (221.6971 167,510 Yar 10 395,241 (221.697) 173,544 Year 3 275,790 (221.6971 54,093 Year 4 316,074 (221.697) 94,377 Year5 364,813 (221.697) 143,116 Year 6 370,934 (221.697) 149,236 377,045 (221.6971 155,348 383,139 (221.6971 161,442 181,454 (f221)97 (40,244) Year 2 231,751 (221.6971 10,053 Operating Revenues(Dcficit) Annual Debt Service If Cash Flow Prospective Operating Deficit 40,244 1.65 1.67 1.70 1.73 1.76 1.78 (annual debt coverage ratio) 0.82 1.05 1.24 1.43 Cash Flow Available For Gounmd Rent Participation Payment to NMC 94,377 143,116 149,236 155,348 161,442 167,510 173,544 0 10,053 54,093 Cumulative Ground Rent Payments to NMC (10 years) 1,108,719 1/ Annual debt service based on the assumption that a $2.5 million loan (at 7.5%'; fully amortized over 25 years) would be originated to repay part of the construction costs of the Phase 4 Improvements and Expansion. Source: TAI REALTY ADVISORS OLWRCOO3.XLs A rM jr -p L 'Y AM d _A_o w d Exhibit 6. The Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan Prospective Annual Vacancy Rates and Rent Loss Year 1 Ye-KI Year 3 Yea 4 Year 5 IYear 9 Year 10 rospective Annual Vacancy Rate: Gift Shop 975 rsf 12.00 25.00 0.0%/6 0.0% 0.0%1/6 0.0% 0.0%/0 0.0%/0 0.0% 0.0%/0 0.0%/0 OfTice Rent 29,750 rnt 15.00 25.0% 15.00/% 10.0% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%1 5.0% 5.0%/0 Exhibit Space 5,000 nf 60.00 25.00%o 25.00/0 20.0% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%/6 5.0% 5.0%/a 5.0% Assembly Hall 2,250 raf 15.00 25.06/% 25.0%1/ 20.00/0 10.0% 5.00/0 5.0% 5.0%/0 5.0%/0 5.0% 5.0%1/ Gross Potential Revenue: (Exhibit n) 791,700 815,451 839,915 865,112 891,065 917,797 945,331 973,691 1,002,902 1,032,989 Less: Prospective Rent Loss Gin Shop (2,925) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Rent (111,563) (68,946) (47,343) (48,763) (25,113) (25.866) (26,642) (27,442) (28,265) (29,113) Exhibit Space (75,000) (77,250) (63,654) (32,782) (16,883) (17,389) (17,911) (18,448) (19,002) (19,572) Assembly Hall (8.438) (8.691) (7,.1D (3.618) 31.899) (1.9561 (2.015~ (2.075) (2.138-) (202) Total Rent Loss (197,925) (154,886) (118,158) (85,233) (43,895) (45,212) (46,568) (47,965) (49,404) (50,886) Operaing Revenue 593,775 660,565 721,757 779,879 847,170 872,586 898,763 925,726 953,498 982,103 Source: TA! REALTY ADVISORS OGWRCOU3.NLS 41519 Great Lakes Water Resources Center3 Traverse City, Michigan 3. Public Funding Sources The development of the Water Resources Center is very dependent on fth success of a fund raising effort. This effort must have a well defined strategy, be carefully planned and efficiently conducted. Fundraising is inherently part art and part science and although past funding is not always a good predictor of future success, a good track record will certainly enhance an organization's credibility. The planning to date forU this Water FResources Center has shown a definite local community support, having initiated two separate and comprehensive feasibility studies. This demonstration of interest will certainly enhance theU Center's chances in the eyes of funding organizations. Funding can be generated through a number of sources: Local fundraising efforts within the community, private foundations, corporate giving plans, and through local, state and federal agencies. We have identified a number of potential organizations which have provided start- up funds, funds for special projects and support for programs which are compatible wvith the stated goals and objectives of the Water Resources Center. This list is not comprehensive but merely serves as a starting point for subsequent development activities. By nature, programmatic goals of funding agencies frequently change as does the availability of support funds. The funding process is, therefore, dynamic in nature and identifying appropriate, Viable funding sources is a continual procedure.U The uncertainties in the political climate in the state and federal governments makes programs from these agencies particularly vulnerable. It will be the responsibility of the Director and theI Development Board to continually assess funding opportunities as they arise and develop appropriate fundraising strategies depending on the Center's priorities. (See Potential Funding Sources Exhibit) JsNdocsWtaverse\REPORT.DOC3 . __t I l_l g -jd A: 1 b -I,& i & ,a i 4 "t A 4 N JI Jl I Potential Funding Sources Exhibit Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan I I l .. l l i Funding Cycle Use Category Avg. Grant Amount Matching Funds (Y/N) % Annual Grant or Support Funds Source -- - - Variable (Quarterly) Special Projects, Educational $1.5 K Y (desirable), variable Support Biederman Foundation Dec. RFP Project Development, Educational $20K Y, 50% Support Coastal Zone Management (NOAA)-Federal/State DEQ Y & N, variable Support/Annual Quarterly C.S. Mott Foundation Continuing support, Operating, general purpose, seed money, matching funds $20K - 30K $1 OK -$50K, up to 250K Y, 25% Support Fall/Winter EPA Environmental Education Grants- Federal Environmental Ed., Special Projects Support Quarterly Seed, Start-up $35K N Frey Foundation $100K-400K N Support 6 Times/Yr. Kresge Foundation Bricks & Morter Seed Money, Special Projects $20K - 30K Y (5%) Support Spring Michigan Great Lakes Protection Fund-EPA- Federal Y(desirable), variable Support Sept. Rotary Charities Start-up, special projects, challenge grants $15K not available Y, 40% Support Variable EPA Office of Water - 319 Funds-Federal/State DEQ Specific projects, demonstration projects Environmental Education $104K Y, (variable) Support Variable National Science Foundation- Federal Education, Research, Nature $1K - 500K not available Support Bimonthly H. & G. Dow Foundation Special Projects Seed Money, Operating $1 OK N Support/Annual Quarterly Americana Foundation Support IsdocsItraverseFUNDTABL.DOCFUNDTABL.DOC 11 A P P E N D I X 0 N E 6 ~~~~~ Great Lakes Water Resources Center I* II 01 I4- 3l I~ ~~A U "; ir~"�3'T~ L~~L L~~~~~~~WL I. I �. 0 OL L CL~~. L 1. �~i~,-t t~� I~Su MARITIME ACADEMY L L L~~~~~ L * a,~~I BUILDING I~~~ [-i~~~~2 AI P~~~~~R~~~ING I I 5~~~~~ENNIS COURT L AREA . I UL ING L I : L 'A PARK'Nr,O OL OLi (I'i~~~~~~ "3 ~~~CANNERY BUILDING .5 S , f f Ir ~9L' FRONT STREET 5 of mmmnm mmm MO mnmmn mm=48R 37 L w IL E~~~. AL I 0~~~~~ ~ -j *PROJECT SITEL & CONTEXT_ 7/1 �CI PId L 11 ~~~~~~~~~a a% 1mI mb A491bI - W* - --wo r-m I d-ob -he )no Z I* I do& bA wb z A a &a~) I. I I ,t I I 1 i I 04za A P P E N D I X T W O Great Lakes Water Resources Center _.'.T"r,I , , - -= ..- X .., -- I..... -, , -, , . v .- , . .. . . ,.,,._ , . . I 1 ~~~~~~~~26 October 1995 EJ ~~~~~~Workshop I ~~~~~Great Lakes Water Resources Center PROGRAM ISSUES & CONCERNS: FEEDBACK (General Discussion Prior to Group Exercises) I ~~Research! educ'ation Local value -Tourist Value Long-term operation and cost *Concern of scale Watershed "community-at-large" Public access Aquatic focus (modest) ' ~~Multiple-use (flexibility) Increase outside visitor stay, not necessarily the volume ~~ ~ Affordable (both visiting or local user group) Home Site - Value How far? Outreach to hinterlands, etc. What are activities unique to site? (evaluate-related revenue) Concern over size and impact on site ' ~~Research other natiorfally recognized facilities Existing cannery wall as a positive barrier? (buffer) ~~ ~ Bay View high priority Outreach to broadest population base Start by addressing the lowest common denominator 26 October 1995 Workshop Great Lakes Water Resources Center PROGRAMMATIC INPUT - Red Group Year-Round Facility Focus on activities which belong on water Facility Activity Revenue Notes/Theme Potential Water quality testing lab Chemical/biological Yes and lab space for outside testing aqencies Environmental education 1) Tie in with NMC Low potential ? 2) Hands-on focus rather than only exhibits Tie into park system Pedestrian corridors No Inland Seas Science Ship Yes Recreational sailing Yes proqram Aquarium Yes Natural history programs Marina facility Possible tie-in with Yes Marina management hospilality program - NMC Small craft repair Tie-in NMC and maritime No Non-profit, water-related Yes (rental) organizations Maximize the view corridor Change building No orientation Generic facilities Maximum flexibility No Allow for evolution Diving Club use Yes Year-round educational Satisfy T.C., Regional Ed. No themes requirements Research Science research projects Yes Build tie with University Center Meeting facilities Yes Artificial outdoor research Yes facility "Ecoloqy" Weather-related activities Tie-in with Maritime No Climatotoqy Acaderriy I I I I I I I I a JJIR I I- 26 October 199, I Workshop Great Lakes Water Resour 'PROGRAMMATIC INPUT- Blue Group a 5 rces Center 4 Facility Activity Revenue Notes/Theme I~~~~~~~ ~~~Potential IMaritimrne Academy Training class on water Student fees *I access certification Federal Grants ]~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~Tuition University Center Research - Laurentian Tuition Sharing labs/equipment 4*~~~ ~~vessels/labs/ contracts w/University among universities teaching Center electronic conf. center Weather Center Research NOAA '*l~~~~~~~~ ~~Media GovernmentlNongov't County/State/Federal Appropriation Could be located NoMffices Private Research Rentals across the street offices6 EPA/DEQ Grants Teaching vessels pill Response Center Emergency training center Federal/State Private Contracts interpretive Center Exhibits (interactive) Admission fees Environmental History Aquarium Product sales +~~~ ~Imax Sales Restaurants Volunteer seniors History arina Commercial boats Fees (slips) i"~~~~ . Historic ships Annual Dockside Attractions .djacent marina private boats contracts ~ommunity Sailing Center Training Fees Regattas Tournament fees ishing Pier Community Access Grants (capital) Worm sales Bait shop Iublic Beach Community Access Public/Private Partnership ~~~~~~~~~~* ~~JJR _, ~~~~~. - - - . .. . . - . . ... I 26 October 1995 .Workshop Great Lakes Water Resources Center PROGRAMMATIC IN PUT - Green Group I Facility Activity Revenue Notes/Theme Potential Marketing to visitors/ loca Maritime Academy Education citizens Maritime Heritage Alliance History Museum Yes, tourism Mystic seaport theme Tall ships Boating building Blacksmith shop Community Center Sailing, environmental ed, (for construction kayaking, lectures, NO proqrammning (cost center) Cinemax Theater Virual Reality Yes Planetarium Theater in the Round Underwater observation Observe marine Yes concern about attraction - deck biology draw/I limited access in a winter Conference facility - host environmental conf. Yes - papers on Great Lakes - business conference Information clearinghouse Database center Yes Library Monitoring equipment Environmental Education Environmental Center programmingI Community Sailing CenterN Commercial fishing Research Recreational fishing Datalinventory Science museum rotating interactive visitors .exhibits Local residents I Jill I I 26 October 1995 Workshop Great Lakes Water Resources Center Group Session on Development Scenarios (Blue Group) Traverse Bay Center: 35,000sq.ft. footprint 1. Minimal capitalization -' * Remove cannery building Office Space for environmental organizations Upgrade harbor - Space for MHA, Inland Seas, community sailing 2. Mid-Range - All of number one - University Center (teaching, research, interpretation) 3. Maximum capitalization - All of number one - Aquarium - Imax - Auditorium - Museum/Interpretive Center (10,000-20,000sq.ft.) - Expand marina JJR _V. ,.- c. V -t . ,t . 4 C _. . .. - -1 , - _ - ' - .* I 26 October 1995 Workshop Great Lakes Water Resources Center Group Session on Development Scenarios (Red Group) Minimal CaDitalization Proaram 1) School Ship 2) Maritime Heritage 3) Water taxi - link to other attractions 4) Community sailing program 5) Regional Program coordinating 6) Nominal educational activities 7) Training and workshops 8) lMerchandising (gift shop, etc.) Intermediate Caoitalization Prooram Add or expand on above: 1) Auditorium 2) Classroom labs/equipment 3) Teacher in-service, environmental ed. 4) Marina improvements 5) Weather station 6) "Hands-on" interpretive displays - theme-based (environmental edJwat-er quality) 7) Office space for "partner" organizations "Skv's the Limit" Add or expand on above: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I JJFII 1) Science component - labs/conferences/University Centerlinformation database (international) 2) College/community programming office 3) Fishing pier 4) Expand maritime alliance 5) Capitalization vs. operating 6) Aquarium 7) Resource center/library 8) Science ship fleet 9) ROU - interaction system for public education I I 26 October 1995 Workshop Great Lakes Water Resources Center Group Session on Development Scenarios (Green Group) 1. NO ACTION - NO DIFFERENCE & POSSIBLE NEGATIVE Building stays and deteriorates 2. The NMC Init. (+) Repair Dock Strictly college, not community (-) Neg. community view 3. Traverse Bay Center (minimal capitalization) (+) Watershed mural More exposure to environmental education Interaction between organizations Near water facility Program Development (-) Rough facility Higher Risk Short-term commitment 4. Traverse Bay Center (intermediate capitalization) (+) Strong leadership goals (-) Lack of above and lack of money 5. Traverse Bay Center (expanded program) (+) Do it right Cheap rent Non-profits (-) Size limitation *(+) Use of site JJR I ; X L~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~ 8 -'. ' !; e- L '- .; -'z-- ' - .. r , , . .I - . - . : . . I - .- - -- . .. ,,,-...-_ .,I ,, - , ROTARY CHARITIES GRANT AGREEMENT JANr- 4 95 _,ary Charities lof Traverse City PAR K STREET rAVERSE CITY, MICHIGAN 49684 TELEPHONE (616) 941-4010 [ (616) 941-4066 IE MUHA, President JACK BAY, Vice-President BOB DEAN. Secretary ILL SHOSKEY, Treasurer WRY HOGUE BILL McCOOL JERRY MEYER IIL RODGERS WRRY SKENOZEL PAUL MOCERE, Club President I IB .JLLIER, Executive Director I B HILTY. Assistant to the President January 3, 1995 Michael J. McClelland Deputy Administrator Grand Traverse County 400 Boardman Avenue Traverse City, MI 49684 Dear Mac: On behalf of Joseph Kuha, President of Rotary Charities of Traverse City, I -am pleased to inform you that the Board of Trustees has approved a grant of $15,000. The purpose of this grant is to help develop a business plan for a Great Lakes Water Resources Center at NMC's Maritime Academy. This letter describes the terms and conditions of this grant award. It is agreed between Rotary Charities (the Foundation) and Grand Traverse County (the Grantee) that: 1. The Grantee will use the funds only for the grant purposes specified above. 2. None of the grant proceeds are to be transferred by the Grantee to any other organization without the written permission of the Foundation. 3. The Foundation will pay this grant in two installments: $7,500 upon receipt of a signed copy of this grant agreement letter and evidence that consultants have been retained to perform the tasks required, and $7,500 upon receipt of a satisfactory progress report as described below. 4. Two progress reports are required on this grant with the following schedule: For the period ending June 30, 1995 due August I" 1995. For the period ending December 31, 1995, due February 1, 1996. These reports are to include: a summary of expenditures related to the grant, progress by the consutants in completing the business plan, and a distribution plan for the final product of the grant. 5. This grant is for a period of one year to December 31, 1995. In order to receive an extension of the -grant period, the Grantee must submit a request in writing to the Foundation explaining the need for the extension. A Charitable Foundation of the Rotary Club of Traverse City, Michigan January 3, page 2 I 6. The Grantee agrees that it will not use funds: a. To attempt to influence legislation or the outcome of any specific election or to carry on, directly or indirectly, any voter registration drive. b. For grants to individuals or to other organizations which do not comply with the requirements of Section 4945(d)(3) I of the Internal Revenue Code. c. For any purpose other than one specified in Section 170(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code (exclusively for charitable, educational or scientific purposes). 7. The Grantee agrees to supply such information as may be necessary for the Foundation to exercise its responsibility for supervision of the grant as required by the IRS. 8. Any news releases, public announcements, or other products pertaining to this grant should acknowledge Rotary Charities of Traverse City as a funder. Congratulations on this grant award. Enclosed is a copy of the news release announcing this and the other grant awards. Please return a signed copy of this grant agreement to make the grant official and call me if you have any questions. ely, R~Bpjr ~ CoIllerI Grantee agrees to the terms and conditions of the grant as recited above. Name:~~ Title: e-4,,4 Date: ! o� I I I REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER PLANNING ASSESSMENT V ~~~~~~~GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY J~~\TraverseA ~~~DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR ~~W~~~1-OUI*~~~~~~~~/j ~~400 BOAFIDMAN AVENUE TRAVERSE CITY, Ml 49684-2577 (616) 922-4622 - FAX (616) 922-4636 M E MOR AN D UM DATE: July 24, 1995 TO: Prospective Proposers FROM: michael McClelland, Deputy Administrator SUBJECT: Reissue of Request For Proposals for Great Lakes Water Resources Center Planning Assessment Grand Traverse County invites qualified firms to submit proposals to conduct planning research to develop a Great Lakes Water Research Center. Attached to this letter is a revised Request For Proposal to provide interested parties with sufficient information to enable them to prepare and submit proposals for a contract award. The County reserves the right to consider proposals or modifications received at any time before award is made, if such action is in the best interest of the County. The County also reserves the right to reject any and all proposals received as a result of this RFP, or to negotiate separately with any source whatsoever in any manner necessary to serve the best interests of the County. The County does not intend to award a contract solely on the basis of any response made to this request or otherwise pay for the information solicited or obtained. Inquiries which require a written response must be submitted must be received no later than August 11, 1995. Proposal must be submitted in six copies, no later than 2:0p.m. on Wednesday, Auqust 23, 1995 to: GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER Michael J. McClelland Deputy Administrator Grand Traverse County 400 Boardman Avenue Traverse City, Michigan 49684 Attachment 100% recycled paper I REVISED: JULY 24, 1995 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER PLANNING ASSESSMENT PROJECT Due Date: Wednesday, August 23, 1995, 2:00 p.m. I I I I I I I I I Issued by Grand Traverse County 400 Boardman Avenue Traverse City, Michigan 49684 I I I I I I I II I ' GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP RVSD UY2,19 REVISED: JULY 24, 1995 PART I GENERAL INFORMATION I-I Purpose Grand Traverse County is requesting for proposals from qualified firms to conduct planning research to develop a Great Lakes Water Research Center. The maximum contract amount is $45,000. II-2 Proqram Statement The project will provide a comprehensive foundation of information that will be utilized to refine the concept for and provide for informed decision making for the planning and development of a Center to host a diverse range of water related public attractions, such as a freshwater aquarium, interactive displays and exhibits on the ecosystem and maritime history, community sailing center, and office space for water related public agencies, educational institutions and private firms. The proposed location for the Center is the Great Lakes Maritime Academy, situated at the base of the West Arm of grand Traverse Bay, with walking distance of downtown Traverse City and visibly located on the heaviest traveled section of road in northern Michigan. The Northwestern Michigan College property encompasses approximately 7 acres, containing the Great Lakes Maritime Academy building with a deep water, protected harbor capable of handling a number of very large vessels, In addition, Technical/vocational Division and warehousing functions are presently housed in the old Cannery Building. I-3 Issuing Office This RFP is issued by Grand Traverse County (Issuing Office). Michael J. McClelland, Deputy Administrator, Grand Traverse County (400 Boardman Avenue, Traverse City, Michigan 49684 616/922-4694) is the point of contact in the County for purposes of contract administration and technical assistance. I-4 Contract Award Contract negotiations will be undertaken with those firms whose proposals, as to price and other factors, show them to be qualified, responsible, and capable of performing the work. -31-- GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP REVISED: JULY 24, 1995 The contract that may be entered into will be that which is most advantageous to the County, price and other factors considered. The County reserves the right to consider proposals or modifications received at any time before award is made, if such action is in the best interest of the County.3 1-5 Reiection of Proposals The County reserves the right to reject any and all proposals received as a result of this RFP, or to negotiate separately with any source whatsoever in any manner necessary to serve the best interests of the County. The County does not intend to award a contract solely on the basis of any response made "to this requestI or otherwise pay for the information solicited or obtained. 1-6 Incurring Costs Grand Traverse County is not liable for any cost incurred by the firm prior to the issuance of a contract.3 I-7 Preproposal Conference No preproposal conference will be held in association with thisI RFP. Inquiries made be in the manner outlined in Section 1-8. I-8 Inquiries Questions that arise as a result of this RFP which require a written response must be submitted in writing to the Issuing Office. All questions must be submitted on or before the dateI specified in the cover letter. I-9 Addenda to the RFP3 In the event it becomes necessary to revise any part of this RFP, addenda will be provided to all firms who received the basic RFP. 1-10 Response Date To be considered, proposals must arrive at the Issuing Office onI or before the date specified in the cover letter. Firms mailing proposals should allow normal delivery time to insure timely receipt of their proposals.I I-li Proposals To be considered, firms must submit a complete response to thisI RFP, using the format provided in Part IV. Each proposal must be- submitted in six (6] copies to the Issuing Office. -No other distribution of proposals will be made by the firm. Proposals -2- GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP RVSD UY2,19 REVISED: JULY 24, 1995 must be signed by an official authorized to bind the firm to its provisions. For this RFP, the proposal must remain valid for at least sixty days. 1-12 Acceptance of Proposal Content The contents of the proposal of the successful bidder, as mutually modified, amended or supplemented shall become contractual obligations if a contract ensues. Failure of the successful bidder to accept these obligations may result in cancellation of the award. 1-13 Interview/Oral Presentation The County may request an interview and/or oral presentation of any firms who submit a proposal. These meetings provide opportunity for the County to ask questions and f or the bidder to clarify the proposal. The Issuing Office will schedule these presentations. 1-16 Prime Contractor Responsibilities The selected firm will be required to assume responsibility for all services offered in the proposal whether or not they possess them within their organization. Further, the County will consider the selected firm to be the sole point of contact with regard to contractual matters, including payment of any and all charges resulting from the contract. I-17 Contract Payment Schedule Payment for any contract entered into as a result of this RFP will be made upon receipt and approved by the County Project Manager of the reports under each task outlined in Part III-2.B. and upon receipt of the firm's billing statement. Payments shall be the amount of each task stipulated in the cost proposal and contract. The final billing must be received no later than January 31, 1996. I-18 News Releases News releases pertaining to this RFP or the service, study, or project to which it relates will not be made without prior County approval, and then only in coordination with the Issuing Office. 1-19 Disclosure of Proposal Contents Proposals are subject to disclosure under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (P.A. 1976, Act 442). - 3- GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP REVISED: JULY 24, 1995 After contract award, a summary of total price information for all submissions will be furnished upon request to those bidders participating in this RFP. 1-20 Independent Price Determination A. By submission of a proposal, the of feror certifies, and in the case of a joint proposal each party thereto certifies as to its own organization, that in connection with this proposal: 1. The prices. of the proposal have been arrived at independently without consultation, communication, orI agreement, for the purpose of restricting competition, as to any matter relating to such prices with any other of feror or with any other competitor; 2. Unless otherwise required by law, the prices which have been quoted in the proposal have not been knowingly disclosed by the of feror and will not be knowinglyI disclosed by the of feror to any competitor; and 3. No attempt has been made or will be made by the of ferorI to induce any other person or firm to submit or not to submit a proposal for the purpose of restricting competition. B. Each person signing the proposal certifies that: 1. (S)he is the person in the of feror's organizationI responsible within the organization for the decision as to prices being offered in the proposal and that (s)he has not participated, and will not participate, in anyI action contrary to A. 1, 2, and 3, above; or 2. (S)he is not the person in the of feror's organization responsible within that organization for the decision as to the prices being offered in the proposal, but that (s)he has been authorized in writing to act as agent for the persons responsible for such decisions inI certifying that such persons have not participated, or will not participate, in any action contrary to A. 1, 2, and 3 above, and as their agent does hereby soI certify; and that (s)he has not participated, and will not participate, in any action contrary to A. 1, 2, and 3 above.3 C. A proposal will not be considered for award if the sense of the statement required in the Cost and Price Analysis portion of the proposal has been altered as to delete orI modify A. 1, A. 3, or B. above. If A. 2 has been modified or deleted, the proposal will not be considered for award -4- REVISED: JULY 24, 1995 GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP RVSD UY2,19 unless the of feror furnishes with the proposal a signed statement which sets forth in detail the circumstances of the disclosure and the Issuing Office determines that such disclosure was not made for the purpose of restricting competition. I-21 County's Liability The selected firm agrees to indemnify, defend, and save harmless the County, its officers, agents, and employees from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting from the negligent performance of work as described in any agreement that results from this RFP. Further, if any recipient of a contract subcontracts for work, they will enter into a contract with such subcontractor(s) which indemnifies the County as provided herein. - 5- GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP REVISED: JULY 24, 1995 PART II WORK STATEMENTI 11-1 Purpose of the Project Grand Traverse County is requesting for proposals from qualified firms to conduct planning research to develop a Great Lakes Water Research Center. The maximum contract amount is $45,000. 11-2 Program Statement.I The project will provide a comprehensive foundation of information that will be utilized to refine the concept for andI provide for informed decision making for the planning and development of a Center to host a diverse range of water related public attractions, such as a freshwater aquarium, interactive displays and exhibits on the ecosystem and maritime history, community sailing center, and office space for water related public agencies, educational institutions and private firms. The proposed location for the Center is the Great Lakes Maritime Academy, situated at the base of the West Arm of grand Traverse Bay, with walking distance of downtown Traverse city and visibly located on the heaviest traveled section of road in northern Michigan. The Northwestern Michigan College property encompasses approximately 7 acres, containing the Great Lakes Maritime Academy building with a deep water, protected harbor capable ofI handling a number of very large vessels, In addition, Technical/vocational Division and warehousing functions are presently housed in the old Cannery Building.I 11-2 Additional Information For over two years, a small group has been exploring the conceptI of establishing a Great Lakes Water Resources Center. With the assistance of Rotary Charities of Traverse City, funding was obtained from the Biederman Foundation and the SlaughterI Foundation to engage the Waterfront Center of Washington, D.C., a consulting firm specializing in waterfront development, to undertake a professional assessment of the concept. A reportI was prepared and presented to various key community groups in May, 1993. The report, in summary, made the following assessments and recommendations: o The Maritime Academy site is a gem and should be retained in a public educational role, a sentiment with apparent widespread support in the community. Together with adjacent,I publicly owned parcels, the site offers a prime public access point to Traverse Bay. -6- GREAT LAK(ES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP RVSD UY2,19 REVISED: JMY 24, 1995 o The basic concept for a public educational facility is sound. it now needs refinement and direction, which the Waterfront Center's report attempts to provide. o The mission of the facility should be focused on public education about all aspects of the Bay, ecological and cultural, and through this, convey insights into the Great Lakes system. Ancillary activities would be restricted to the Maritime Academy, a shop/cafe and offices; research would not be envisioned here, but rather the results of research done in the area might be displayed and explained here. o Steps should be taken to formalize the plan, to broaden and incorporate its organizing committee, to begin a public education program, to employ a staff director ($1 a year), and take beginning steps to relocate to the site activities that naturally fit. o A number of important early steps can begin right away, such as investigation of how to possibly upgrade and expand the existing marina, to properly evaluate the old cannery structure and to make sure the needs and plans of Northwestern Michigan College and its Maritime Academy are fully incorporated. The report concluded that "the idea of a Traverse Bay Center, with a sharpened focus and done well, is an excellent one." Northwestern Michigan College has conducted a study of the site to determine the buildout capacity in the context of their overall Master Plan. In addition, NMC recently launched a University Center which provides four degree programs in conjunction with a number of Michigan universities. Site planning needs to be integrated closely with the needs of NMC. The purpose of this project is to "sharpen the focus" of the Great Lakes Water Resources Center. 11-4 Tasks Listed below are the primary tasks of the Great Lakes Water Resources Center Planning Assessment Project: Task 1: Determine Site Constraints The site has tremendous potential and significant constraints due to its size and location. This task will identify the significant site contraints and outline the maximum carrying capacity of the site for development. -7 - GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP REVISED: JULY 24, 1995I Task 2: Project Reconnaisance The outcome of this task will be to identify priority uses forI the Great Lakes Water Resources Center. There are three subtasks: a) Community Consensus - A forum or design charette will be conducted to identify and prioritize key uses for the Center. The Center Task Force will provide the space andI assist in the publicity of and invitations to the charette. Proposers should outline the specific considerations in developing and conducting a consensus forum Lni~cluding aI proposed agenda, marketing efforts, and consensus tools. b) Identify Organizational Participants in the Center - From information provided by the County and culled from otherI sources, locate and identify organizations which may become tenants and/or exhibitors. Search efforts will focus on entities that provide services/products/regulations related,I but not limited to, environmental, ecological, economic and recreational aspects of the Great Lakes Basin. The NMC University Center plans will need to be closely consideredI during this task. c) Report - Provide a report on the key priority uses of the Center and users groups to target discussions forI Task 3: Design StudyI Based on the site contraints and the priority uses, the next step is to conduct a design study to more completely determine the site potential. The specific components of the design study will include the following subtasks: a) Programming - Meet with the organizational participants identified above to determine space requirements andI operational integrations with other potential facility occupants. b) Schematic Design - Prepare schematic planning documents which indicate clearly the consideration involved and the alternate solutions available to the owner. The schematic design will include schematic layouts, sketches andI preliminary design criteria and set the Professional Contractor's recommendations and establish the.scope of the project. c) Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate - a - ~~~~~I GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP RVSD UY2,19 REVISED: JULY 24, 1995 Task 4: Develop Business Plan The business plan should include the optimal organizational structure for the development and operation of the Great Lakes Resources Center and include a capital and operating budget with revenue sources. Potential funding sources will be identified and defined. These will include applicable federal, state, and local government programs, foundations, trusts, and potential tenants/exhibitors among others. In addition, funding request criteria, parameters and deadlines will be defined for funding sources when applicable. - 9 - GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP REVISED: JULY 24, 1995 PART III PROJECT CONTROL AND REPORTSI III-1 Proiect Control A. The firm will carry out the project under review of the County project manager. The Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners shall have final authority over agency/contractor agreement. B. Although there will be continuous liaison with the firm's team, the County project manager will meet as- 'needed withI the firm's project manager f or the purpose of reviewing progress and providing necessary guidance to the firm in solving problems which arise. III-2 Reports A. The firm will provide the project manager with monthlyI update reports as described in the contract. The monthly update reports should be a brief summary of work conducted in the last month and anticipated tasks and targetI completion dates for the next month. The report should also include problems, real or anticipated, which should be brought to the attention of the County project manager, and notification of any significant deviation from previouslyI agreed-upon work plans will be reported as needed. A monthly and cumulative total of billable hours must also be included in each report. B. Substantive reports on the following specific taBks will be provided to the project manager: Task I : Site Contraints Task 2 : Project Reconnaissance Task 3 : Design StudyI Task 4 : Business Plan C. A final report, as described in the contract, must beI submitted to the County project manager before the final contract payment is made. -10- GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP RVSD UY2,19 REVISED: JULY 24, 1995 IPART IV INFORMATION REQUIRED FROM BIDDERS Contract proposals must provide sufficient information to permit a determination that project requirements can be met and that the project plan will be successfully implemented. Specific objectives, general work tasks and special project organization and management requirements have been developed and are detailed in this RFP. The successful bidder must describe in sufficient detail how its plan and tasks will be implemented, the resources, materials and equipment which will be utilized, and how the necessary project management interactions will be carried out. Contract proposals must be submitted in the format outlined below: IV-1 Business Organization State the full name and address of vour organization and, if applicable, the branch office or other subordinate element that will perform, or assist in performing, the work hereunder. Indicate whether you operate as an individual, partnership, or corporation; if as a corporation, include the state in which you are incorporated. If appropriate, state whether you are licensed to operate in the State of Michigan. IV-2 Statement of the Problem State in succinct terms your understanding of the problem presented by this RFP. IV-3 Management Summary Describe in narrative form the management structure, methods, and procedures selected by your organization to complete the project as described in the RFP. Include evaluation and quality assurance measures. IV-4 Work Plan Describe in narrative form your technical plan for accomplishing the work as outlined in the Work Statement - Part II. Indicate the number of staff hours you have allocated each task. include a time-related chart such as a PERT-type display or GANTT chart, showing each event, task, and decision point in your work plan. The work statement outlines a general process for achieve the project objectives. Proposers are invited to describe alternative methods and steps to achieve the project objectives. - 11 - GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP REVISED: JULY 24, 1995 IV-5 Authorized Neciotiators Include the names and phone numbers of personnel of yourI organization authorized to negotiate the proposed contract with the County. IV-6 Prior Experience Disclosure Given the project objectives, the contractor should demonstrate an established competence with respect to development of planningI designs And business plans for waterfront development projects to achieve project objectives within time and cost constraints. Proposals submitted should include in this section a listing of qualifying experience, including project description, costs, and starting and ending dates of projects successfully completed. Additionally, include the name, address, and phone number of the responsible official of the client organization who maybe contacted. IV-7 Personnel The professional firm must be able to staff a project team which clearly possesses talent and experience in development of planning designs and business plans for waterfront development project. Include the number of executive and professional personnel by skill and qualifications that will be employed in the work. Show the inclusive periods and the time commitment in hours each individual will devote to the work. Identify key personnel by name and title. include resumes for proposedI professional personnel. IV-8 Time Frame To assist you in the preparation of your proposal, the County contemplates the project will four (4) months, from September 1, 1995 to December 31, 1995. IV-9 Cost and Price Analysis The information requested in this section is required to support the reasonableness of your quotation. Use the format that follows: -12- GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP RVSD UY2,19 REVISED: JULY 24, 1995 1.. Cost Provide a not to exceed cost proposal in the following format: TASK COST Task 1: Site Contraints Task 2: Project Reconnaissance Task 3: Design Study Task 4: Business Plan Expenses: $ $ $ $ TOTAL $ The maximum contract amount is $45,000. 2. Independent Price Determination Include a statement substantially as follows: "This cost and price analysis is submitted in full compliance with the provision of the paragraph titled 'Independent Price Determination' in Part I of the RFP to which this proposal is a response."1 IV-10 Additional Information Include any other information that is believed to be pertinent, but not specifically requested elsewhere in this RFP. - 13- GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES CENTER RFP REVISED: JULY 24, 1995 PART V CRITERIA FOR SELECTION All bids received shall be subject to an evaluation by the Issuing Office. This evaluation will be conducted in a manner appropriate to select a firm for the purpose of entering into an agreement to perform this project. The following factors will be considered in the selection: V-1 Management (10%) To what extent will the management structure ..:nsure the successful completion and quality of the project? How reasonable are the staff hours allocated to each task? How reasonable is the project timeline? V-2 Tasks (40%)I How responsive is the proposal to each of the task requirements?I Does the proposal identify specific considerations in the tasks? What is the extent of the firm's understanding of the program? How familiar is the firm with current waterfront development research and applications? How well are alternative approaches described and howI innovative are those approaches? V-3 Prior Experience and Personnel (40%)I To what extent does the staff assigned have experience and talent to assure successful project completion?I To what extent has the firm been involved in similar projects? V-4 Cost and Price Analvsis (10%) How reasonable is the total project cost?I To what extent are the costs accurately allocated between the tasks? How is the project cost compared to other bidders? - 14 - GLWRCRFP REVISED STATE ZIP NAME LNAME AFFILIATION ADDRESS CITY P-= ==================== = ======== Ayres, Lewis, Norris & May 3959 Research Park Drive Ann Arbor MI 48106 BECKETT & RAEDER INC 535 W WILLIAM SUITE 101 ANN ARBOR MI 48103 BETA DESIGN GROUP 50 MONROE PLACE, SUITE 300 GRAND RAPIDS MI 49503 Design Plus 48 Fountian NW Grand Rapids MI 49503 Earth Tech 5555 Glenwood Hills Parkway Grand Rapids Michig49588 0 ED FREER JOHNSON JOHNSON & ROY ONE N PINCKNEY STREET MADISON WI 53703 JIM HOUK BIRD HOUX & ASSOCIATES 400 METRO PLACE N SUITE 390 DUBLIN OH 43017 Gove Associates 404 Kalamazoo Plaza,Suits 20Lansing MI 48933 McKenna Associates, Inc. 38955 Hills Tech Farmington Hills MI 48331 DICK LYON LYON GROUP 860 VIA DE LA PAZ SUITE F7 PACIFIC PALLISADES CA Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. 302 S Waverly Lansing '. MI 48917 Progressive 2942-PFaner-Avs-NE Grand-Rapids Miehig49s05 ERNIE HUTTON HUTTON ASSOCIATES 72 5TH AVENUE NEW YORK NY 10011 Vilican-Leman & Associates, Inc. 26316 Franklin road Southfield MI 48034 TIM REARDON 6757 MATHISON RD TRAVERSE CITY MI 49684 BOB FORD LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS 919 E GRAND RIVER AVENUE E LANSING MI 48823 PAT MCCOOL 326 BROADWAY SUTTONS BAY MI 49682 TRAVERSE CITY MI 49682 DAVE HANAWALT CWST 513 S UNION ST Contract No. GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY AND JOHNSON JOHNSON & ROY One North Pinckney Street Madison, Wisconsin 53703 616/251-1177 Fund No. Federal I.D. No. GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT AGREEMENT AN AGREEMENT between GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY (COUNTY) and JOHNSON JOHNSON & ROY (CONSULTANT) dated September 1, 1995, consisting of Part I - Special Provisions and PART II - General Provisions, provides as follows: PART I - SPECIAL PROVISIONS Section 1.1 Statement of Purpose 1.11 The County desires to engage the Consultant to conduct planning research to develop a Great Lakes Water Research Center. 1.12 The purpose of this contract is to define the terms, conditions and tasks for the technical and professional services of the Consultant. Section 1.2 Statement of Work The Consultant shall provide the following services: The Consultant agrees to undertake, perform and complete the following tasks. The project is broken down into four overall task categories: 1.21: Determine Site Constraints Identify the significant site contraints and outline the maximum carrying capacity of the site for development. 1.22: Project Reconnaisance Identify priority uses for the Great Lakes Water Resources Center. 1.23:. Design Study Based on the site contraints and the priority uses, conduct a design study to more completely determine the site potential. 1.24: Develop Business Plan Develop a business plan which includes the optimal organizational structure for the development and operation of the Great Lakes Resources Center and include a capital and operating budget with revenue sources. The work plan is more fully described the consultant's proposal, attached to and incorporated in this contract as Rider A. CONTRACT - PAGE I GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT Section 1.3. compensation 1.31 The County agrees to pay the Consultant a lump sum not to exceed $45,000.00. This amount represents the aggregate -compensation to be paid for the entire project contemplatedI under the terms of this contract. 1.32 Payment for any contract entered into as a result of this RFP will be made upon receipt and approved by the County Project Manager of the reports under each task outlined in Section 4.C. and upon receipt of the firm's billing statement. Payments shall be the amount of e'ach taskI stipulated in the cost proposal and contract. The final billing must be received no later than January 31, 1996. 1.33 Consultant billings should be mailed to the County Project Manager listed below: Michael J. McClellandI Deputy Administrator Grand Traverse County 400 Boardman AvenueI Traverse City, Michigan 49684 Section 1.4. Project Control and Reports 1.41 The Consultant will carry out the project under the review of the County Project Manager. The Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners shall have final authority overI agency/Consultant agreements. 1.42 Although there will be continuous liaison with theI Consultant, the County Project Manager will meet monthly, at a minimum, with the Consultant's Project Manager for the purpose of reviewing progress and providing necessary guidance to the Consultant in solving problems which arise. 1.43 The Consultant will submit monthly brief written summaries of progress which outline the work accomplished; anyI problems, real or anticipated, which should be brought to the attention of the County Project Manager; and notification of any significant deviation from previouslyI agreed-upon workplans. 1.44 Substantive reports on the following specific tasks will be provided to the project manager:I Task I Site Contraints Task 2 :Project Reconnaissance Task 3 :Design Study Task 4: Business Plan CONTRACT - PAGE GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT 1.45 A final report must be submitted by the Consultant and approved by the County Project Manager prior to the end of the contract period. The final report should include, at a minimum, a description of the work undertaken, the key results of the project, recommendations for County action, and a budget report, reconciling all expenditures with the approved budget. 1.46 Nothing in the above provisions shall be read to alter the employment relationship of the Consultant being an independent contractor for the County. Performance of this contract is within the control of the Consultant and the County disclaims any liability, in tort or otherwise, caused by the actions of the Consultant. 1.47 The Consultant shall indemnify and save harmless the County from any damages which the County may sustain, in any manner, through the misconduct or negligence of the Consultant. 1.48 All reports, charts, graphs, databases, and other information developed and/or provided under this contract will be submitted in machine readable form and well as written text with format and protocol mutually compatible to the hardware and software needs of the Consultant and the County. Section 1.5. Period of Performance The Consultant shall commence performance of this contract September 1, 1995 and shall complete performance no later than December 31, 1995. Section 1.6. Administration of Contract It is understood and agreed that the agency or officer designated to administer this contract may be changed, at the County's discretion upon notice in writing to the Consultant. See Part 11, Section 2.4. Section 1.7. Oral Agreements This agreement is to be considered a complete document between the County and the Consultant, and each warrant that there are no mutual oral agreements. CONTRACT - PAGE 3 I I a! GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT I Contract No. I I I THIS CONTRACT IS HEREBY ACCEPTED I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we sign our names and attach our seals. I In the Presence of I I I Date Witness V by T)tIM> ALxt /1A-ulb Marga3> t Underwood, Chair Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners I Virginia Watson, Clerk M Grand Traverse County Frdd Klancnik, Vice President Johnson, Johnson & Roy/Inc. Date Date I I I I I I I CONTRACT - PAGE 4 GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT PART I I GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 2.1. County Project Manager Whenever used in this contract, the term "Project Manager" means the person acting for the County to review work on this project and who is responsible for working with the Consultant throughout life of the project. The Project Manager will eva luate the quality and adequacy of the product and make recomrimendations to the Contracting Officer regarding the successful completion of the contract and authorization of payment. The person designated to act as authorized Project Manager for this contract is: Michael J. McClelland, Deputy Administrator Section 2.2. Conduct and Standard of Work Unless otherwise provided in this contract, the Consultant with due diligence shall furnish, manage, and direct all necessary qualified personnel, material and equipment to complete the work described in Section 2 of Part I of this contract. In determining whether or not the Consultant has performed with due diligence, it is agreed and understood that the Project Manager may measure the amount and quality of the Consultant's effort against the representations made by the Consultant in the written proposal and in the negotiation of this contract. The Consultant's work shall be carried out under the supervision of the Project Manager. The Project Manager may issue written or oral instructions to fill in details in the statement of work described in or referred to in Section 2, Part I of this contract. Any instructions that affect the scope of work, price, period of performance, or any other provision of this contract must be in accordance with specific provisions of the contract. The Consultant agrees that the performance of the services under this contract shall be in a manner consistent with that degree fo care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the same profession currently practicing under similar circumstances. Section 2.3. Key Personnel Any personnel specified in Rider A to this contract are considered to be essential to the work being performed in this Project. Prior to diverting any of the specified individuals to other programs, the Consultant shall notify the Project Manager reasonably in advance and shall submit justification, including proposed substitutions, in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of the impact on the program. CONTRACT - PAGE 5 GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT Section 2.4. Changes The Project Manager may at any time make changes within the general scope of this contract in any one or more of the following: format, content, number of required copies, time and place for submission of reports,' and other documentation.I Written copies of changes made by the Project Manager will be made available to the Consultant. If any such change causes an increase or decrease in the cost of, or the time required for,I the performance of any part of the work under this contract, whether changed or not changed by any such order, an equitable adjustment shall be made in the contract price or delivery schedule, or both, and the contract shall be modified in writing accordingly. Any claim by the Consultant for adjustment under this clause must be requested within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt by the Consultant of the notification of change.I Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute concerning a question of fact within the meaning of Section 110 below entitled "Disputes." However, nothing in this program shall excuse the Consultant from proceeding with the contract as changed. Section 2.5. ExtrasI Except as otherwise provided in this contract, no payment for extras shall be made unless such extras and the price thereforI have been submitted as formal amendments to this contract approved by the Program Manager and Contracting Officer. Section 2.6. SubcontractsI Unless otherwise provided for in this contract, no subcontract, other than those originally proposed and agreed upon, shall be made by the Consultant with any other party for furnishing any of the work or services of this Project contracted for without the prior consent and approval of the Project Manager and ContractingI Officer. Any subcontract entered into subsequent to the execution of the contract must be annotated "approved" by the Project Manager and by the Contracting Officer before it is compensable. This provision should not be construed as requiringI the approval of contracts of employments between the Consultant and personnel assigned for services. Section 2.7. Termination The performance of work under the contract may be terminated by the County in whole or, from time to time, in part whenever forI any reasons the Contracting officer shall determine that such termination is in the best interest of the County. -Any such termination shall be effected by delivery to the Consultant of CONTRACT -PAGE 6 GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT a "Notice of Termination" specifying the extent to which performance of the work under the contract is terminated and the date on which such termination becomes effective. The contract shall be equitably adjusted to compensate for such termination and the contract modified accordingly; failure to agree to any such adjustment shall be a dispute concerning a question of fact within the meaning of the clause of this contract entitled "Disputes."1 The Consultant may terminate this Agreement upon giving the County fourteen (14) calendar days prior written notice for any of the following reasons: 1. Breach by the County of any material term of this Agreement including but not limited to Payment Terms; 2. transfer of ownership of the project by the County to any other persons or entities not a party to this Agreement without the prior written agreement of the Consultant. 3. Material changes in the conditions under which this Agreement was entered into, coupled with the failure of the parties to reach accord on the fees and charges for any additional services required because of such changes. Section 2.8. Def ault 2.8.1 The Contracting Officer may, subject to the provisions of Section 2.8.4. below, terminate for reason of default the whole or any part of this contract. The Contracting Officer may terminate a contract for reason of default in any one of the following circumstances: 2.8. 1.1. 2.8. 1.2 If the Consultant fails to perform the services within the time specif ied or any extension; or If the Consultant fails to perform any of the other provisions of this contract, or so fails to make progress as to endanger performance of this contract in accordance with its terms, and in either of these two circumstances does not cure such failure within a period of ten (10) days (or such longer period as the Contracting Officer may authorize in writing) after receipt of notice from the Contracting Officer specifying such failure. CONTRACT - PAGE 7 GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT 2.8.2 Notice of default shall be effected by delivery to the Consultant of a "Notice of Default," specifying the reason for default, the extent to which the performance of the work under the contract is terminated, and the date on which such termination through default becomes effective. 2.8.3 In the event the County terminates this contract in whole or in part as provided in Section 2.8.A., the County may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as theI Contracting Officer may deem appropriate, services similar to those so terminated, and the Consultant shall be liable to the County for any excess costs for such similar services and such liability shall be limited'.to, the amount already received by the Consultant under the contract. 2.8.4 Except with respect to defaults of subcontractors, the Consultant shall not be liable for any excess costs if the failure to perform the contract arises out of causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant. Such causes may include, but are not limited to, acts of God or of the public enemy, acts of the County in either its sovereign or contractual capacity, riots, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes? freight embargoes, and unusually severe weather; but in every case the failure to perform must be beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of theI Consultant. If the failure to perform is caused by the default of the subcontractor, and if such default arises out of causes beyond the control of both the Consultant and subcontractor and without the fault or negligence of either of them, the Consultant shall not be liable for any excess costs for failure to perform, unless the services to be furnished by the subcontractor were obtainable from otherI sources in sufficient time to permit the Consultant to meet the required delivery schedule. 2.8.5 If this contract is terminated as provided in Section 2.7 or in Section 2.8.1., the County, in addition to any other rights provided in this paragraph, may require the Consultant to transfer title and deliver to the County inI the manner and to the extent directed by the Contracting Officer, such partially completed reports or other documentation as the Consultant has specifically producedI or specifically acquired for the performance of such part of this contract as has been terminated. Payments f or completed reports and other documentation delivered to and accepted by the County shall be at the contract price. Payment for partially completed reports and other documentation delivered to and accepted by the County shall be in an amount agreed upon by the Consultant andI Contracting Officer. Failure to agree to such amount shall CONTRACT -PAGE 8 GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT be a dispute concerning a question of fact within the meaning of the paragraph of this contract entitled "Disputes," Section 2.9. 2.8.6 If, after notice of termination through default of this contract under the provisions of Section 2.9, it is determined for any reasons that the Consultant was not in default under the provisions of this Section, or that the default was excusable under the provisions of this Section, the rights and obligations of the parties shall be the same as if the notice of termination had been issued pursuant to the Section 2.7 entitled "Termination." 2.8.7 The rights and remedies of the County provided in this paragraph shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this contract. Section 2.9. Disputes 2.9.1 In an effort to resolve any conflicts that arise during the design of construction of the project or following the completion of the project, the County and the Consultant agree that all disputes between them arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be submitted to nonbinding mediation unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. The County and the Consultant further agree to include a similar mediation provision in all agreements with independent Consultants and consultants retained for the project and to require all independent contractors and consultants also ton include a similar mediation provision in all agreements with subcontractors, subconsultants, suppliers or fabricators so retained, thereby providing for mediation as the primary method for dispute resolution between the parties to those agreements. 2.9.2 This "Disputes" paragraph does not preclude consideration of law questions in connection with decisions provided for in Section 2.8.A. provided that nothing in this contract shall be construed as making final the decision of any administrative official, representative, or board on a question of law. Section 2.10. Officials Not To Benefit No member of the County Board of Commnissioners or any individual employed by the County shall be admitted to any share or part of this contract, or to any benefit that may arise thekefrom, unless the contract or transaction has been approved by 3/4 of the CONTRACT - PAGE 9 GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT members of the County Board of commissioners and so shown on the minutes of the Board together with a showing that the Board is cognizant of the member's or employee's interest. Section 2.11. Covenant Against Contingent Fees3 The Consultant warrants that it has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant to solicit or secure this contract, and that (s)he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona f ide employee working solely for the Consultant any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award orI making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the County shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or, in its discretion, to deduct from the contract price or consideration the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee. Section 2.12. County Held HarmlessI The Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless the County, its officers, agents and employees from any and allI claims and losses accruing or resulting to any and all contractors, subcontractors, material providers, laborers and any other person, firm or corporation furnishing or supplying work, services, materials or supplies in connection with the negligentI performance of this contract, and from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person firm, or corporation who may be injured or damaged by the Consultant orI subcontractor's negligence in the performance of this contract and against liability, including costs and expenses, for violation of proprietary rights, copyrights, or rights of privacy. Section 2.13. Independent Capacity of Consultant3 The parties hereto agree that the Consultant, and any agents and employees of the Consultant in the performance of this agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers,I employees or agents of the County. Section 2.14. Assignability This agreement is not assignable by the Consultant either in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the Contracting Officer. CONTRACT -PAGE 10 GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT Section 2.15. Inspection and Acceptance inspection and acceptance of all work required under this contract shall be performed by the Project Manager, or such person duly authorized in writing. Section 2.16. Collection or Recording of information The Project Manager may require the Consultant to submit for approval prior to use copies of each questionnaire and survey plan, including plans for structured interviews and consultations, for the collection of information upon identical items from five or more individuals or organizational elements. The term "structured interview and consultation"i is def ined as an interview or consultation which follows a predesigned line of questioning that takes approximately the same form for all the respondents being interviewed or consulted. Section 2.17. Publication Rights All property rights, including publication rights, in the interim, draft and final reports and other documentation, including machine readable materials, produced by the Consultant in connection with the work provided for under this contract shall vest in the County. The Consultant shall not publish any of the results of the work without the written permission of the Contracting Officer. Section 2.18. Other Consultants The County may undertake or award other contracts for additional or related work, and the Consultant shall fully cooperate with such other contractors and County employees and carefully fit this work to such additional work. The Consultant shall not commit or permit any action which will interfere with the performance of work by any other Consultant or by County employees. This paragraph shall be included in the contracts of all Consultants with whom this Consultant will be required to cooperate. The County shall equitably enforce this paragraph as to all Consultants, to prevent the imposition of unreasonable burdens on any Consultant. Section 2.19. Competition in Subcontracting The Consultant shall select subcontracts (including suppliers) on a competitive basis to the maximum practical extent consistent with the objectives and requirements of the contract. CONTRACT - PAGE 11 GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT Section 2.20. Gratuities A. The County may, by written notice to the Consultant, terminate the right of the Consultant to proceed under this contract if it is found, after notice and hearing, by the Contracting officer or a duly authorized representative,I that gratuities in the form of entertainment, gifts or otherwise were offered or given by the Consultant to any officer or employee of the County with a view towardI securing a contract or securing favorable treatment with respect to the performing of such contract; provided that the existence of the facts upon which the Contracting Of ficer or a duly authorized representative m'nakes suchI findings shall be in issue and may be reviewed in any competent court. B. In the event this contract is terminated as provided in Section 2.8.A., the County shall be entitled to pursue the same remedies against the Consultant as it could pursue in the event of a breach of the contract by the Consultant, and as a penalty in addition to any other damages to which it may be entitled by law, to exemplary damages in an amount, as determined by the Contracting Officer or representative,I which shall not be less than three nor more than ten times the cost incurred by the Consultant in providing any such gratuities to any such officer or employee. C. The rights and remedies of the County provided in this paragraph shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under contract. Section 2.21. Consultant's Liability The Consultant will provide as Rider B of this contract documentation of public and professional liability, directors and officers, property damage, and workers' compensation insurance insuring, as they may appear, the interests of all parties to this Agreement against any and all claims which may arise out of Consultant operations under the terms of this contract. It is agreed that in the event any carrier of such insurance exercisesI cancellation, notice will be made immediately to the County of such cancellation. Section 2.22. Nondiscrimination A. The Consultant agrees to comply with all pertinent federal and state regulations and legislation involving civilI rights, equal opportunity, and affirmative action including, but not limited to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Act No. 453, Michigan Public Acts of 1976, Act 220 of the CONTRACT -PAGE 12 GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT Public Acts of 1976, Michigan Handicapper's Civil Rights Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, P.L. 93-112, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. B. The Consultant hereby agrees that any and all subcontracts to this contract, whereby a portion of the work set forth in this contract is to be performed, shall contain a covenant the same as set forth in Section 2.22.A. above. Section 2.23. Contract Construction The provisions of this contract shall be construed- in accordance with the provisions of State and Federal laws and'local ordinances. Section 2.24. Disclosure of Information The Consultant agrees that the reports and conclusions are for the confidential information of the County and will not disclose conclusions, in whole or in part, to any unauthorized person without the prior written consent of the Contracting Officer. Section 2.25. Records, Accounts and Audits The Consultant shall maintain such records and accounts, including property and personnel records, time sheets, travel vouchers, fringe benefit rates, overhead rates and other necessary documentation to assure a proper accounting of all contract funds for a period of three (3) years. The retention period starts from the date of the Consultant's accepted final report. Such records shall be made available to the County, the State or Federal grantor agency, the Comptroller General of the United States, and any of their duly authorized representatives upon request for audit purposes. Section 2.26. Federal Regulation The Consultant, and any subcontractor, shall take notice and adhere to any applicable Federal regulation. The Consultant assumes sole liability for any non-compliance of these regulations. Section 2.27. Unfair Labor Practices. In accordance with Act 278 of the Public Acts of 1980, the Consultant shall not enter into a contract with a subcontractor, manufacturer or supplier listed in the register maintained by the State of Michigan, Department of Labor, or employers who have been found in contempt of court by a Federal Court of Appeals on .not less than three occasions involving different violations during the preceeding seven years for failure to correct an unfair practice as prohibited by Section 8 of Chapter 372 of the CONTRACT - PAGE 13 I GREAT LAKES CENTER CONTRACT National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158. The County may terminate this contract as provided in Section 2.8 if the name of the employer or the name of a subcontractor, manufacturer or supplier of the employer subsequently appears in the register during the performance period of this contract. CONTRACT -PAGE 14 I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I GREAT LANES CENTER CONTRACT I. KEY PERSONNEL The people listed here are considered essential to the success of the project. Ed Freer, Project Manager, JJR Fred Klancnik, Principal Engineer, JJR Dong Denison, Principal, JJR Brian Trossen, Business and Financial Planning, TAI Realty Advisors Bob Sommerville, Architectural Programming, AAI Pat McCool, Public Funding Analysis CONTRACT - PAGE 15 . 1. Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan 29 September 1995 Page I WORKSHOP PROCESS AND SCOPE The workshop approach will enable the Grand Traverse County, the Project Task Team, and the consultant team to consider all important issues, and the inter-relationships between them, while being selective in determining the level of detail which should be app'lied to the planning assessment of the Great Lakes Water Resources Center. The development program and issues idenfified must be addressed in an integrated fashion if the overall strategy for the Resources Center, site constraints, community context, and implementation strategies are to be brought into clear focus. It is difficult--and often risky--to develop detailed action strategies for a masterplan without having first established the relationships of the primary issues and objectives. As a result, an important product of the Water Resources Center Workshop will be the development of a framework concept which underlines the critical relationships between decisions concerning user groups, site utilization, environmental quality, development patterns, access circulation, and parking and their impact on the community and waterfront. The framework concept will establish policy directions which help to ensure that management initiatives and capital investments are coordinated to produce the maximum possible benefit for Northwestern Michigan College, Great Lakes Water Resources Center and the community at large. The definition of priority issues and solution strategies is also an important goal of the workshop approach. It is essential to establish a clear sense of direction -- a framework for decision- making which will result in a sound schematic plan. We believe that the workshop process and products will guide the development of a schematic plan as well as establish the foundation for enlisting the financial and political support needed to follow up with the development of detailed implementation strategies. The workshop process will provide a forum for local decision-makers and consultant team mnembers to share ideas and gain an expanded understanding of the pre-requisites for the success of Great Lakes Water Resources Center, and in the implementation of specific projects. The workshop products -- graphic and narrative -- Will also be effective tools in enlisting interest, support for specific follow-up activifies and assist in critical funding campaigns. The following premises and principles highlight the fundamentals of the JJR team approach to waterfrontiland use planning. We believe that the same qualities that make a community unique, environmentally rich and an enjoyable place for people also make it a more productive t ~~~~~~~~~~~~~I Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan 29 September 1995 Page 2 market and a more competitive location for private investment. As a result, the Water Resources Center site programming, site utilization/planning and economic development strategies must be explored in tandem.3 The Resource Center's economic vitality and environmental quality depends on the mix of uses that draw people for a variety of reasons and in sufficient numbers to create a balance between productive use and quality of the experience. A facility's image and identity is also influenced by its character as a place. In particular, the waterfront quality as a setting for public access, educational opportunities, open space and as a backdrop to the residential and commercial neighborhoods as well as Grand Traverse Bay itself plays a critical role in"determining whether people will choose to support a facility of this nature both short and long term. The Underlvina Premises A. The Great Lakes Water Resources Center is worth the effort. Although a significant investment in time, energy and resources may be needed to incrementally plan and implement this facility, this investment will pay dividends for the community as a whole. * Current and future public ownership and use of this site significantly enhances theI community. � The West Arm of the Grand Traverse Bay's historic significance and influence on the community's growth presents a major opportunity.I * An environmentally sound waterfront creates the image and identity of a community that values a sound quality of life.I � Current downtown development strategies can be strengthened by promoting access and positive interaction with the waterfront.I � A healthy waterfront becomes a powerful catalyst for economic growth.I * The Water Resources Center can express a unique community heritage. This heritage can- become an important part of Grand Traverse County's image and market appeal. � When the Water Resources Center has a diverse mix of uses and appropriate linkag'es, it provides a special setting for social interaction public ownership and personal enjoyment. * The Bay is an important visual symbol of community identity - an expression of what the community thinks about itself and remains one of Traverse City's greatest amenities. * It is appropriate to expand the current educational role of the project site. Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan 29 September 1995 Page 3 B. Each Community has special assets on which to build. Traverse City/Grand Traverse County need to make the most of the waterfronts use, physical characteristics and public access in defining a vision uniquely tailored to local resources and potentials. The goal is to build on these opportunities and to use them effectively. C. Waterfronts are for and about community well being. The most fundamental'objective in waterfront planning is to provide access and continuity to the waterfront. The activity generated by one function helps to provide suppoff for other functions. This serves as a magnet for people, economic growth and environmental enhancement. All of these become indicators of a healthy and desirable community. *If the Water Resources Center is to be a public environment designed for the community it must be created so that it is convenient, comfortable, and interesting for people to engage. Carefully located, well-designed walkways and open spaces with appropriate site utilization will promote people activity which support the community's economic, educational and social functions. *Given the diverse program of the Great Lakes Water Resources Center the mix of uses is equally important. These uses must be a balance of the built and natural environment. Moreover, these uses must be effeetively linked together. D. Cities and their waterfronts don't happen by accident. The process of community-building is complex, with many players and individual decisions influencing outcomes. But it is possible to shape the character of a community and its waterfront if a vision for the future is defined and an effective framework for achieving that vision is established. * The planning process should help to establish a broad understanding of, and support for, the basic charactedistics and principles that make the community and its waterfront an active, interesting, enjoyable place. � Efforts should be focused on achieving community consensus as a mandate for action. � The master plan must clearly define objectives, an organizing framework of concepts, and action strategies that serve as a guide to decision-making. * Patience and persistence are essenfial; realizing a master plan and its vision for the Great Lakes Water Resources Center is a long-term effort. Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan 29 September 1995 Page 4 E. Publiclprivate partnership is needed. This partnership approach should apply to more than joint venture projects and cost-sharing. It should also include the ongoing participation of the local business community in defining planning objectives, issues, and solutions. Priniciples: A. Emphasize public access and broad variety of activity. B. Ensure a balance of uses and activity that don't negatively impact adjacent uses or environmental quality.I C. Link major activity to the Say using distinctive treatments, open spaces, and site utilization to create complementar programs.I D. Concentrate on the environmental quality to create a positive setting for people promoting environmental awareness.I E. Create a clear organizing structure to help people understand how the Great Lakes Water Resources Center and the adjacent land use, downtown, and open space fit together.I F. Foster a distinctive identity, a recognizable image that has both personal and communal meaning. -I G. Foster a distinctive identity that will have a locallregional/national significance. Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan 29 September 1995 Page 5 WORKSHOP APPROACH The goal of the proposed workshop approach is to maximize the productive use of limited available dollars by applying these principles in developing a Schematic Plan for the long term development of Great Lakes Water Resources Center. The planning workshop,will yield two different, but related products: * A framework concept which establishes overall directions for decisions concerning the overall Resource Center's image and its relationship to Grand Traverse Bay, environmental education, open space, community context, circulation, parking, public access and use of the Bay. � Action recommendations which focus on issues of immediate concern and identify site/project-specific opportunities. This will set the foundation for the framework of mid and long term implementation strategies. The workshop will focus on these primary planning issues: * Key issues and priorities � Site programming * Innovative site utilization ideas * Community access and linkage * Bay access and use � A clear strategy for implementation and follow through * Community consensus The workshop approach, described in the following pages, is structured in three parts: * Preparation � On-site workshop * Documentation and the development of the Schematic Master Plan. TASK I - PREPARATION/SITE CONSTRAINTS A. Definition of priority issues JJR will meet with client representatives, to define the Great Lakes Water Resources Center issues/topics of priority concern. A city/county staff prepared description of available background information will also be reviewed and discussed. Additional data needs will-be identified. Great Lakes Water Resources Center traverse City, Michigan 29 September 1995 Page 6 B. Definition of information needs A summary of priority issues and the description of available background information w(ill beI circulated to members of the consultant team. The JJR team will outline additional data needs, hi ghlighting essential vs. dsiWrable information. C. '1Briefing Summary"1 Preparation and Review Using the consultant teams' additional data needs as a guide, the local task team will assist JJ RI in preparing a '1briefina summarv'1 providing background data (including maps) on land uselmarket, circulation, parking and general issues within the. The eity staff team will also provide reproducible base maps of the study area and its community context. JJR will provideI a slide and/or video inventory of the study area. The JJR team will review this background information and outline a preliminary approach to theI issues. Any additional data needs and/or essential community interview requirements will be identified at this time. The initial definition of priority issues will also be reviewed and clarified or amended (as appropriate). D. On-site Workshop Logistics In consultation with the local task team, JJR w(ill prepare a written description of the proposed on-site workshop agenda and identify local participants. This description will be circulated to all members of the consultant team for review and comment. Based on this review, a final agendaI will be prepared and approved by committee. The client will be responsible, for reserving space for the workshop and scheduling local participation. TASK 2 - PROJECT RECONNAISANCE/WORKSHOP NOTE: The format and agenda for the workshop vwill be determined with the local task team and JJR input. The following outline represents one possible option. Dav One: Team Reconnaissance Great Lakes Water Resources Center task team representatives and the JJR team members will participate in a walking/driving tour of the community and site area. Issues andI opportunities will be highlighted. Consultant team members will interview local experts on key'issues, e.g., Northwestern Michigan College board members, University Center Members, Maritime Heritage interests, Environmental Educators, Maritime Academy Administrators; City and County department/agency representatives', Visitor and Convention Bureau, and Strategic downtown stake holders. (These interviews will be scheduled in advance by the local task team and city/county staff). Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan 29 September 1995 Page 7 JJR will prepare an Issues and Opportunities Diagram in preparation for the planning workshop. Dav Two: Workshop) A. Preliminary Framework Concept JJR will present the Issues and Opportunities Diagram as a starting point for participant discussion. A written record of review comments and recommended directions will be made during the workshop. The product of this workshop will be a graphic illustration of the Preliminary Framework Concept. Objectives and principles for guiding future decision-making will be summarized. An overall implementation sequence w(ill also be discussed. B. Consensus on Issues/Projects The special issues and specific projects which will serve as the focus for further discussion and will be identified before the conclusion of this session. C. Action Strategies The final session will be devoted to discussions on prioeitization of special issues and specific project potentials. These discussions will use the Preliminary Framework Concept as a reference. Participants will "brainstorm' implementation approaches based on past experience, translating these approaches into strategies tailored to the Great Lakes Water Resources Center. A written record of recommendations and the rationale behind them will be developed. This workshop s~ession will conclude with a summary review of the Preliminary Framework Concept and recommended action strategies. "Next steps' will be identified and prioritized to give the participants an immediate action agenda. TASK 3 - DESIGN STUDYISCHEMATIC PLAN A. Workshop Summary JJR will prepare a summary report (approximately 10 pages in length) documenting the workshop recommendations in graphic and narrative form. Graphics generated during the workshop will be refined for consistency and clarity of content. Additional graphics, illustrating concepts and/or development potentials discussed during the workshop, will be prepared as part of the final schematic plan recommendations. The summary will be circulated to the project task team and the JJR team members for review. This summary will then be presented to the County Commissioners. (We re'commend that this be a public meeting.) Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan 29 September 1995 Page 8 B. Review/Comment and Preparation of a Draft Schematic Plan Review comments (clarifications and amendments) will be submitted to JJR as the basis forU preparing a draft schematic plan. This draft will once again be reviewed by the local task team and presented to the County Commissioners. (We recommend that this be a public meeting.) C. Final Schematic Plan Based on City/County and task team feed back a final schematic plan and summary report willI be provided. The report will be provided in both hard copy and electronic file. A color-laser reproduction (8 112"x I 1") of Framework Concept & Final Schematic Plan will be included. -Fifty copies (Xerox-reproduced) of the final report will be provided. The final master planI recommendation will be illustrated and submitted on a wall sized reproducible mylar plan and one "birds eye view" sketch of the project area. TASK 4 - BUSINESS PLAN The business plan will include a proposed organizational structure for the development and operation of the Great Lakes Resources Center. Capital and operation budgets will be prepared along with a table of potential funding sources. Implementation strategies will be discussed and integrated throughout the planning process. A. Identify Proarammina Ooiportunities It is envisioned that the Center will provide for a range of water-related public attractions environmental interpretator, a community sailing center, and 'office space for water-related public agencies, institutions and private firms." Alternative programming opportunities will beI discussed at the Workshop, and discussions during the Workshop will allow the JJR Project Team (the Team) to conclude an "optimal programming configuration" which will provide design guidance relating to the amount, and type, of space that the Center will include. In preparation for the Workshop, the Team will speak w(ith representatives of'similar facilities and educational institutions, as well as members of the local business community, to determine the type of synergy that might materialize, and Will identify the level of interest that might be shown by potential tenants and users of the Center. These conversations will lead the Team to propose a programming configuration which might include such elements as an environmental research and educational facility, exhibition and conference hall, laboratory-demonstratio'n space, office space and potentially, retail space offering books and other water-research and Great-Lakes-related materials.3 The Business Plan will evaluate each element of the programming configuration. This evaluation may address such characteristics as: (i) attendance (or visitor)-generating3 capability; (ii) revenue-generating capability; (iii) seasonality; (iv) associated operating costs; and; (v) staffing requirements. This evaluation will allow the Teanm to identify which program Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan 29 September 1995 Page 9 elements appear to be most economically viable, and which will likely represent the greatest level of financial risk to the Center. B. Define Oraanizational Structure and Staffina Reauirements Based on the array of program elements that the Center can accommodate, we will define staffing requirements that will be needed to organize, and provide for the continuous operation, of the Center. We expect that full- and part-time staffing requirements will be supplemented by a volunteer program; w~e propose to speak with representatives of the College, and other local community and educational groups to better determine the extent that volunteer-efforts can be integrated into the Centeres operations. We will estimate staffing salaries that will be appropriate to attract comnpetent management to the Center, and will prepare an annual staffing budget which wvill include all annual salary and related overhead expenses. We will also design an organizational structure for the Center which appears to best provide the technical, administrative, financial and marketing (promotional) skills that will be needed to assure the continued operation of the Center. C. Estimate Annual Ooeratina Revenues The programming elements that will influence the Center's design will also irnpact its annual operating revenues. We will evaluate programming elements and provide estimates of the gross operating revenues that might be associated with each. For instance, we will develop assumptions regarding the length and frequency of, and attendance at, specific educational programs that the Center might sponsor. We will estimate the frequency that exhibition space at the Center will be utilized, and we will develop assumptions relating to the length of, and attendance at, such exhibitions. We will estirnate the extent to which private, institutional or public-sector groups might lease space at the Center, and the level of rents that the Center can likely charge for such space. Based on this analysis, we Will evaluate each programming element as its own "gross profit center". This preliminary analysis will allow us to identify which elements represent the highest level of commercial success and which are likely to become self-sufficient. D. Estimate Annual Ooeratino Exoenditures There are no historic operations upon which to base estimates of forecasted operating revenues for the proposed Center. However, based on the experiences of similar (or comparable) facilities, and on personnel costs resulting from the organizational structure (defined in Task 4-B, above), we will estirmate annual operating expenditures for the Center, for from a five-year-to-ten-year period. In combination with operating revenues (developed in Task 4-C, above), we will prepare estimates of annual operating income (or loss) for the Center for the same five-year-to-ten-year period. Based upon the Center's forecasted, annual operating performance, we may propose changes to the Center, its design, programming elements and/or expected staffing levels. Great Lakes Water Resources Center Traverse City, Michigan 29 September 1995 Page 10 E. Strateaies for Meetina Fundina Reauirements and Oo)eratina Deficits The Design Study/Schematic Plan (Task 3) will document a design plan for the Center and estimate the total construction cost of the program. We wilt explore with the County options for funding the construction program, including grants, contributions and loans. To the extent that a sponsor-entity (possibly the County, or a to-be-formed, not-for-profit entity) borrows fundsI (either taxable or tax-exempt) to finance the construction of the Center, we w(ill evaluate the impact that resulting d6bt service will have on the prospective operations of the Center. To the extent that the Center is forecasted to provide insufficient operating revenues to offset both forecasted operating expenses and debt service, it will incur an annual deficit and wiill.have to rely upon supplemental grants or endowments to sustain operations. We will evaluate theI potential size of such deficits, and will explore available options (including federal and state programs). While we do not propose to carry out a detailed feasibility study for the Center, we will assist Grand Traverse County staff in determining whether the concept of the Great Lakes Water Resources Center appears feasible, subject to a specific set of operating and funding assumptions. PROJECT SCHEDULE The following schedule is proposed for the Great Lake Water Resource Center, Planning Assessment. This schedule depends heavily on the client's ability to assist in gathering "briefing book7 information and in scheduling local participation in interviews and the planning charrette.3 Task I Preparation/Site Constraints 4 weeks Task 2 Project Reconnaissance/Workshop 5 weeks Task 3 Design Study/Schematic Plan 6 weeks Task 4 Business Plan I week Total Project Schedule 16 weeks3 is~docsNproposaNraverse\WORKSHOP.DOC3 JJR Great Lakes Water Resource Center 1' to: . . Week * Tasks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 - a~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. - 1. Preparation I Site Constraints Collect Data Analysis *I Determine Site Constraints Briefing Summary, 2. Project Reconnaissance I Workshops . ', ,nUl Workshop Preparation ', [ Workshop at Traverse City i Workshop Summary Report 3. Design Study / Schematic Plan Programming Summary L I a Preliminary Schematic Plan Preliminary Cost Estimate ,,, . , ', , Final Schematic Plan - ': Final Report 4. Business Plan a Potential Structure Funding Sources , e. Implementation Strategies 10 11 13 14 15 12 16 ' ' 1 . I 1. . . . *1 * A LL * Workshop - Public Presentation * Trip to Traverse City NMC MASTER PLAN JAN--13--95 FRI 11:18 CAMPUS THE NMC UNIVERSITY CENTER IS THE BElT VALUE IN HIGHER E�UCAITION. SERVICES WHAT IS 1 9221399 P.02 r 'HE I U "TQ t dr � ". rHE UNIVERSITY CENTEll? V; ). The University Center is a partnership among Northwestern Michigan College, the citizens of the five-county region, public schools and Midligan universities. Its goal is to bring more baccalaureate and advanced degree programs, continuing education, and high school curriculum enrichment to students, adults, employers, seniors-to all area residencs who seek to improve their lives through education. The University Center will not replace or change Northwestern Michigan College. NMC will remain a comprehensivecommunity college offering the first two years of a baccalaureate degree for students who wish to transfer to a university and over 30 health, business, and rechniical programs for students who wish to enter the workplace. From a central location at NMC's Boardman Lake campus, the University Center will coordinate a variety of educational programs bringing professors and experts to the NMC campus and also transmitting instruction througll the technology of interactive classrooms to 'satellite campuses' at participating area high schools. I If I * 1 I I 4 I I I , 2 JAN-13-95 FRI 11:s9 CAMPUS SERVICES 9221399 P. 03 1 I I Also in the interest of efficiency and economy, it may take sorne transition time to consolidate certain uses back into the main campus. I U N U B SUB-CAMUS SITES Northwestern Michigan College is a commuter College. Ninety-four percent (94%) of current students drive to and from the campus center where their interests focus. There is little need to drive between campus centers as long as the student can deal with their interests on that campus in a given day. In this sense each sub-campus can be considered in view of how efficiently and effectively it can serve a given set of interrelated interests. For instance, some programs call for a special location such as an airport, a waterfront or a location close to a certain concentration of users. Given the difficulty of predicting future needs and the Northwestern Michigan College mission to serve a broad range of educational interests, the sub-camnpus is an important mechanism for the College to be flexible, responsive and effective. But, the College must evaluate its physical facilities as a single network supporting an integrated teaching and learning system in order to determine when an investment is most cost-effectlve when made on the main campus, on a sub-campus or in some other outreach location. Following is a review of current sub-campus sites other than the main campus: I I I I U I I p I I I I I TECHNICAL CENTER SITU (5.32A) Once the site of a cherry processing plant, this site has long been the location for the Maritime Academy and its associated building, dock area, parking and boat launching point. Maintenance, supply and storage, auto technology and some office space have also been housed in one of the original industrial buildings along Front Street. The site is a prominent one, located between two public waterfront parks, fronting on Grand Traverse Bay (West Arm) and served by Front Street, Traverse City 's main business artery. The site is approximately one mile west of the main campus. In the interests of increasing the effectiveness of the main campus as a singular, more compact and more efficient academic community, it is reasonable to relocate the maintenance center and the technical 4 I I I N N I I I I I I I I I JasN-13-95 FRI 1 1:19 CAMPUS SERVICES 9221399 P.04 |. programs into close proximity of the campus core. This move would open up the Front Street portion of the site to alternative uses. l~ U~~The Maritime Acalemy seems appropriately located on the Grand Traverse Bay. Direct access to the Great Lakes is important to the program and the site works well and I there is a strong and fitting sybolism between the maritime focus of the program and the Traverse Bay location. It is assumed that if the program needed to expand it could do so adequately within the footprint of the existing building. Assumi ng that the Maritime Academy remains in its present I|~~ - location and the maintenance/technical operations are re- located to the main campus area, a fresh approach to site development is possible. I|~~~ Flanked by two waterfront parks, future development could include a strategy to open up broader views of West Bay from Front Street as well as allow for a greenway connection between the two parks along Front Street. Some building expansion could occur in the "shadow" of the existing Maritime Academy building and parking could be sustained within such an open space framework while increasing visual exposu r e to the Bay from the Front Street busin ess c orridor. l~~~ | ~These opportunities call for the removal of the original industrial building along Front Street and shaping a program that could fit with the unique water amenities of the site. Although the feasibility of this approach has not been fully determined it should be seriously studied. *bOARDMAN IK SITE (31 acres) Because of its Boardman Lake waterfront and its central location in the City, there are long term development I|~~~ t possibilities on this site. It could very well be a sub- campus unit in the overall NMC campus network. The most appropriate direct use of the site would be for those college related uses which do not call for close relationships to the campus core. These uses could include such functions as applied research, exploratory programs and community outreach programs. Depending upon the extent of College needs for this type of space, the property could be utilized by the College, leased out, or sold. I S CITY MASTER PLAN - --------- -- mmmmm~ ,3. River and Stream Banks Boardman River, Kids Creek and Mitchell Creek have played important roles in the history of Traverse City and in the creation of land forms. These river and stream basins are more than just carriers of water; thev represent a major part of the delicate hydrologic system of surface and subsurface waters that generate and maintain life in the region, Buildings should be set back an appropriate distance from river and stream banks. In all cases a pe- destrian wvay or bike path is intended. Adjacent upland development must be accomplished in a manner assuring that stormwater drainage properly reaches the river or creeks, and will not degrade the water quality. 4. Wetlands These are among the most sensitive ecological zones in the region. If drained or filled, the region-wide ecological balance Nvill be altered, and the effects on fish, wildlife, vegetation and water resources would be detrimental. It is proposed that development be restricted in these zones. 5. Hillsides Steeply sloped areas wvhere the ground falls awav more than 18 percent represent special challenges for development. Because steep slopes are more likely to erode, there is a greater chance that protective grasses, shrubs and tree will not withstand development pressures. Silt-laden waters and dam- aged fish habitat represent other by-products of uncontrolled billside devel- opment. Development in these areas shall be accompanied by performnance standards and roadway access controls. Suggested protective measures are clustering, avoidance of excessive c-urb cuts, reforestation and special prac- tices to minimize soil erosion during and after construction. It is recom- mended that ridge development follow guidelines in the Grand Traverse Bay Region Development Guide Book. 9 ~~~~~~~~~~Resource Prote, R Plan 1. Grand Traverse Bay Shoreline Grand Traverse Bayp is perhaps the most important of the area's natural resources, Its Shoreline is of particular concern, because of development pressures to which it is exposed almost dailv. The Bay itself is a public re- source. Because of this, the City Plan encourages both visual and public access be maintained or enhanced to the greatest degree feasible. There are t-wo types of shorelines represented on the Plan. The first is open space; the second is developed shoreline. That wvhich is designated as pub- lic open space is proposed to be used for recreational, educational and con- servation purposes. In these public open space areas, structures and vege- tation should be designed and positioned so as not to impair viewvs of the Bay from public streets and back-shore properties. The pr-ivately ow,ned and de- veloped shoreline areas are quite another mnatter. As newv development will certanly occur it is proposed that public views and access be preserved, and/ or enhanced through requirements of proper setbacks and placement of structures outside the 100-year flood plain. 2. Boardman Lake Shoreline Until recently, Boardman Lake went largely unnoticed as a recreational resource. This Plan proposes that the comnmunity focus its attention on guiding the development of this inland lake to ensure a quiet residential and community recreational area. Key issues to be addressed are water quality, land use, public access and rec- reational usage. A lake management plan, jointly developed by Garfield Township and the City, is encouraged to address these concerns. I - S M - mm mm mm - - - -m - - - - mm City of Traverse CitA Future Land Use Ma- OS Open Space, Park - & Recreation R-C Residential Conservation R-la Single Famiily Residence- Large Lot R-lb Single Family Residence- Small lot R-2 Two - Family Residence R-9 Low Density - Multiple Family - - .15 Medi-um Density - Multiple Family R-29 Multiple Dwelling R-5 Resort Areas R-60 High Rise Apartments C-I Office -Service C-2 Neighborhood Center C-3 ComrmunitV Center C-4 Regional Center C-4a Regional Center C-4b Regional Center MX-I Mixed Use - Iron Works MX-2 Mixed Use- Depot MX-3 Mixed Use - Red Mill MX-4 Mixed Use - Morgan Farm MX-5 Mixed Use- Rennie Hill 141 Light Industrial T Transportation G/I- Goverment/ Public S Schools GTC Grand Traverse Commons Rla i, I !;.U~ I - V.. .. "- ~ i STATE 6 I..... Ij.. - ., i .- 1. . Rib -W i : ib; SOi %T East (lay . � . I , ; 'Rlb I i- I 11 iRib " N . . N~ IRlb - Ih _ "N< bU 10. - N _...: Boardm&n Lake Citv Limi W- -E -7 --- 'I I I . I I I I I I I c I --'--- I I 590.8 591. 59.6 V /(;= coI z ct". I I I I- I I I I I I I I I I I CWATER VALL n 1111 OL L 0 'z1L L 0 L 0 ) 5) 591.6 I 59(.4 S 590.6 '%.Olv I' 'M \, -," -. -t. m - NoRTI4m ..... 1-1-1 .. ..... .. _ A I o200 400 600 800 1000 1200 A- lqvff_ 'I GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET p\_ i _,;: Z_: i _ - - I- - - I I - j _ I I I ff - -, . (2 2). . -W - i =-7- -.,:- 7 .;. -' _; -.-- ... - - - -.mw __: '. , - _-- I ! 1 1 ; I I I RH.' ` NME M L~.. * I. WV- - -- 1 . . . I- - ;., 1.1_ ... .. . I/I r, .1-1 , I i N a It A Iti N. 11 1 ~~~~~~LI CiY'-.IAES BOJ....... ~~~~~ : --~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...... ...A.. **-~~~~~~~~~~.. .4 ... .0NR ......... FlT P-fT,TTN Jr~.LEUh yiJNA Y to n nl-n kIvdZ IL VAG.A1.L Mj. ~1-.#J.a Im.T % g .U% a&J lA w PLANNED UNIT DEVELCIIMENT P UD. ~-)~EIGHT YARD S U .3 E DISTRICT SYMBOL STiIGHIFET ~FOT SD ER LOT AREA PER FAMILY LINGLE. FAMILY DWELLING. 'ISTP.ICT- SINGLE FAMILY ~- DWELLINGS. SCMOOLS. PARLS. GOLF COURtSFS. R-1 j:::.. 2 1/2 3 35 3010 3 5 1000 SO. ()C)T)S. PUBILIC BUILDINGS. HOM.E ')CUPATIONS SINGLE FALMILY DWELLING_.DISTRICT - 2 _________oZ5ooSO F SAME AS IN R-1 AND ~.HUACHES ' - TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT-USES PERMITTED 5,ooo So. FT ONE FAMILY~ IN R1- AND 1-2 AND I1OFAIL DWELLINGS P.6 25 4000 50 FT TW 5 6M2 ~~~~~~OFMULIPLY DWLLN ___ 50 FT. TF~ WO S FAMILY, DISTLCT. . R4 ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~3 4 0 95 a 25 1 '-*tl SY MULI P-A C1. L,'N -__,_ '~~I'MULTIPLE DWEtLLING DISTRIR. - R4. r~Z~ 3. 40 2 I 25 P O -. Z FAILY,30'. 0' ~~S t..~,PEP-.rTPZ INR4 AID MOTELS R: - IILIIUIUIU 909 I -0I * '005-u OFFICE SERLVICE DISTR c - I.'NONL EXCEPT WIIIN OFFICES,CLINICS. I C-i 3 . 0 2 5 ADJOINING A SAME AS K-4 DISTtICT I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~RESIDENCE DISTKICT NEIGHB0P.HOOD SHOPPING *QISTF!CT-USES PERMITT!D IN C-I. RETAIL SHOPS,-' ANKS. FiLLING j -2 30 2 0 SAME AS t.-4 DISTRICT STATIONS.I 2 COMMERCIAL -DIS1P.ICT, LSES PERMITTED IN] C-1. C 3 3 4 520 SM SK4DSKC SHOWROOMS. THEAT ES. SERVICE SHOPS. MOTELSC33420SM AS - DTIT CENTKAL BUSINESS DlS I CT -USES PERMITTED IN I5.000 SO. FT. ONE FAMICY C-3. WHOLESALE ESTAIIVH~,MENIS WAREHOIJSS C-4 4 5 5 - I2,500 50 FT TWO FAMILY ______ I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1,000 50. FT, MUL.TIPLE DWELLING RESTRICTED INDUSTRY CsTt7c-T - usEs PEPMITTED WHEN PERMITTED, SAME AS :NC-4, FREIGHT TEMP~..SOA&YARDS. AND . M-1 i- 6 7 5 2 5IN -4DTRC * NDIJSTP.IES EMITTING 61::IINAL CUST, 000OR. GAS. ETC. INR4DSkC :.IINDU519IA VISTMICT -UV ?EtMITTfD IN M-I. ANY cm; USE EXCEPT RESIDENCE -ID ENMRY m- 2 6 . 75 2 5 NNO NEW RESIDENICE PERMITTED *NUISANCEI REQI"''N $,"--IAL PERMiT... OFF STREET i .I<ING t NLY P-ISAME AS THE N. RSICVEDJZNNDSTCT I AS PERMITTED IN SEC14 _7M IIIIIIIIR,- --. m- m-M.-- M -m M I _m -, - m - -I I m m I - -- --- - I - - Land Use: Recommended Scale and Characteristics "ILAND) USE SCA11X.!EPRESENTATE :CHA:'ACTER DSCi 'PTION CLASSIFICATION HEIGHT(1i SE (2i: Open Space, Parks Pedestrian Parks, Playgrounds, Ath- Natural or park-like settings often linked with pedestrian & bicycle paths. & Recreation (1-2 stories) letic Fields, Wetlands, (OS) Floodplains, Natural Areas, Cultural Buildings Residential Pedestrian Single Family.Dwellings, These areas are classified as wetlands or are susceptible to erosion or flooding. Conservation (1-3 stories).: ' Open Space When privately owned, these properties should.be developed at low-density and. (R-C) .. clustered in the least sensitive portions of the property to protectthe environment. Building within thefloodplains and wetlands should be avoided unless it is clearly . : ': ::: ' demonstrated that ublic health,.safety and welfare is advanced by minimal devel- optment:in these areas: For areas with rather steep.s:lpes, densities for davellings :' ' '. . ' '': :: :.: i':1.:i ;! i...:...:.11.: ..'should be kept low. :Overal l density:.up to 4.4 dwealingslper;are is allowable. :� .... ..:�; :.:: �:.i::"i: : :. . i : � Single Family Pedestrian Single Family Dwellings, These areas correlate with existing large-lot residential developments, or represent Residence-Large Lot (1-3 stories) Schools, Religious Facilities expansion areas for the further development of this housing style. These areas are R-la served by public utilities and will mark the limits for urban services. They are in- tended primarily to accommodate traditional single-family lots. However, cluster- ing (e.g., single-family attached, zero-lot-line detached) may be allowed on larger parcels within the designated density guidelines as a means to protect sensitive soils and provide usable open space. Overall density up to 4.4 dwellings per acre is al- lowable. (1) I stoy is equalto 10 feet (2) Accessory uses are allowed in each Land Use Classification. ,n Plan T _A TT__/ t' Land USe/L ,25 Park Characteristics PAR -YPE ..SZ OUAINSRE OAINT?CLFCLTE/EA Playground Tot Lot Less than Young children in the im- Neighborhoods; away Swings, slides, creative play structures, basketball I acre mediate area from busy roads, well courts; generally active recreation. protected fromn external influences Neighbrhoo.ak 16ars A ages5 :i: the, immediat egbohos ofteni Courtgaes kati ngrnks, gaeields: intendedito hb~ ~~~~~nihorho .an~ s.. mgnie it co, erebtpasvaNd cie eratinrmarl easy~~~E wakn.dsWce frn~on-rani.ed Iiactivities. Commnunity Park 6-25 acres Entire community (includ- Steeply sloped terrain, Often contain play fields, but also emphasize pic- ing near-city residents) woodlands, wetlands, nicking, hiking, nature study, boating, fishing and streamns, bayfronts, sites siniilar outdoor activities that may contain both ac- of imnportant scernic value tive and passive recreation but emnphasize natual resource preservation. fetre farc idsg wenurae ofacitesuh as naue neqrtwi ricnew1igpnikg,winn....... ca.oigadse Play Field/Stadium 10-40 acres Entire comm-unity (includ- Along major arterials To accommnodate organized activities such as track, ing near-City residents) having good access baseball, softball and soccer; a play field is usually large with several playing fields. Rep~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~n visitor mak,saue,abr- rclia iztertmayotanht6vlrce .y ~ ~ . tuns zos a.d,s~ ooia~btnca ronmna etrs ... ..... .. .urn Parks creation and Open Space Plan 2 - -- - ---n-r-- - rn rn mmmmm - - - - - - - - -m I - I - - - I I m Park & Open Space Standards Since demand for parks, open space and other forms of recreation will vary with time and with demographics, this Plan sets forth no specific standards for-the City to establish a minimum number of parks, or an overall acreage for these parks and open spaces. Instead, the Plan proposes a more flexible approach by offering to provide convenient parks of high quality, and by preserving open space in environmentally sensitive areas of the City. Steep hillsides, wetlands, floodplains and highly desirable natural features are areas planned to be preserved by acquisition, development easements or clustering development. The 1987 Recreation Survey indicates that residents are most interested in a higher level of maintenance of the existing park system. This is especially true in neighborhood parks, followed by quality recreation programs and new parkland development, respectively. Bike Trail Photo Park & Open Space Acquisitions The long-term goal of the Plan is to have virtually all properties along West Bay Waterfront held in public ownership by acquiring private properties when they are offered and funding is available. In cases where public own- ership is not feasible, easements for public access are sought. The Plan also seeks to develop parks through funding and market availability in areas cur- rently devoid of recreational sites. For more specific information regarding park and open space acquisition, see Traverse City Parks andRecreation Plan prepared by the Parks and Recreation Commission and adopted by the City Commission. Open Space along the bay front provides the public the opportunity to enjoy Grand Traverse Bay. " ~ ~ T-, ~? * f .....4 /"~ nt.r 'D,a I 2�t 7 P"arks, Re~creation' anaupe Kw_,,lan Parks, Recreation and Open Space V ~ 4'. " 4-1 m . . _l 'V 1 114 'i 0 9'. W, Z V . _g ffjrand Traverse - U1~~~ County Nature sE4uat II ~~~Education Reserve 2 -5 Parks, Rcet�n-p ePa WM mm mm mm ------ - mmmmm 3. Boardman Waterfront 1. West Bay Waterfront The Plan envisions a narrow linear park along the banks of Boardman River and Boardman Lake, intermingled with development. In places the park may be as little as a pedestrian way. Primary activities include walking, picnicking, fishing, and nature and enjoying history and nature. Proposed park development includes heritage and nature trails, bikeways, hillside gardens, picnic sites, seating, observation and fishing platforms and an improved boat launch facility on Boardman Lake Bank erosion control is also proposed. North of Front Street, the park will include walkways that accommodate transient boat moorings on the river. These walkways will also accommodate downtown shopping activities. Boardman Lake could accommodate non-motorized small motor and special event boating as well. To ensure that Boardman Lake and the receiving waters of Boardman River remain a valuable public resource, a Boardman Lake/River management plan jointly developed by Garfield Charter Township and the City is proposed. This plan will address water quality issues, shoreline development and public access regulations concerning use of the lake. 4. Grand Traverse Commons The Grand Traverse Commons District Plan was jointly adopted by Garfield Charter Township and the City in May of 1994. The Plan designates large portions of the site within the City and Garfield Town- ship as a conservation area. The wetlands encompassing Kids Creek and the forested hills west of the historic buildings are to be preserved as open space or low-intensity recreational uses, (e.g., hiking, skiing, nature walks). Planning for these areas is the responsibility of the Grand Traverse Commons Redevelopment Corporation in conjunction with the Planning Commissions of Garfield Township and Traverse City. This will help ensure integration with the historic campus. A park-like set- ting shall be preserved in the Commons district. Parks, Recreation and Opei. ace Plan The West Bay Waterfront is primarily a linear, public open-space park punctuated by recreational, residential, historical, educational and cultural activity areas. It is designed to be attractive for both residents and tourists. The waterfront park is a succession of specialized small parks and marinas interconnected by open space and bikeway/walkway linkages. Activities include swirnming, boating, picnicking, fishing, biking, walking, and some court games. Clinch Park is a specialized park with a focus on cultural and historical appreciation. As in the past, the intent of the Plan is to purchase private lands as properties are offered to the City and funds become available. Every effort will be made to provide open spaces and public access along the shoreline without infringing on private property rights. 2. East Bay Waterfront The City Plan portrays this area as a recreational and scenic resource to be developed in concert with private development. Much of the shoreline property, however, will remain privately owned. As was previously stated, every effort will be made to provide open space and public access along the shoreline without infringing on private property rights. The Plan recommends that regulations be developed for shoreline areas to prevent water quality degradation. It also recom- mends retention of a more natural appearing shoreline and prevention of building damage since this area is at high risk of coastal erosion. In addition, when redevelopment occurs, careful consideration must be given to opening up views of the Bay, and providing public access. For more specific information, the City Plan references the shoreline regulation section of the Grand Traverse Bay Region Development Guidebook. Implementation can occur in a number of ways, such as through the purchase of public access rights, acquiring property and allowing it to be sold with restrictions, and allowing redevelopment of property as a planned unit development (PUD). 2,3