[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
\/\/ 0 Pl- kl@l 1/1 Fr I TL 175 .F43 1985 f FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT OF A WIULTI-LEVEL PARKING GARAGE AT HAMPTON BEACH, NEW HAMPSHIRE A REPORT TO THE HAMPTON BEACH AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND NEW HAMPSHIRE OFFICE OF- STATE PLANNING BY ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC. WITH KIMBALL CHASE COMPANY, INC. Submitted in Final Draft July, 1984 Finalized in February, 1985 The New Hampshire Coastal Program provided a grant for the preparation of this report which was funded in part by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- tration. A. Arthur D. Little, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables iii List of Figures iv I. Introduction and Summary of Findings I-1 A. Introduction I-1 B. Findings II. Demand for Parking Facilities in Hampton Beach II-1 A. Profile of Existing Parking Facilities II-1 B. Parking Demand Trends in Hampton Beach 11-4 C. Anticipated Parking Trends 11-12 III. Alternative Sites for a Parking Garage II-1 IV. Cost Analysis and Conceptual Design IV-1 A. Ashworth Parking Lot (Municipal) IV-1 B. Casino Parking Lot (Private) IV-4 V. Assessment of Capacity Utilization of Parking Garage and Anticipated Parking Revenues V-1 A. General Assumptions V-1 B. Capacity Utilization V-1 C. Parking Revenue v-2 VI. Financial Feasibility Assessment VI-1 A. Public Finance Options VI-1 B. Private Finance Options VI-6 C. Findings VI-10 VII. Findings and Implementation Recommendations VII-1 A. Findings VII-1 B. Recommendations VII-2 ii Arthur D. Little, Inc. LIST OF TABLES Table No. Page 1 Inventory of Parking Spaces in Hampton Beach 11-3 2 Summary of Parking Revenue Trends, 1980 through 1983 11-5 3 Estimated Number of Cars by Lot and by Date 11-7 4 Demand for Coastal Recreational Activity and Parking 11-13 5 Cost Estimates: Ashworth Avenue Lot IV-5 6 Cost Estimates: Casino Lot IV-9 7A Capacity Utilization--Alternative 1: Public Finance Mid-Range Rates V-3 7B Capacity Utilization--Alternative II: Public Finance Low Rates V-4 7C Capacity Utilization--Alternative III: Private Development Mid-Range Rates V-5 7D Capacity Utilization--Alternative IV: Private Development Low Rates V-6 8 Revenue Assumptions for Multi-Level Parking Garage and Municipal Lots V-7 9 Mechanisms for Financing and Maintaining a Parking Garage VI-2 10 Hampton Beach Parking Garage (Publicly Financed-- Moderate Rates VI-3 11 Hampton Beach Parking Garage (Publicly Financed-- Low Rates) VI-4 12 Hampton Beach Parking Garage (Private Investor-- Moderate Rates) VI-8 13 Hampton Beach Parking Garage (Private Investor-- Low Rates) VI-11 iii /L Arthur D. Little, Inc. LIST OF FIGURES Pag_e 1 Hampton Beach Improvements Study Area 11-2 2 Parking Trends in Hampton Beach 11-14 3 Parking Garage Layout Site #1 (Plan Lower Level) IV-2 4 Parking Garage Layout Site #1 (Plan Upper Level) IV-3 5 Parking Garage Layout Site #2 (Plan Lower Level) IV-7 6 Parking Garage Layout Site #2 (Plan Upper Level) IV-8 7 Average Number of Cars Per Weekday V-8 8 Average Number of Cars Per Weekend Day V-9 iv AL Arthur D. Little, Inc. I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. Introduction Supported by a grant from the New Hampshire Office of State Planning, the Hampton Beach Area Chamber of Commerce has commissioned Arthur D. Little, Inc, with the Kimball Chase Company Inc, to determine the financial feasibility of a multi-level parking garage to serve the main beach area at Hampton Beach. Four analyses were undertaken, each of which are described in subsequent chapters of this document: 0 Assessment of parking demand in Hampton Beach; 0 Identification,-screening and selection of alternative sites for a parking garage; 0 Cost assessments and conceptual design; and 0 Financial feasibility assessment. A working committee was established with representatives of the Hampton Beach Area Chamber and other state and local representatives. This committee served as a valuable resource to this effort, and provided many valuable comments and suggestions. B. Findings Based on recent trends in recreational activity and parking in Hampton Beach, on recreational trends elsewhere along the coastline of New Hampshire, Northeastern Massachusetts and Southern Maine, and antic- ipated continued growth in population and economic activity in the region, demand for parking at Hampton Beach will continue to grow at an estimated rate of one to three percent annually. This growth is expected to be constrained only by the physical constraints of the beach, itself, other recreational facilities, parking facilities and other support infrastructure. The net additional spaces provided by a two-level parking garage represent only 10 to 11 percent, depending on the design, of the total inventory of spaces in the Hampton Beach Precinct (south of Boar's Head, and exclusive of the lot at the State Park and miscellaneous spaces at motels and private homes). In light of demand for parking, the utilization of the garage during summer months is expected to be high. Based on cost analyses for the preliminary designs of two alternative parking garage developments, and an assessment of anticipated revenue flow and potential finance; the two parking garages are financially feasible under the following circumstances: A& Arthur D. Little, Inc. Publicly Developed Garage at the Ashworth Lot - This lot is feasible if the Town of Hampton develops the garage by establishing an enterprise fund for all parking at Hampton Beach. This mechanism is allowed under New Hampshire state law and has been utilized for development of a parking garage in Keene. Through this mechanism, in the early years of development when the garage would not be self-supporting, the town would support the debt and operating costs through increased daily parking fees ($5.00 per space on weekdays and $7.00 on weekends at the garage, $3.00 per space on weekdays, $5.00 on weekends at all other Town lots), combined with the allocation of a portion of net parking revenues from the other Town parking lots to offset the debt. If this "offset" approach were implemented, there would be a net revenue surplus of $49,000 in year 1, rather than the roughly $230,000 surplus in 1983. However the surplus would increase annually and by year 7, surplus revenues would return to the 1983 levels and by year 11, the garage would be generating revenues, itself. Private DevelopRent at the Casino Site - The private devel- opment will be feasible at the Casino site if an incentive equivalent to approximately $383,000 is provided to the developer of the site and if parking rates at all lots are raised to the "moderate" levels assumed. Without such an equivalent incentive, the parking garage as a stand alone investment is not viable under current interest rates. In addition, the parking fees required to generate supporting revenues will not capture a sufficient share of the "parking market" if adjacent Town lots provide substantially cheaper parking. A generally consistent rate structure throughout Hampton Beach will be particularly important in the context of weekday parking demand. If the Town does generate additional revenues through increased parking fees, these could support an incentive program to a private or qua- si-private development group for- the garage, either in the form of direct incentives or in the f orm. of f inancing assistance. 1-2 /L Arthur D. Little, Inc. II. DEMAND FOR PARKING FACILITIES IN HAMPTON BEACH Hampton Beach is a recreational beach area on the southern end of New Hampshire coastline. Traditionally recognized as a family beach to which visitors come for multiple night stays, Hampton Beach continues to attract those visitors and has increasingly attracted day-time visitors from rapidly growing Southern New Hampshire, the greater Boston metropolitan area, and northeastern Massachusetts. The growth in recreational demand has been reflected in an increased demand for parking, particularly in the central business district of the beach by day-time visitors. To assess the demand for parking, three steps were undertaken: Existing parking facilities were profiled; Recent trends in parking demand were evaluated; and 0 Estimates of anticipated parking demand were determined. Each of these is discussed below. A. Profile of Existing Parking Facilities For this assessment, parking facilities located within the Precinct area of Hampton Beach were profiled, with a particular focus on the area within the north-south boundaries of Boar's Head and N Street, as shown in Figure 1. This study area is adjacent to the main beach area, which accommodates the majority of recreational activity. Within this area, there are 12 principal parking areas, as summarized in Table 1: 0 Town Lots: 3 lots operated by the Town of Hampton provide some 1,100 spaces available daily and include: - Ashworth Lot on Ashworth Avenue behind the Hampton Beach Casino; - Island Path Lot, at the end of Island Path, with an additional "extension" of this lot ad-;acent to the J marshes; - Church Street Lot, the fenced-in parking lot which is owned by St. Patrick's Church and is leased to the Town of Hampton, with an "extension" of this outside of the fenced area. Some 140 spaces are leased by the Town on a seasonal basis. to motels in the area. Since these leases are renewed annually, their future status is uncertain, although it is anticipated that roughly the same number of spaces will continued to be designated for lease. The future availabil- ity of spaces is uncertain at the Island Path Extension (due II-1 A. Arthur D. Little, Inc. r-71 -1Z C3 00 it WE 6"J N110 GO lunffl ATLINTIC 0 C A N FIGURE.l. Hampton Parking Improvements Study Area SOURCE. From map provided by Hampton Beach Chamber of TABLE 1 INVENTORY OF PARKING SPACES IN HAMPTON BEACH Seasonally Net Parking Lots Capacity Leased Spaces Capacity Comments 0 Municipal Lots Ashworth (MUI) 580 26 554 Island Path (MU2) 240 60 180 Island Path Extension (MU2A, MU2B) 75 Autos 75 Situated on environmentally sensitive land; may not be available for use Church Street (MU3) 300 300 )Leased to Town; long-term )availability 'uncertain Church Street Extension (MU3A) 100 50 50 MUNICIPAL TOTAL NET SPACES 1084-1159 Private Lots Casino Lot (CA1) 380 380 Owner may develop other uses State Lots Haverhill St.-K. St. (STI) 23 23 K. St.-Sea Shell (ST2) 43 43 Seashell Building (ST3) 8 8 Seashell-Memorial (STO 78 78 Memorial-Ross-Church (ST5) 67 67 Church St.-Rocky End (STO 160 160 Rocky End-Coast Ward Station (ST7) 609 609 Central Parking Area (ST8) 143 143 Seasonally Leased Spaces 349 Located on Merchant side of Ocean Boulevard Lots TOTAL STATE SPACES 1131 to the environmental sensitivity of the marsh, the Hampton Conservation Commission has recommended that this area be maintained in its natural condition) and at the Church Street Lot and extension (the lease by the Church to the Town is in effect for four years, after which it may or may not be renewed). Parking rates at the Town lots were $2.00 per day mid-week and $3.00 per day on weekends through 1983. In 1984 these rates were increased to $3.00 and $4.00, respectively. 0 State Lots: The parking areas owned and operated by the New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development are located on Ocean Boulevard and provide some 1,100 parking spaces for daily use. Some 349 additional spaces at the state lots are leased seasonally to motels and merchants in the beach area. The state lots are metered and are typically used for more of the shorter term parking than are the municipal lots. The areas designated as the "central parking area", "K Street to Seashell", "Seashell 'to Memori- al" and "Memorial-Ross-Church" are the most heavily utilized. Parking rates through 1983 were $0.25 per hour and have been increased to $0.25 per 24 minutes in 1984. a Private Lots: The principal private lot is operated by the Casino and is located between the Casino building and Ashworth Avenue. In 1984, this lot provides 380 spaces. Prior to 1984, the Casino Lot Extension, with 150 spaces, was available for parking, however this has been developed into a water slide. The Casino Lot charges $4.00 per day mid-week and $5.00 per day on weekends for parking. The only other private parking is a limited number of individual spaces located at motels and private residences, available only on an irregular basis on peak weekends. B. Parking Demand Trends in Hampt n Beach Three types of information were examined to determine past trends in parking demand in Hampton Beach: parking revenue data; parking lot attendance data; and population growth data. Because parking rates at the Town and State lots did not change between 1980 and 1983, parking revenue data were examined as an indicator of parking demand during those f our years, as shown in Table 2. The most centrally located State lots, because of their tendency to be nearly fully utilized, experienced slower annually growth than the more remote state lots or the Town lots, located a two- to four-block walking distance from the beach. Overall the Town lots experienced the strongest growth, as illustrated by the average annual increase in revenues of 17.5 per- cent. [NOTE: This trend in Town revenues excludes those associated with the Church Street Lot which was not operated as a Town Lot until 1983.1 This high growth reflects a dramatic increase between 1982, which was a notably "bad weather" season, and 1983, which was a 11-4 AL Arthur D. Little, Inc. TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF PARKING REVENUE TRENDS.. 1980 THROUGH 1983 Ann. A A% Revenues $ 1980 % 1981 % 1982 % 1983 80-3. Municipal Lots (Ashworth & Island Path) 129,289 13.9 147,208 7.9 158,825 32.2 210,021 17.5 State Lots Total 156,112 13.6 117,351 -9.3 160,912 17.3 188,679 6.5 Haverill-K Street 7,020 15.0 8,073 -7.4 7,477 12.9 8,448 K Street-Seashell 13,541 23.7 16,750 -7.5 15,500 3.4 16)027 Sea Shell-Building 332 -42.2 192 -26.6 141 4.2 147 Seashell-Memorial 23,604 +17.9 27,829 -7.0 25,869 9.6 28,353 Memorial-Ross-Church 18,606 19.4 22,222 -12.7 19,390 6.:6 20,666 Church-Rocky Bend 26,547 7.9 28,657 -13.2 24,884 26.3 31,419 Rocky Bend-Coast Guard 23,099 9.8 25,359 0.3 25,437 46.4 37,239 Central Parking Area 43,373 11.3 48,269 -12.5 42,214 9.9 46,380 ADJUSTED--ACTUAL TOTAL $243,274; CHURCH STREET, CHURCH STREET EXTENSION, ISLAND PATH EXTENSION EXCLUDED. /t Arthur D. Little, Inc. 11-5 remarkably "good weather" season. However, despite the "bad weather" in 1982, Town lot revenues continued to increase. If Town revenues are adjusted for the 1983 banner year, annual growth in parking revenues at the Town lots might, instead, be in the range of 10 to 15 percent annually. State parking lot revenues increased by an average of 6 percent annually, with most of the growth occurring at the remote lots. The Town of Hampton kept records on the number of cars parked, daily, in each lot in 1983, and these are summarized in Table 3. In addi- tion, daily parking trends of state lots in 1983 were estimated based upon data on five- to seven-day meter collections and estimated rates of turnover. Because these are only rough estimates, they are intend- ed for purposes of comparison with Town lots, rather than precise estimates of capacity utilization. As shown in Table 3, the "offi- cial" parking season at Hampton Beach begins in mid-May and runs through mid-September. Beyond the "official" season, state and town lots are unattended and no revenues are collected. The trends in daily parking indicate that the season is comprised of two elements: a $'shoulder" season through the end of June and after Labor Day weekend; and a "peak" season which includes July, August and through Labor Day. Lot attendance also varies considerably by mid-week days and weekends. As shown in Table 3, the Ashworth Lot (noted as MU1) is the most heavily utilized of the three municipal lots. The main portions of the Island Path and Church Street lots are only utilized on weekends until mid-June; during the "peak" season these are fully utilized only on weekends. The extension lots are utilized principally on weekends during the peak season although the Church Street Extension is about half full on many weekends in July and August and buses park at the Island Path Extension throughout the peak season. Neither the State nor the Town have precise data on attendance of recreational activities in Hampton Beach however, -numerous statewide and local representatives report that growth has been -occurring at a rate as fast or faster than population; parking data provide our indicator of this. Growth in beach and related tourist activity, and as a result parking demand, has been occurring due to steady popu- lation growth in Southern New Hampshire, fueled by a strong economy particularly in telchnology-related sectors. Regional growth continued with an increase in the number of day visitors to Hampton Beach from Boston and Eastern Massachusetts a natural trend towards increased participation in recreational activity, nationally, have resulted in accelerating growth in summertime activities in Hampton Beach. One final factor considered in the evaluation of trends in parking demand and general recreational activity was the trends elsewhere along the coastline. Other beach areas examined included Cranes Beach, Plum Island and Salisbury Beach in Massachusetts, Rye in New Hampshire, and Ogonquit and Kittery in Maine. Although these beaches each have unique characters and are not.directly comparable to Hampton /L Arthur D. Little, Inc. 11-6 " M TABLE 3 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF CARS BY LOT AND BY DATE (1983) month MAY 'B3 Lot STI ST2 S13 ST4 ST5 ST6 ST7 STO Mul MU2 MU2A HU12B MU3 MU3A MOB Date Day SO I Su 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Ma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Tu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 We 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Th 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Fr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Sa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a su 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 No 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Tu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 It We 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Th 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Fr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 Sa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Su 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 6 0 16 MO 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Tu 0 C? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Is We 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 19 Th a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Fr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 '411 Sa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 245 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 cu ?0 36 0 83 59 51 0 103 271 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Mo 38 0 83 59 51 0 103 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 '2 4Tu -30 38 0 83 59 51 0 1031 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 25 We -9 0 0 B3 57 51 0 10-3 30 0 0 0 0 0 .0 26 Th 20 -'0 0 83 59 51 0 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AN Fr 38 0 83 59 51 0 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Sa 00 -8 B-Z 0 - 59 51 0 1193 447 335 0 0 14 0 219 Su ?0 38 0 83 51 51 0 103 332, 25 0 0 3 100 ho 0 83 59 51 0 1031 40 4 0 0 0 31 Tu 10 38 83 59 51 0 10") 0 0 0 0 0 so " TABLE 3 (CONTINUED) ESTiMATED NUMBER OF CARS BY LOT AND BY DATE (1983) ikonth June 83 Lot STI ST21 ST3 ST4 ST5 ST6 ST7 STS nut MU2, HU2A m U'j, 8 M MUM MU39 Date Day 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 W e 12 38 0 56 34 31 31 7 91 1 n - 2 T h 38 0 56 34 31 32 72 136 0 0 0 0 0 0 I.. 3 Fr 12 38 0 56 34 31 32 72 1215 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 4 Sa 1) 38 0 56 34 31 32 72 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 5 Su 12 38 0 56 34 31 32 72 210 21 0 0 5 0 0 6 Ma 12 38 0 56 34 31 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Tu 12 38 0 56 34 31 32 72 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 we 12 38 0 56 34 31 3.1 72 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 A. 9 T h 12 M 0 56 34 31 32 741 272 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Fr 12 38 0 56 43 4 31 32 72 84 2 0 0 0 0 0 It $a 12 38 0 56 34 31 32 721 Be? 209 0 0 234 0 0 1@ 5 u 0 56 34 31 32 72 767 284 0 0 378 0 0 13 Ma 12 38 0 56 34 31 32 72 485 59 0 0 0 0 0 0. 14 Tu 1? 36 0 73 44 52 0 103 546 69 a 0 35 0 0 15 We 19 36 0 73 44 52 0 103 482 S6 0 0 64 0 16 Th 19 36 0 73 44 52 0 103 114 a 0 0 4 0 0 17 Fr 19 36 0 73 44 52 0 103 2180 30 0 0 4 0 0 Is Sa 19 36 0 73 44 52 0 103 733 191 0 0 150 0 ef 19 Su 19 3i. 0 73 44 52 0 103 900 235 0 0 150 0 0 U 210 Mo 19 36 0 73 44 52 0 103 461 66 0 0 52 0 0 21 Tu 19 36 0 73 44 52 0 103 5S4 94 0 0 85 0 0 2 2 We 2 7 5 6 1 97 66 93 114 148 684 155 0 0 135 0 0 23 Th 27 56 1 97 66 93 114 148 660 127 0 0 too 0 0 24 Fr 2 7 56 1 97 66 9-T 114 148 700 101 0 0 9) 0 0 2 5 Sa 27 56 1 97 66 93 114 148 1000 221 0 0 IN 0 0 116 Su 2 7 56 1 97 66 93 114 148 92, 3 200 0 0 413 0 27 Mo 27 56 1 97 b6 93 114 148 331 43 0 0 30 0 0 i's Tu 2 7 56 1 97 66 93 114 148 56 8 0 0 1 0 0 29 We A07 5.6 1 97 66 93 114 148 463 65 0 0 27 0 0 30 Th 27 5,L i 97 M 93 114 148 6 621 1315 0 0 67 0 0 month JULY83 Capacity utilization Lot STI ST2 ST31 ST4 ST5 ST6 ST7 STS Mul MU2, MU42A MU2B MU3 MU14A Date Day w 4M on dw M am M TABLE 3 (CONTINUED) ESTIMATED NUMBER OF-CARS BY LOT AND BY DATE (1983) month JULY83 MUNICIPAL LOTS STATE LOTS Lot STI ST2 ST3 ST4 ST5 ST6 ST7 ST8 Mul HU2 MU2A MU2B MU3 MU3A Date Day 5,) p 39,1 0 0 I Fr 47 96 1 177 124 235 L 299 700 152 0 L 2 Sa 47 96 1 177 124 235 392 299 1365 339 0 0 329 0 3 Su 47 96 1 177 124 235 3912 299 1250 260 0 0 578 0 4 Ho 47 96 1 177 124 235 392 299 702 135 0 0 388 0 5 Tu 47 96 1 177 1.94 235 392 199 821 124 0 0 50 0 3-z 177 270 193 6 62 so 0 0 24 0 6 We 67 1 118 87 7 Th 35 67 1 118 87 177 1.70 193 755 153 0 0 98 53 8 Fr 35 67 1 Ila 87 177 4170 193 700 164 0 0 IB6 0 9 Sa 35 67 1 Ila 87 177 270 193 1175 243 0 0 107 0 270 193 1074 176 0 0 406 0 10 Su 35 67 1 118 87 177 1? Ila 87 177 270 193 633 132 0 5 94 - It no 35 67 1 61 177 270 193 Sao 138 0 0 122 0 12 T u 35 1 1 Ila B7 13 We 41 77 1 133 105 200 270 241 1127 207 0 0 275 40 14 Th 41 77 1 133 105 1200 '417 0 241 797 140 0 0 215 0 15 Fr 41 77 1 133 105 200 2170 241 950 166 0 5 62 7 16 Sa 41 77 1 133 105 200 270 241 1240 250 0 5 403 39 17 Su 41 77 1 133 105 200 270 2141 I-mo 260 5 a 452 61 Is Mo 41 77 1 133 105 200 270 241 740 168 0 5 132 4 19 Tu 41 74 1 1-74 97 176 256 231 720 198 5 4 260 6 179 10 20 We 41 74 1 124 97 l7b 256 231 1260 232 0 6 159 0 21 Th 41 74 1 124 97 176 256 231 707 147 0 22 Fr 41 74 1 124 97 176 256 1231 605 66 2 7 24 0 l')on 56 23 Sa 41 74 1 124 97 176 25b 231 229 6 5 400 24 Su 41 74 1 124 97 176 2156 1231 705 135 0 '37 19 0 25 Ma 41 74 1 124 97 176 256 '4131 955 135 2 7 56 6 26 Tu 40 74 1 124 92 179 222 20b 750 170 3 14 305 41 27 We 40 76 1 1214 9,1 179 222 206 1040 234 1 5 395 7-16 9') 268 28 Th 40 76 1 124 L 179 2221 .206 804 158 1 5 29 Fr 40 76 1 124 92 179 2-22 206 700 155 0 0 93 5 30 Sa 40 76 1 124 92 179 222 206 1101 209 1 6 103 0 31 Su 40. 76 1 124 9,j 179 222 '106 906 40 S 409 93 M M @ sw'm M M TABLE 3 (CONTINUED) ESTIMATED NUMBER OF CARS BY LOT AND BY DATE (1983) month AUG83 STATE LOTS MUNICIPAL LOTS Lot STI ST2 ST3 ST4 ST5 ST6 ST7 STS Nut MU12 HU2A MU12B HU3 MU3A Date Day I MO 41 76 1 124 92 179 222 206 676 101 0 3 72 10 2 Tu 44 82 1 135 105 172 190 241 809 132 0 3 79 8 3 We 44 82 1 135 105 171 190 2 4 1 1000 182 3 6 253 21 4 Th 44 82 1 135 105 172 190 241 645 115 0 3 46 I 5 Fr 44 1 135 105 172 190 'LI 4 1 698 12B 0 7 55 0 6 Sa 44 en 1320 243 5 204 J-z & 1 135 105 172 190 241 6 7 Su 44 82 1 135 105 172 190 241 812 209 13 8 378 74 8 No 44 on 1 135 105 172 190 "I 4 1 782 139 0 3 B5 L 9 Tu 35 63 0 106 106 139 168 186 560 137 0 0 58 a 10 We 35 63 0 106 106 139 168 186 994 218 1 7 98 9 11 Th 35 63 0 106 106 139 168 186 187 34 0 6 119 12 Fr 35 63 0 106 106 139 168 186 109 2 0 0 0 C 13 Sa 35 63 0 106 106 139 16B 186 460 128 2 3 34 0 14 Su 35 63 0 106 106 139 168 lob 1049 167 4 7 196 I-, 15 MO 35 633 0 106 106 139 The 186 500 40 0 7 28 5 16 Tu 39 69 1 117 107 117 Ito 204 730 110 5 2 4? 4 17 We 39 69 1 117 107 117 Ito 204 947 198 2 7 147 6 la Th 39 69 1 117 107 117 Ito 204 352 45 0 1 6 0 19 Fr 39 69 1 117 107 117 Ito 204 882 150 2 3 63 0 21 0Ea 39 69 1 117 107 117 110 204 977 235 5 3 205 21 Su 39 69 1 II-7 107 117 110 204 1018 234 6 4 286 6 "a 39 69 1 117 107 117 110 204 237 32 I 4 15 0 8,? 4 31 0 123 Tu 27 47 0 57 68 39 129 553 75 24 We 27 47 0 82 57 68 39 129 727 145 2 6 48 0 25 Th 27 47 0 82 57 68 39 129 573 73 1 3 29 0 26 Fr 27 47 0 8,3 57 68 39 1 'LI 9 616 85 0 7 1 2 7 Sa 171 4 -17 0 82 57 68 39 129 810 167 3 3 101 218 Su 27 47 0 82 507 68 39 129 8521 229 5 6 190 4 29 No 27 47 0 8--) 57 68 39 129 53 1 0 0 0 0 30 Tu 27 47 0 Bo 57 L8 39 129 117 14 0 0 2 0 L U '411 We 2 7 4 7 0 8'? 57 be 39 1119 167 5 0 0 0 W'" @'@ M @ M TABLE 3 (CONTINUED) ESTIMATED NUMBER OF CARS BY LOT AND BY DATE r> (1983) month SEPB3 Lot STI ST2 ST3 ST4 ST5 ST6 ST-11 STS Mul HU2 HU21A MU2B MU3 MUM C! Date Day Et P 29 83 2) 722 35 1 10 1Th 17 31 1 53 36 36 p 2Fr 17 31 1 53 36 36 29 83 512 70 1 2 '70 3Sa 17 31 1 53 36 h 29 83 981 221 1 3 189 4 4Su 17 31 1 53 36 36 )g 83 1056 255 19 5 305 6 5MD 17 31 1 53 36 36 '39 B3 654 174 5 4 Its 4 6Tu 17 31 1 53 36 36 29 83 7We 17 31 1 53 36 36 )g 83 8Th 17 31 1 53 36 3b 29 B3 9Fr 17 31 1 53 36 36 83 10 Sa 17 31 1 53 36 36 29 B3 19 83 11 Su 17 31 1 53 36 36 12 No 17 31 1 53 3b 36 29 B3 13 Tu 17 31 1 53 36 36 29 83 14 We 15 Th 16 Fr 17 Sa 18 Su 19 No 20 Tu 21 We 2 2Th 23 Fr 24 Sa 25 Su 26 No 27 Tu 28 We '419 Th 10 Fr Beach, all have undergone a similar growth in recreational activity, as summarized in Table 4. Attendances at these beaches has been steadily increasing. Despite parking rate increases at Ogonquit, and annual increases of $0.50 at Crane's Beach (present rate is $7.00 per day), demand has not been dampened. C. Anticipated Parking Trends If growth could continue unconstrained by the capacity of the beach, other recreational facilities, parking and other supporting infrastructure, recent growth trends might continue as shown in Figure 2. If the parking demand at Town lots continued to grow at an average rate of 10 percent annually, consistent with the early 1980s, total revenues (1983 parking rates) would be equivalent to $409,000 (without Church Street) per year or roughly 150,000 to 160,000 cars, c *ompared to roughly 95,000 cars in 1983. With Church Street, the total 1983 demand was around 110,000 cars and total 1990 revenues would be around $473,000 with 182,000 cars. If state parking demand increased at 5 percent annually, a rate consistent with recent trends (dampened slightly due to the fact that the number of spaces are limited at the most centrally located, more desirable locations), annual revenues would be equivalent to $266,000 per year (1983 parking rates) or roughly 140,000 cars, compared to roughly 97,000 cars in 1983. The capacity of parking and other Hampton Beach recreational facil- ities is limited, however, and unconstrained growth will not be accommodated unless these are expanded. More realistic growth in parking demands will likely be consistent with anticipated growth in the population of the Southern New Hampshire region, which has been projected at three percent annually by- the Office of State Planning and one percent by other regional forecasts. If these growth rates prevail, then future demand would average around 120,000 to 125,000 cars per year at the Town lots (including Church Street) and around 100,000 to 110,000 cars per year at the state lots. Based on the limited capacity of parking lots and other facilities,- it is assumed that most of this growth will occur during the weekdays. 11-12 /L Arthur D. Little, Inc. TABLE 4 DEMAND FOR COASTAL RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY AND PARKING Attendance (Mid-May to Mid-September)* Percentage of Number of Recent Fee Weekda Weekend Lot Filled Beach Area Run By Space8 fee Changes (effects) Cars People Cars People Use of Funds Weekday Weekend Comments Contact Plug, Island Nat'l Fish & 350 0 N/A 3-400 -1,000 1,000 2,500- H/A 100". 100% and close Wildlife "Asst Manager Zeley" Wildlife Service 3,000 access from Reservation 465-5753 9am to 3pm Plum Island State Dept of 50 0 N/A <200 <500 <400 <1000 N/A 100% 100% Wildlife Peter Carlson, Environmental Mgt ----------------------------- Superintendent total cars (183):89,773 462-4481 Salisbury State Dept of 4,000+ $3 daily Raised 3 yrs ago from 3j000- 10- 6,000- 20,000- $5 million (from 50% 75-100% Camping Environmental Mgt $20 seasonal $2, no lasting effects 7,000 15,000 12,000 30,000 all State Dep En available ----------------------------- Mgt) to General total cars ('83):1,900,025 State Fund, Remainder to State Dept. OgonquiL Town 400M $5/day New rates this year. half- <5,000 filled 000 $100,000-beach 50-100% 100-125% Currently bldg Brad Moulton 175L 'U5 yrs ago, $4 all filled lots expenses, (overflow a 200 space lot, 207/646-9711- 2001, lots, town people lots remainder to parked funded w/$95,000 PO Box 1948 loos complained, $3 smaller eneral town illegally) bond, anticipate Oqonguit, ME 9 loop lots, $5 main lot fund payment by pro- ceeds from parking Cz ane Trustees of 1,300M Day: $5/car Increase all fees 300- 1,000- Beach, grounds 50-75% 75-100% Michael Gormley the Reservation 1,200C $2.50/motor- 50c/year (since 1980) 1,300 2,600 & administrative 356-4354 (nonprofit) 450T cycle no noticeable diff ----------------------- expenses 7.5% of Superintendent End: $7/car in attendance. total cars (183); 76,500 gross to town $3.50/motor of Ipswich in ----------- lieu of taxes $34/bus $11ped, *Assuming decent weather Ugend: M-main L-lower S-short term-wetered P-privaLe T-town lot, sticker parking only C-Castle Hill Parking FIGURE 2 PARK'11",,,10 TRENDS IN HAMPTON BEACH 1980 -1990 420.----.--- 400- 409 (10%) 380- 360 - 340 - Z. w 320 - 300 - 0 280- F-4 266 (5%) 960 - 258 (3%) j 240 0 11-232 (3%) 0 220 - --- 1,1225 (1%) 0 Municipal ---------------- 0 Lots -- ------------- 0 200 - ----------- 203 ------------------------ --------------------------------------- 180 - State Lots 160 -) \ State Lots 140 Municipal Lots 120 T---- I 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 @ 0- t s te Lots State Lc Mu nicipal Lots III. ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR A PARKING GARAGE Initially, f our sites were @'seriously considered as alternative lo- cations for development of a multi-level parking garage. These sites were of sufficient size to accommodate a multi-level garage and included: 0 Ashworth Town Lot; Island Path Town Lot and Extension; Church Street Town Lot and Extension; and 0 Casino Lot. Working closely with the Parking Garage Advisory Committee, these sites were screened for their suitability as sites f or a parking garage. Four factors were weighted heavily in the evaluation process (these are not necessarily ranked in order of priority): 0 Cost of the Land and Construction - Certain sites not noted above were eliminated from - consideration at the outset because the site was already occupied and would require demolition or were highly developable resulting in high purchase or lease costs. In a beach community with Hampton soil characteristics, a key cost f actor associated with a parking garage is the foundationv the Island Path lot and extension were rated unfavorably on the basis of this factor. 0 Accessibility to Hampton_Beach - This factor was determined to be key for two related reasons. First, if higher parking rates are charged to support the cost of a garage, then its location must be convenient and central so that the market will bear those rates. Second, parking lot utilization data shows that central-most lots bear considerably more uti- lization than more remote lots, particularly on weekdays. High utilization will be essential if the garage is become self supporting. The Island Path and Church Street lots were judged unfavorably in light of this factor. 0 Environmental Sensitivity - Hampton Beach is located on a natural barrier with wetlands to its north and west and coastal beaches to its east. Hampton Beach's greatest asset is its natural environment, and development of a parking garage must be developed on a site without significant adverse environmental impacts. The Hampton Conservation Commission has indicated that the Island Path Extension may be vulnerable to adverse environmental impacts if it is used for parking. III-1 AL Arthur D. Little, Inc. 0 Pedestrian Safety - As a tourist area with a particular emphasis on family visitors, safety is a key concern. Although none of the sites, themselves, were considered at a disadvantage in this regard, the parking garage design must reflect this important factor. Other factors considered included the impact on traffic congestion in the Hampton Beach Precinct and the potential for enhancement of economic activity. Traffic congestion impacts were considered in designing access to the facility, as discussed in more detail in Chapter IV. As a stand-alone parking garage, none. of the sites are likely to provide a particularly significant long-term benefit to the local economy. However, if the garage is developed as a multi-use facility, with retail establishments or other uses, then a more central location such as the Casino site or Ashworth Avenue Town Lot will offer considerable advantage. Based on examination of these factors, two sites were selected for more detailed design, cost, and financial feasibility analysis: 0 Ashworth Avenue Town Lot - This lot, owned and operated by the Town, is the largest single site in the central Precinct area which could be developed publicly. It has been the most heavily utilized of the three Town Lots, and, based on preliminary analysis, rests on acceptable soils. 0 Casino Lot - This lot is the largest, single privately owned site in the central Precinct area. It also has been heavily utilized and, based on preliminary analysis, rests on acceptable soils. Both sites were chosen for further analysis because of their respec- tive ownership status. Depending on the financing mechanisms and costs available, it will be important to consider options for either a privately or publicly developed garage. 111-2 A& Arthur D. Little, Inc. IV. COST ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN INTRODUCTION The two sites selected for final evaluation are the so-called munici- pal Ashworth parking lot near the f ire station, and the privately owned parking lot directly to the rear of the Casino. The study area and site locations are shown in Figure 1. A. Ashworth Parking Lot (Municipal) This municipally owned and operated lot presently has a capacity of 580+ vehicles, the figure of which has been used for estimating purposes throughout this study. The parking spaces, which occupy the entire lot area to the maximum limit of the property, are controlled by the marsh area to the west; Brown and Ashworth Avenues to the north and east; and private developed property to the south; and involve approximately 3.5 acres. In developing the preliminary plans for the two-story parking garage, existing information on the physical charac- teristics of the site was utilized. 1. Site Characteristics Apart from the topography and layout of the land area itself, basic information necessary to the evaluation was obtained from existing Town and Beach Precinct records. The most important factor to evalu- ate was the nature of the existing parking lot structure and support- ing soils. In the interest of economy, subsurface exploration records obtained by the Town of Hampton in the recent reconstruction of the municipal sewer system were utilized. It was found that virtually the entire parking area was constructed of a layer of generally frost-free material (gravel and sand) over layers of mixed fill and organic material, all overlying layers of loose, wet sand and organic peat. To support a garage structure of one or more stories, together with the live loading imposed by parked vehicles, it appears that special type foundation construction will be necessary, probably a complete pile structure. In developing the cost estimates, allowance has therefore been made for foundation construction that will not only*support a single level parking garage but will allow for the construction of additional stories if this becomes desirable in a long range plan. 2. Parking Garage Characteristics A schematic layout plan is included as Figures 3 and 4 showing the parking arrangement, together with entrances and exits, for two completely constructed floors. In addition, necessary vehicular ramps, elevators and walkways for the handicapped have been provided at convenient locations as well as required sanitary facilities. The 950 parking spaces provided on the two floors, while showing an IV-1 AL Arthur D. Little, Inc. FIGURE 3 ASHIA/OnTH A ui z 0 KIMBALL CHASE @pany HAMPTON BEACH Romp D., PARKING SPACES PARKING GARAGE STUDY LOWER LEVEL-479 LAN UPPER LEVEL-471 DES GNED BY L DRA N BY-- OWER LEVEL TOTAL- 9@0 APPROVED BY- DATE PARKING GARAGE LAYOUT SITE 1 SCALE PROJECT NO SHEET NO FIGURE 4 ASHWOIRTH- AVE. ui > z Ra Up 0 KIMBALL CHASE HAMPTON BEACH PARKING GARAGE RamP D STUDY PLAN DESIGNED BY- DRA N BY .. @ UPPEFF? LEVEL APPROVED BY-- DATE - -@-' ay - - PARKING GARAGE LAYOUT SITE .1 SCALE PROJECT NO I SHEET NO increase of 364 spaces over that existing, show a reduction in useable parking not equal to double the existing parking spaces, attributable to the above noted services. A summary of the estimated costs for the two-floored parking garage are summarized in Table 5. To minimize the initial construction costs, consideration has been given to the elimination of the first floor concrete construction and the utilization of as much of the bituminous pavement as is possible with a new overlay for leveling "purposes and a temporary parking surface. The net reduction in cost is shown in Table 5 as an alter- nate for site #1. 3. Access and Circulation Plan a. Ground Floor Access and Exit While there may be future changes in 'the overall beach traf f ic circu- lation pattern, we have based our initial plans for entering and exiting (on the f irst f loor of the parking garage) on the present beach traffic pattern; i.e., Brown Avenue two-way traffic and Ashworth Avenue one-way traf f ic during the summer. The planned entrance of f Brown Avenue is generally located to permit as many right-hand turns as is possible without crossing traffic in the opposite direction. It is also sited to optimize ef f icient f irst-come, f irst-serve parking. An automatic barrier type device is shown with the cash collection window located for easy service. b. Parking Circulation Plan Both first and second floors are planned for optimum control of occupied areas to divert entering traffic to available spaces without any reversal of traffic movements. 'A carefully planned signing will permit segregation of parking, consistent with length of planned stays at the beach, with the resulting improved efficiency of operation and business management. B. Casino Parking Lot (Private) This privately owned and operated lot presently has the capacity of 380 vehicles, a figure which has been utilized for comparative pur- poses during the course'of the study. The developed parking spaces cover all of the lot area to the maximum and is controlled by Ashworth Avenue to the west; D Street to the north; the "Casino proper" to the east; and F Street and developed property to the south. Town informa- tion, in addition to plans of the lot and other data available from the owner of the Casino property, was utilized in developing the schematic plan and traffic pattern for entrance and exit. /L Arthur D. Little, Inc. iv-4 1. Site Characteristics Based on information from the owner of an adjacent development, it would appear that, again, the parking area was 'constructed of frost-free material over sand and peat (natural deposits) of greatest depth along Ashworth Avenue, gradually improving towards the Casino itself. With the concentrated heavier loading of the garage structure of one or more stories, it would appear that special type foundations will be required, quite possibly piling, to give the required bearing capacity. Allowance has been made in our estimates for foundation construction that will support one or more stories above the ground level. 2. Parkina Garage Characteristics A schematic plan of the maximum sized parking arrangement has been included as Figures 5 and 6 two completely constructed parking floors. In addition to the vehicular ramps and elevators, we have provided walkways and sanitary facilities, at convenient locations for the handicapped, as well as access to the waterfront and shopping activ- ities. The parking spaces through careful layout on the two floors provide for a total of 610 spaces; an increase of 230 spaces over that which now exists. As in the case of the municipal parking lot, estimates have been provided both for a complete two-floor garage and an alternative two-floor facility (minus the concrete first-floor, and utilizing asphalt pavement in lieu thereof). A summary of the es- timated cost for each alternate is shown in Table 6. To minimize the initial construction costs, consideration has been given to the elimination of the first floor concrete construction and the utilization of as much as the bituminous pavement as is possible with a new overlay for leveling purposes and a temporary parking surface. The net reduction in cost is shown in Table 6 as an alter- riate for site #2. 3. Access and Circulation a. Ground Floor Access and Exit The present access to the parking lot, as well as to the exit, is from D Street which is one-way towards the Boulevard. This arrangement., which appears quite workable, has been incorporated into the lower or ground-floor level of the parking -garage. In this instance, all traffic makes only right-hand turns with no cross traffic movements. The location of the entrance and the exit have been selected to optimize the right-hand turning movements. Automatic barrier-type control is shown with cash collection provided. Final design will permit off-street stopping locations. AL Arthur D. Little, Inc. IV-5 TABLE 5 COST ESTIMATES: ASHW6RTH AVENUE LOT Site #1 - Ashworth Avenue Parking Lot (Municipal) Number of Spaces: 950 - @ $6,000/space x 950 (includes special funds) $ 5,700,000 Architect/Engineering Fees (6%) 342,000 Contingencies (5%) 285,000 Total Project Cost: $ 6,327,000 Rounded: $ 6,400,000 Cost Per Space: $ 6,740 Revised Ashworth Avenu e Parking Lot Estimate with Asphalt First Floor (Municipal) Assumed re oval of structural slab from original estimate, 151,000 ft First Floor area. Assume slab 8" thick. 3,750 CY @ $200 $750,000 Add in cost of 1" Bituminous overlay (960 tons @ $34.00/Ton) $32,000 Net Savings: $750,000 - 32,600 - $717,000 Original Estimate: $ 5,700,000 Less Above: 717,000 $5,250/Space: $ 4,983,000 Architect/Engineering (6%) 299,000 Contingencies (5%) 264,100 Total Project Cost: $ 53,546,100 Cost per Space: $ 5,840 AL Arthur D. Little, Inc. IV-6 FIGURE ASHWORTH AVE. III III I lk-!,"PUP TP-1 "M HETTll 7, TTmip 1 71 -1 T-T.17 i,th I U2 HII J-1 Lu cc w A..p D.- LLI cc ch 93 KIMBALL CHASE -'pany'm HAMPTON BEACH PARKING SPACES PARKING GARAGE PLAN LOWER LEVFL-3(;S STUDY LOWER LEVEL UPPER LEVEL- 304 DESIGNED 0- - - IIR-N:y Z-13- APPROV 0 By_ TOTAL- 6 i 0 DATE PARKING GARAGE LAYOUT SITE #2 SCALE OCEAN BOULEVARD ET NO, F 1 10 @ETIW I @l FIGURE 6 ASHWORTH AVE. ITI El uj Tp Do, cn ZL I Ml i I I i I i 1 D KIMBALL CHASE HAMPTON BEACH PARKING GARAGE PLAN STUDY UPPER LEVEL DESIGNED By 1114111 :1 W APROV D ., DIJE --l" PARKING GARAGE LAYOUT SITE P2 OCEAN BOULEVARD SCALE - - - - PROJECT No S.EET NO TABLE 6 COST ESTIMATES: CASINO LOT Site #2 - Casino Parking Lot (Private) Number of Spaces: 610 @ $6,000/space x 610 (includes special funds) $ 3,660,000 Architect/Engineering Fees (6%) 219,600 Contingencies (5%) 183,000 Total Project Cost: $ 4,062,600 Rounded. $ 4,100,000 Cost Per Space: $ 6,720 Revised Casino Parking Lot Estimate with Existing Asphalt FiEst Floor (Private) Assumed re oval of structural slab from original estimate, 105,000 ft , First Floor area. Assume slab 8" thick. = 2,600 CY @ 200 = $520,000 Add in cost of I" Bituminous overlay (665 tons $34.00/Ton) = $22,610 Net Savings: $520,000 - $22,610 = $497,390 Original Estimate: $ 3,660,000 Less Above: 497,390 $ 3,162,610 Architect/Engineering (6%) 189,757 Contingencies (5%) 158,130 Total Project Cost: $ 3,510,497 Cost per Space: $ 5,755 /t Arthur D. Little, Inc. IV-9 b. farking/Circulation Plan The circulation pattern for both floors has been designed for continu- ous one-direction traf f ic movements and optimum control of all areas for most efficient parking arrangements. The ultimate signed plan will provide for segregation of parking hours as well as direct access both to public streets and the casino facility at lower and upper levels. C. Summary of Costs and Designs Based on this analysis of a parking garage for Hampton Beach, this represents a pFactical approach to the final design for two alterna- tive parking garage developments. The schematic plans and cost estimates form the basis for projects that can be constructed which will provide the number of spaces estimated within the cost projected. /L Arthur D. Little, Inc. IV-10 V. ASSESSMENT OF CAPACITY UTILIZATION OF PARKING GARAGE AND ANTICIPATED PARKING REVENUES Based on the anticipated demand and garage designs, the anticipated capacity utilization of the garage and other lots and associated revenues were evaluated. This chapter summarizes underlying as- sumptions and determines estimates of capacity utilization and reve- nues. A. General Assumptions First, it was assumed that the status quo will be maintained regarding current seasonal parking space leases by the Town of Hampton (146 spaces) and the State (349 spaces), and associated seasonal rates. Under the public development scenario in which the present Ashworth Lot is the site of the two-level garage, it was assumed that the seasonal spaces previously at Ashworth would be accommodated at the Church Street Lot Extension. It was assumed that the Island Path Extension will continue to be utilized only on a marginal basis for buses and a limited number of cars only on peak summer weekends. Because of the environmental sensitivity of this site, it was believed to be unlikely that it would be developed for use with significant surface parking or as a garage. It was assumed that the status quo will be maintained regarding the availability of parking at the Church Street Lot (300 spaces), Church Street Extension (100 spaces, including seasonal spaces) and Casino, if a garage is not developed there (380 spaces, without garage). If the status of this parking changes, that is, if a significant number of spaces is removed from the Hampton Beach inventory then the capaci- ty utilization at the remaining lots will increase substantially. For development of the parking garage, two alternat ive levels of parking rates were assumed: 0 a "low" rate structure of $3.00 per day on weekdays and $4.00 per day on weekends at all lots, reflecting the rate levels for the summer of 1984; 0 a 11moderate" rate structure of $5.00 per day on weekdays and $7.00 on weekends at the parking garage and $3.00 per day weekdays and $5.00 per day on weekends at all other munici- pal lots. B. Capacity Utilization Based upon recent trends and estimated future demand for parking, the anticipated capacity utilization was estimated for a parking garage (under both private and public development scenarios) and for other municipal lots. In 1983, the Ashworth Lot consistently was utilized /L Arthur D'. Little, Inc. V-1 near or in excess of lull capacity on weekdays, as ,shown in Figure 1, while other Town lots were utilized at 75 to 100 percent in July and 50 to 75 percent in August (utilization in excess of 100 percent indicates turnover in parked cars). As shown in Figure 8, the Ashworth Lot was consistently used at near 100 percent of capacity on July weekends and about 175 percent on August weekends. Other lots were used at or slightly above full capacity. Based on these trends, which were adjusted for the effect of better than average weather in 1983, capacity utilization estimates were determined for the garage and other lots under the. public and private development alternatives and under two rate scenarios, a "moderate" and a "low". These capaci- ty utilization estimates ar summarized in Table 7. Estimates of capacity utilization at the various lots reflect the significant variation in utilization between weekends and weekdays, and during the peak versus shoulder seasons. They also reflect the effect of the price elasticity of demand for parking in response to price, i.e., that where parking at a lower fee is available adjacent to the garage, under the moderate rate scenario, then the lower price parking will capture more of the demand. C. Parkin Revenue Based upon the estimates of future demand, parking revenues were determined under each of the four garage development scenarios, as summarized in Table 8: public garage with low and moderate parking rates; and private garage with low and moderate parking rates. These revenue estimates distinguish between the base revenues derived from the first floor of the garage (i.e., revenues which would be collected from the first floor without the garage, 1984 parking fees), garage revenues, and other revenues. v-2 /L Arthur D. Little, Inc. TABLE 7A CAPACITY UTILIZATION ALTERNATIVE I: PUBLIC FINANCE MID-RANGE RATES Shoulder Season Peak Season Labor Day May 15-June 15 June 16-August 31 September 1-September 5 Lots Weekends/Holidays Mid-Week Weekends/Holidays Mid-Week Weekends/Holidays Mid-Week Capacity: # Spaces .(8 Days) (22 Days) (23 Days) (55 Days) (3 Days) (2 Days) Ashworth-Lower Level (475) 75% 40% 150% 75% 150% 75% Ashworth-Upper Level (475) 75% 01/0 150% 75% 1505/o 75% Island Path (180) 75% 20% 1500/. 75% 100*/0 75% Island Path Extension (75) 0% 0*/0 25% 0% 25% 0% Church Street (300) 75% 20% 1509o 75% 10 (r/O 75% Church Street Extension (24) 0% 0% 75% 25% 75% 0% NOTE: Assumes seasonal 146 spaces maintained by Town of Hampton are excluded from space totals, and are located only at Island Path, Church Street and their extensions. '00 'aw .60 *ago 't- am an TABLE 7B CAPACITY UTILIZATION ALTERNATIVE II: PUBLIC FINANCE LOW RATES Shoulder Season Peak Season Labor Day May 15-June 15 June 16-August 31 September I-September 5 Lots Weekends/Holidays Mid-Week Weekends/Holidays Mid-Week Weekends/Holidays Mid-Week Capacity: # Spaces (8 Days) (22 Days) (23 Days) (55 Days) (3 Days) (2 Days) Ashworth-Lower Level (475) 90% 50% 175% 90% 175% 90% 41 Ashworth-Upper Level (475) 90% 0% 175% 90% 175% 900/0 Island Path (180) 50% 100/0 150% 50% 1000/0 50% Island Path Extension (75) 0% 0% 25% 00/0 25% 0% Church Street (300) 50% 10% 150% 509o 10 (r/0 50% Church Street Extension (24) 0% 0% 75% 25% 75% 0% NOTE: Assumes seasonal 146 spaces maintained by Town of Hampton are excluded from space totals, and are located only at Island Path, Church Street and their extensions. on im, 00, go, 40 Am so low so 0% so me am 00 Om TABLE 7C CAPACITY UTILIZATION ALTERNATIVE III: PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT MID-RANGE RATES Shoulder Season Peak Season. Labor Day May 15-June 15 June 16-August 31 September 1-September 5 Lots Weekends/Holidays Mid-Week Weekends/Holidays Mid-Week Weekends/Holidays Mid-Week Capacity: # Spaces (8 Days) (22 Days) (23 Days) (55 22ys) (3 Days) (2 Days) Ashworth-Lower Level (554) 1000/6 40% 175% 80% 150% 80% Island Path (180) 75% 20% 150% 75% 1001/0 75% Island Path Extension (75) 0% 0% 25% 0% 25% 0% Church Street (300) 75% 20% 150% 75% 1 0 09/. 75% Church Street Extension (50) 00/0 0% 75% 25% 75% 01/0 Casino Lower Level (305) 75% 40% 150% 70% 150% 75% Casino Upper Level (305) 75% 0% 1509/o 7 0% 1 5 0% 75% NOTE: Assumes seasonal 146 spaces maintained by Town of Hampton are excluded from space totals, and are located only at Island Path, Church Street and their extensions. TABLE 7D CAPACITY UTILIZATION P1 ALTERNATIVE IV: PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT LOW RATES Shoulder Season Peak Season Labor Day May 15-June 15 June 16-August 31 September 1-September 5 Lots Weekends/Holidays Mid-Week Weekends/Holidays Mid-Week Weekends/Holidays Mid-Week Capacity: # Spaces (8 Days) (22 Days) (23 Days) (55 Days) (3 Days) (2 Days) Ashworth-Lower Level (554) 90% 40% 165% 9%0* 150% 90% 01 Island Path (180) 75% 20% 145% 50% 100% 50% Island Path Extension (75) 0% 00/6 25% 10 00/0 25% 0% Church Street (300) 75% 20% 145% 50% 100% 50% Church Street Extension (50) 00/0 0% 75% 25% 75% 0% Casino Lower Level (330) 90% 40% 165% 90% 150% 70% Casino Upper Level (330) 90% 0% 165% 90% 150% 90% NOTE: Assumes seasonal 146 spaces maintained by Town of Hampton are excluded from space totals, and are located only at Island Path, Church Street and their extensions. 00 Alp .40 '00 00 to so TABLE 8 REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS FOR MULTI-LEVEL PARKING GARAGE AND MUNICIPAL LOTS 2nd. Level and Weekday Revenues All Other Total Revenues- Base Casino Casino Total Development Incremental Excluding Municipal Municipal Revenues Revenues Options ist. Level Ashworth Revenues (Excl. O&M) (1st. Floor) (Excl. O&M) 1. Public Development Mid-Range Rates $355,421 $68,886 $276,770 $701,077 Il. Public Development Low Rates 188,908 45,528 256,735 491,171 III. Private Development Mid-Range Rates 213,310 27,524 348,244 375,768 122,562 326,066 IV. Private Development Low Rates 106,650 49,439 2973,073 346,512 124,641 221,324 FIGURE 7 AVERAGE [,@UMBE R OF CARS PER WEEKDAY PER NAUNICiPAL LOT 1983 9 0 0 800 /00 Ln or_ 600- 500 - D LLj 400 - C) 300 - 200 100 N I MAY J U IA E JULY AUG SEPT (First Five Days Ashworth Lot Island Path Lot Church Street Lot Only) 554 180 300 Total Number of Spaces ON .40 W " am to to 'am go as in FIGURE 8 AVG NUMBER OF CARS PER WEEKEND DA") PER MUNICIPAL LOT 1983 0.9 0.8 0 0.7 (Y LLj M 0.6 :D 0 z C- 0.5 0.4- 0.3 - 0.2 - 77-,, 0.1 - 0- MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT VA -ZF-/z (First Five Days Church street Lot Only) Ashworth Lot Island Path Lot, Total Number of Spaces 554 180 300 VI. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Based upon the anticipated demand for parking facilities in Hampton Beach (as discussed in chapter II), cost estimates of two alternative parking garage designs, at the Ashworth lot and behind the Casino (as discussed in chapter IV), the financial assessment evaluates the feasibility of a publically and privately financed parking garage. A variety of potential mechanisms to finance both construction and operations and maintained were considered and are summarized in Table 9. Based on this review it was concluded that general obligation bond financing in combination with a municipal enterprise fund established to pool all parking revenues would be the least cost viable public financing alternative (see Section VI.A). Financing alternatives dependent on receipt of grant money from federal and state agencies were found to be not viable either for political or legal reasons. As discussed below in Section VI.B, the private financing alternative was also evaluated. This was done to determine the potential for attract- ing private investment. A detailed discussion concerning the assumptions on financing mecha- nisms and other factors used to determine the financial feasibility of the parking garage is presented below. A. Public Finance Options 1. Introduction Tables 10 and 11 summarize assumptions used in projecting parking garage cash flows assuming the Ashworth garage is publically financed. Tables 10 and 11 also show base revenues attributable to all other municipal parking lot revenue collections. Estimates of non-garage related municipal parking revenue collections are made to determine whether these revenues would be sufficient to offset parking garage deficits. Tables 10 and 11 also itemize assumptions concerning capital costs, O&N costs, net cash flow assuming "moderate" and "low" rates. Revenue projections as well as costs and cash flow projections are discussed below. 2. Rates and Revenues (Moderate Rate Scenario) Table 10 shows cash flow projections given "moderate" rates equivalent to: $5.00/space at the garage on weekdays; $3.00/space at all other lots on weekdays; 0 $7.00/space at the garage on weekends; and 0 $5.00/space at all other lots on weekends. VI-1 /*t Arthur D. Little, Inc. TABLE 9 MECHANISMS FOR FINANCING AND MAINTAINING A PARKING GARAGE SOURCES OF FINANCING METHODS OF PAYMENT General Obligation Bond Community Federal Municipal Designated Development Revenue Tax Increment UDAG Private Enterprise State Parking Service Block Grant Bond Standard Financing Funds Financing Fund Meter/Lot Funds District Construction *Needs approval of eMust show that *Town commits *Capital costs paid *Hampton not eSeasonality *Funds from 9A precedent exists *Can not be used to N.H. Office of project funds are general revenues off with increased eligible for UDAG reduces utiliza- municipal parking for using state pay for capital State Planning sufficient to pay to repay parking property tax funds tion and expected lots could be funds for improvements capital/operating garage capital revenues resulting revenuelprofit pooled to cover specified ORecent Federal costs cost from increased capital costs of improvements in restrictions now property values eNo IIG and 15 year parking garage Hampton Beach provide that *Higher interest *Problems reduced depreciation re- primary benefits than G.O. Bonds if garage can be *Most tax revenue duces oCan be managed by *Question exists must be.for demonstrated to be increases gener- attractiveness to an existing concerning amount low/moderate self sufficient ally come from new private investors municipal depart- of surplus parking income people construction rath- ment revenues available er than increases (Concord developer for improvements in existing prop- needed equivalent *Question concern- erty values of 3% loan to ing amount of sur- *N.H. State break even) plus parking rev- legislature enues available to approval required cover capital costs Operation and NA NA NA NA NA NA O&M costs could be Uncertain whether 0&1 costs of a Maintenance (O&R) paid vith an state funds could specified public Enterprise Fund be designated for facility like a O&M parking garage could be funded through a service district assessment based on front footage Hal-pton Beach Parlinig Gara;E 5i'4;34 (PabliclV'FinanCEd - Modeat2 Rat2s) TABLE 10 lnte@e5t Rate 10.50 Term of Debt (years) 30 Ba,aqe lost Mo(iols - wio Ist Lev. Concrete Floor) 5550.00 Pe"anue Assumptions USpace WeEldays(uGarage/Other) 5/3 I/Space WEELEnds(GoraqE/Other) 7,15 I of Spaces 475 'mqual O&M (Increlental $1000's) 13.00 A.-Mual Inflation 6.50 Base Revenues Total Revenues ta@h FloN Attr!butable to Garage Construction ----------------------------------- --------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- (7) 13) (7) 00) (11) (1) (2) (1) (4) (5) 1b) Weekday (Cash Flow Reve"u2s Aniual Revenues All Alt. ibutable to Qnd Ley. Loan Annual Net Cash (EYCILding Other other Net 6arage Construction + Inc. Repay. Interest Princip3l OM Flow Ashworth) Revenues O&M Revenues + Base Revenues Ist Lev. ------ ------- ----------- ------ ------- ---------- ------- ------ ------- ---------------- Revenue f(cost, Clalc. from (4) (1-3-4-5) H Year term, L ------- --------- int.) 0 0.00 1 1155.41 513.43 532.15 30-69 13.00 -271.01 68.87 276.77 16.00 319.66 48.64 2 M.t2 L111.43 579.11, 33.90 13.85 -248.75 75.43 '94.76 27.69 342.50 93.75@ 3 403.13 513.43 5-75.97, 37.46 14.74 -125.05 82.60 313.91 29.4? 367.03 141.93 4 429.33 613.43 572.03 41.40 15.70 -199.61 90.44 3114.12 31.41 M1.36 193.55 5 457.24 613.43 567.69 45.15 16.72 -172.92 99.03 356.06 33.45 421.64 248.72 6 486.96 613.43 562.68 50.55 17.81 -144,29 100.44 7.79.20 35.62 4511.02 307.13 7 518.61 613.43, 557,53 55.06 18.97 -113.7? 11B.75 401-85 37.94 484.65 370.86 8 552.32 613.43 551.71' 61.72 20.20 -81.32 130.03 430.10 40.40 519.72 438.40 9 588.12 613.43 545.23 65.10 21.51 -46.73 142.38 458.05 43.03 557.40 510.67 10 616.45 613.43 538.07 75.36 22.91 -9.B3 155.90 487.0 45.83 597.90 5BB.01 11 667.17 613.43 530.16 83.28 24.40 29.34 170.72 519.54 4B.81 b4l.44 670.79 12 710-4 613.43 521.41 ?2.02 25.9q 71.12 IBI.81 551-31 51.98 681,.14 M4.26 13 756.73 613.43 511.75 101.0 27.@S 115.61 193.63 589.27 55.36 727.54 843.16 14 80".91 613.43 501.07 112.36 29.48 163.00 206.22 627.57 5.8.95 774.83 Q7.84 15 958.30 613.47 4P.18 124.16 31.39 213.47 219.6.1 668.36 69.79 315.10 1038.67 &17 16 914.05 1.43 476.24 117.19 3,.43 267.22 233.89 711.81 U.87 678.84 11411.01 17 973. D 613.433 461.93) 151. 6D 35.61 324.46 249.10 753. 03 71.11 935.96 1260.41 18 103t.7B 611.43 445,@2 167.52 37.72 385.42 265.29 607.35 75.84 996.80 1382.22 1? 1 IP@4. 17 6113.43 4 118. 3 3 1855 - ', 11 40.39 450.35 282.53 8.59.33 90.77 1061.5? 1511.94 20 1175.94 03.47 1". 29 (14. 54 A3.01 519.50 3010. 50 915.72 86.02 11'0.59 1650.0@ 21 115?.,13 6 13. 4 @') -181.41 12.6. 0 21 45.81 593.14 320.46 975.14 91.51 1204.99 1797.11 22 13"'.7e 1111.43 7631.66 '49.75 4B.78 671.56 341.29 1038.63 97.57 M2.35 1953.91 23 14-10.43 51-1.43 337.46 175.17 51.96 755.09 3.53.47 1106.14 103.91 [email protected] 212).79 24 1,12.El @13.43 311E. 48 @01. 15 51--1,3 644.04 M7.09 1178.C4 110.67 1454.47 2298.51 25 1611.14 613.4-3 175.46 -1, 3 6. 3 7 58.?3 938.78 412.26 1154.51 117.96 1549.01 2497.1? 2-1 1115-e7 1111-41 2,41 . `9 V2.115 62.76 M9.67 4,19.05 1221L.U 125-52 tM.69 2689.37 27 182?. 4-3 613.43 2u-1.93 411.45 66.84 1147.12 1457.59 141-3.01, 1-33-5.63 11,16.91 1-904.05 IS [email protected] 613.47, M.78 4,54.65 71.18- 1261.56 457.98 M5.51 142.37 101.12 @122.69 19 1072. 4B 613.43 11 1.,,A 5 j2. 39 75.BI 136-33.44 530.35 !614.02 141.62 1991.75 3376.12 M 0 . U1.48 2!2- @ Z'1115.@I K 7 40 L13.47 2 9 555.14 B D. 74 1513.23 564.K 1718.931 Hampton Beach Parking Garage 5/24/84 (Publicly Financed - Low Rate) Interest Rate 10.50 Temn of Debt (years) 30 Garage Cost ($1000's-w/o 1st) TABLE 11 Lev. Concrete Floor) 5550.00 Revenue Assumptions $/Space Weekdays(Garage/Other) 3.00 $/Space Weekends (Garage/Other) 4.00 $0f Spaces 475 Annual O&M (incremental-$1000's) 13.00 Annual Inflation 6.50 Base Revenues Total Revenues Cash Flow Attributable to Garage Construction ----------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Weekday (Cash Flow Revenues Annual Revenues All Attributable to (2nd Lev. Loan Annual Net Cash (Excluding Other Other Net Garage Construction +Inc. Repay. Interest Principal O&M Flow Ashworth) Revenues O&M Revenues + Base Revenues 1st Lev. ------ ------- ----------- ------ ------- ---------- ------- ------ ------- ---------------- Revenue f(cost, Calc. from (4) (1-3-4-5) Year term, ------- --------- int.) 0 040 1 188.91 613.43 582.75 30.68 13.00 -437.53 45.53 256.74 26.00 276.26 -161.26 2 201.19 6l3.43 579.53 33.90 13.85 -426.09 49.85 273.42 27.69 295.59 -130.51 3 214.26 613.43 575.97 37.46 14.74 -413.91 54.59 291.20 29.49 316.29 -97.62 4 228.19 613.43 572.03 41.40 15.70 -400.95 59.78 310.12 31.41 338.49 -62.45 5 243.02 613.43 567.69 45.75 16.72 -387.13 65.45 330.28 33.45 362.29 -24.85 6 243.02 613.43 562.88 50.55 17.81 -372.42 71.67 351.75 35.62 387.80 15.38 8 293.56 613.43 551.71 61.72 20.20 -340.07 85.94 398.96 40.40 444.50 104.41 9 312.64 613.43 545.23 68.20 21.51 -322.31 94.10 424.90 43.03 475.97 153.66 10 332.96 613.43 538.07 75.36 22.91 -303.38 103.04 452.51 45.83 509.73 206.34 11 354.61 613.43 530.16 83.28 24.40 -283.23 112.93 481.93 49.81 545.95 262.72 12 377.66 613.43 521.41 92.02 25.99 -261.77 120.16 513.25 51.98 581.44 319.67 13 402.20 613.43 511.75 101.68 27.68 -238.91 127.97 546.61 55.36 619.23 380.31 14 428.35 613.43 501.07 112.36 29.48 -214.56 136.29 582.14 58.95 659.48 444.92 15 456.19 613.43 489.28 124.16 31.39 -188.64 145.15 619.98 62.79 702.35 513.71 16 485.84 613.43 476.24 137.19 33.43 -161.03 154.51 660.28 66.87 748.00 586.97 17 517.49 613.43 461.83 151.60 35.61 -131.62 164.63 703.20 11.21 796.62 665.00 18 551.05 613.43 445.92 167.52 31.92 -100.30 175.33 748.91 75.B4 848.40 748.10 19 586.87 613.43 428.33 185.11 40.39 -66.95 186.73 797.59 80.77 903.54 836.60 20 625.02 613.43 408.89 204.54 43.01 -31.43 198.87 849.47 86.02 962.28 930.85 21 665.64 613.43 397.41 226.02 45.91 6.40 211.80 904.64 9l.61 1024.82 1031.23 22 708.91 613.43 363.68 249.75 48.78 46.69 225.56 90.44 97.57 1091.44 1138.13 23 754.91 613.43 337.46 275.97 51.96 89.60 240.22 1026.07 103.91 1162.38 1251.93 24 804.07 613.43 308.48 304.95 55.33 135.30 255.84 1092.76 110.67 1237.93 1373.23 25 856.33 613.43 276.46 336.97 58.93 183.97 272.47 1163.79 117.86 1318.40 1502.37 26 911.99 613.43 241.08 372.35 62.76 235.80 290.18 1239.44 125.52 1404.10 1639.89 27 971.27 613.43 201.98 411.45 66.84 291.00 309.04 1320.00 133.68 1495.36 1786.36 28 1034.40 613.43 158.78 454.65 71.18 349.79 329.13 1405.60 142.37 1592.56 1942.35 29 1101.54 613.43 111.04 502.39 75.81 412.40 350.52 1497.18 151.62 1696.08 2108.47 30 1173.21 613.43 56.29 555.14 80.74 479.07 373.70 1594.50 161.48 1806.32 2285.40 Revenues directly attributable to the parking garage are shown in Column 1. These estimated revenues include revenues from the second level of the Ashworth garage as well as increases in revenues collect- ed from the first floor of Ashworth due to rate increase resulting from garage construction. These revenues are assumed to increase with the rate of inflation -- assumed to be 6.5 percent per year over 30 years. Base weekday revenues from all non-garage related parking lots are shown in Column 7. These revenues are assumed to increase for the next ten years due to a 3 percent annual growth in weekday parking attendance and due to a 6.5 percent general inflation rate. After ten years it is assumed that available weekday capacity would be fully utilized. At that time., it is projected that base parking revenues will continue to increase at the general rate of inflation. All other base revenues are shown in Column 8, and these include: � Weekday and weekend revenues which would have been collected at the Ashworth lot in absence of garage construction; and � All weekend revenues at all other municipal lots (excluding the Ashworth lot). 3. Capital Costs Table 10 summarizes estimates of: 0 Capital costs; and Interest rates associated with a municipal bond. As sh:wn in Table 10 the capital cost for the Ashworth garage (with an asphalt first floor) is estimated to be $5.5 million. This would provide sufficient funds for 475 additional spaces on the second level of the Ashworth garage. Interest rates on a 30-year general obligation bond are assumed to be 10.5 percent. This is below current rates which, at present, exceed 11 percent. The 10.5 percent rate represents what is assumed to be a long term average rate. This rate is based on the assumption that long run inflation is likely to be 6.5 percent and that the spread between tax exempt bond rates and expected inflation rates will be between 3 percent and 5 percent. This spread is lower than the 5.2 percent spread which existed between 1981 and 1983 - but higher than the 1.4 percent spread which existed between 1960 and 1970. Based on a 10.5 percent interest rate and a bond with a 30 year life, principal and interest payments required to finance a $5.5 million garage are shown in Columns 3 and 4 of Table 10. /L Arthur D. Little, Inc. VI-5 4. Operations and Maintenance Costs Annual incremental O&M costs of $13,000 associated with the garage are shown in Column 5. These are based upon the assumption that the garage includes staffing in late Spring, Summer, and early Fall, utilities, janitorial service, and other minimal maintenance expenses. 5. Net Cash Flow (Moderate Rate.Scenario) Column 6 illustrates the net cash flow attributable to garage con- struction. As shown in Column 6, the initial year cash f low is $-271,000 in year 1. This deficit declines to $-9,890 in year 10. In year eleven the garage would, given assumptions discussed above, have a positive cash flow. As previously discussed, net base revenues of approximately $320,000 shown in Column 10 (these revenue projections include revenues shown in Columns 7 and 8 less O&M costs shown in Column 9 associated with operating current municipal lots) are sufficient to cover the year I deficit of $271,000. In fact as shown in Column 1, there would be a net municipal parking revenue surplus of approximately $49,000 in year 1. 6. Net Cash Flow (Low Rate Scenario) Table 11 shows cash flow projections assuming current rates of $3.00/space on weekdays and $4.00/space on weekends are maintained. With the exception of change in parking rates, all financial as- sumptions are the same. As shown in Column 6 of Table 11 the parking garage deficit would in the first year equal approximately $438,000. This deficit is project- ed to decline to approximately -$31,400 in the twentieth year. In the 21st year the garage would generate a small surplus. Table 11 also shows that base revenues from other parking lots would in the first year would not be great enough to offset the parking garage deficit. In fact approximately $161,000 in municipal revenues would be required to offset losses from all parking activities. As shown in Column 11, by year 6, there would be sufficient parking revenues to meet total capital and O&M costs associated with the parking garage and other municipal parking lots. B. Private Finance Options 1. Introduction The following discussed revenue projections assuming "moderate" and "low" rates collected at a privately financed garage located behind the casino. Also discussed are capital cost assumptions, tax deduct- ible expenses, taxable and after tax income, after tax cash flow, and the present value of the after tax cash flow. A. Arthur D. Little, Inc. vi-6 2. Rates on Revenues (Moderate Rate Scenario) Parking rates under the private f inance option moderate rate scenario are assumed to be the same as-under the public finance option Moderate Rate Scenario. Revenue projections shown in Table 12, Column 3 illustrate parking revenues attributable to building a parking garage behind the casino. As with the publically financed option, revenues are assumed to increase with inflation--projected to be 6.5 percent for the next 30 years. 3. Capital Costs Capital costs for a 610 space garage or 305 additional spaces on a second floor at the casino lot are estimated to be $3.92 million. Table 12 shows that these costs are assumed to be financed with 20 percent equity and 80 percent debt. The cost of debt is assumed to be 13.5 percent. This rate is consistent with projections of long term fixed rate mortgages for real estate development. (These projections were made prior to the current surge in interest rates however repre- sent a reasonable expectation of long term interest rates.) Annual interest and principal payments are shown in Columns 5 and 6 of Table 12. In the private finance option it is assumed that private investors require an after-tax discount rate of 13.5 percent. This rate re- flects a rate of return on equity which a private investor would require--given the level of risk of a parking garage investment relative to a low risk tax exempt bond assumed to yield 10.5 percent (after tax). The 3 percentage points difference between a relatively risk free investment in a high grade municipal bond and the required return on equity invested in a parking garage is meant to reflect the premium an investor would expect if he were to give up potential returns in other investments with similar levels of risk. [NOTE: Estimation of precise risk premiums required to attract private investment is difficult due to lack of data on returns on equity invested in parking garages. Given the past steady growth in apparent parking demand in Hampton Beach it is assumed that the risk premium (rate of return above the risk free rate of return) would be relative- ly low (i.e., less than 5 percent).] 4. Tax Deductible Expenses Table 12 lists tax deductible expenses which include: � Interest, shown in Column 5 � Depreciation, shown in Column 7. These rates assume that 100 percent of the property could be depreciated over 15 years. (Current tax law changes may extend the number of years to 20. Thus the depreciation rates shown in Table 12 VI-7 AL Arthur D. Little, Inc. Hampton Beach Parking Garage 5/24/84 (Private Investor - Moderate Rates) Assumptions: %Equity 20 %Debt 80 TABLE 12 Investor Tax Br. % 50 Interest an Debt 13.50 Term of Debt (years) 30 Discount Rate (Aft. Tax) 13.50 ACRS Depreciation (Building Only) % 5 Year 0 % 10 Year 0 % 15 Year 100 % Not Depreciable 0 Investment Tax Credit 0.00 Property Tax (%) 1.80 Annual Increase in Property Tax (%) 2.50 Garage Cost ($1000's - w/o 1st Lev. Concrete Floor) 3511.00 Revenue Assumptions $/Space weekday 5 $/Space weekend 7 # Of Spaces 305 Annual O&M (Incremental -$1000's) 13.00 Annual Inflation 6.50 (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (1O) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) Revenues Annual Property Tax After Aft. Tax Inc.+ Net Present Net Present Net Present (2nd. Lev Loan (Increasing Annual Taxable Tax Depreciation-Principal Value of Aft. Value of Equity Value - + Inc. Repay. Interest Principal Depreciation 2.5%/Year) D&M Income Income =Aft. Tax Cash Flow Tax Cash Flow Tax Cash Flow Equity 1st. Lev. ------ ------- ----------- ------------ -------- ------ ------- -------- ------------- ------------- ------------ ------- (1) (2) Revenue) f(cost, Calc. from (4) Calc. from cost x (3-5-7-8-9)(10 x .50) (11)+(7) @Discount Rate Sum of (13) (14)-(1) Year Equity Debt term, ACRS above prop. tx ------ ------ ----- -------- int.) rate 0 702.20 2808.80 0.00 1 213.31 387.87 377.19 8.69 421.32 63.20 13.00 -663.40 -331.70 80.94 80.94 2 227.17 387.87 378.02 9.86 351.10 64.78 13.85 -580.56 -290.28 50.96 44.90 3 241.94 387.87 376.68 11.19 315.99 66.40 14.74 -531.88 -265.94 38.86 30.17 4 257.67 387.87 375.17 12.70 280.88 68.06 15.70 -482.15 -241.07 27.11 18.54 5 274.42 387.87 373.46 14.41 245.77 69.76 16.72 -431.30 -215.65 15.71 9.46 6 292.25 387.87 371.51 16.36 210.66 71.50 17.81 -379.24 -169.62 4.68 2.49 7 311.25 387.87 369.30 18.57 210.66 73.29 18.97 -360.98 -180.49 11.60 5.43 8 331.48 387.87 366.80 21.08 210.66 75.12 20.20 -341.30 -170.65 18.93 7.80 9 353.03 387.87 363.95 23.92 210.66 77.00 21.51 -320.10 -160.05 26.69 9.69 10 375.97 387.87 360.72 27.15 175.55 78.93 22.91 -262.14 -131.07 17.33 5.54 11 400.41 387.87 357.06 30.82 175.55 80.90 24.40 -237.50 -118.75 25.98 7.32 12 426.44 387.87 352.90 34.98 175.55 82.92 25.99 -210.92 -105.46 35.11 8.72 13 454.16 387.87 348.18 39.70 175.55 84.99 27.68 -192.24 -91.12 44.73 9.79 14 483.68 387.87 342.82 45.06 175.55 87.11 29.48 -151.29 -75.64 54.85 10.57 15 515.12 387.87 336.73 51.14 175.55 89.30 31.39 -117.86 -59.93 65.48 11.12 16 548.60 387.87 329.81 58.04 0.00 91.53 33.43 93.60 46.90 -11.14 -1.62 17 584.26 387.87 321.99 65.88 0.00 93.82 35.61 132.84 66.42 0.54 0.07 18 622.23 387.87 313.10 74.77 0.00 96.16 37.92 175.05 87.52 12.75 1.48 19 662.68 387.87 303.01 84.87 0.00 98.57 40.39 220.71 110.36 25.49 2.61 20 705.75 387.87 101.03 43.01 270.16 135.08 38.76 3.49 may overstate tax deductible expenses in early years. This tends to make the present value of the af ter tax cash flow discussed below, greater than it would be under current tax depreciation rules). 9 Property taxes, shown in Column 8. 0 Annual O&M, shown in Column 9. It is assumed that the incremental O&M costs for the private garage would be the same as for the public garage even though there would be fewer spaces. This is concluded because most O&M costs are assumed to be fixed--i.e., would vary little with the scale of the project. These expenses are used to compute taxable income. 5. Taxable Income Taxable income shown in Column 10 is calculated by subtracting tax deductible expenses (Columns 5,7,8, and-9) from revenues (Column 3). 6. After Tax Income After tax income is estimated assuming the investor is in the 50 percent tax bracket. Therefore, 50 percent of taxable income would equal after tax income shown in Column 11. 7.' After Tax Cash Flow After tax cash flow to the investor is estimated by taking the after tax income and adding back non-cash tax deductions (depreciation) and by subtracting actual cash payments (principal repayment shown in Column 6) not used in calculating after tax income. 8. Present Value of After Tax Cash Flow (Moderate Rate Scenario) To determine the current value of a parking garage investment, after tax cash flows were discounted at the after tax cost of capital. This cost (assumed to be 13.5 percent) is meant to represent foregone percentage return on equity invested in the next best alternative investment with a similar level of risk. The present value calculation shown in Column 14 is meant to show the current value of the investment. By subtracting the initial equity investment shown in Column 1, the net value of the project to a private investor can be. estimated. As shown in Column 15, the net present value of the investment is approximately $-383,000. This implies that a private investor would need to receive a grant worth approximately $-383,000 in order for him to agree to invest in a parking garage--assuming the "moderate" rate scenario. A& Arthur D. Little, Inc. VI-9 9. Rates and Revenues (Low Rate Scenario) Table 13 Column 3 illustrates projected revenues assuming current rates of $3.00/space and weekdays and $4.00/space on weekends. The revenue projections assume rate increases 6.5 percent per year--which is equal to the projected inflation rate. 10. Present Value of After Tax Cash Flow (Low Rate Scenario) As shown in Table 13, the present value of af ter tax cash flows, assuming the Low Rate Scenario, is calculated using the same method- ology as described above for the "Moderate Rate" scenario. Column 15 shows that the net present value of the investment under the Low Rate Scenario is a negative $1.10 million. This suggests that a grant equivalent to this amount would need to be paid under a Low Rate scenario in order to attract private investment. C. Findings From the public development perspective, it is concluded that even with "moderate" daily parking rates equal to $5.00/space on weekdays at $7.00/space on weekends at a public garage built at the Ashworth lot, funds generated from garage parking revenues, alone, would not be sufficient to cover capital and operating costs until eleven years after initial operation. In the first year of operation there would be a deficit of approximately $271,000. These conclusions are based on the assumption that parking rates and O&M costs would increase 6.5 percent per year, approximately at the anticipated rate of inflation. Assuming rates at all other lots are $3.00 on weekdays and $5.00 on weekends, there would, however, be approximately $320,000 net parking revenue in the first year from all non-garage related municipal parking lots. This would be sufficient to cover all deficits at the Ashworth parking garage over the first eleven years. This estimate is based on the assumption that there is a modest 3 percent growth in weekday parking attendance for the next ten years. Combining the $271,000 parking garage deficit with the $320,000 net parking revenue from other parking operations, there would be a surplus in year I of approximately $49,000. If ra tes at the parking garage and at all other lots remain at 1984 levels (i.e., $3.00/space on weekdays and $4.00/space weekends) there would be a first year deficit of approximately $440,000 attributable to the parking garage. Assuming as before revenues and O&M costs increase 6.5 percent per year, it would take 20 years for parking garage revenues to cover capital and O&M costs. In the first year, net base revenues, from other lots of approximately $280,000 would not cover the $440,000 parking garage deficit. Therefore, other munici- pal, non-parking related revenues would be required to cover the parking garage deficit for five years if initial parking rates were set at the 1980 municipal rate level. AL Arthur D. Little, Inc. VI-10 Hampton Beach Parking Garage 5/24/84 (Private Investor- Low Rates) Assumptions: %Equity 20 %Debt 80 Investor Tax Br. % 50 Interest on Debt 13.50 Term of Debt (years) 30 Discount Rate (Aft. Tax) 13.50 ACRS Depreciation (Building Only) % 5 Year 0 % 10 Year 0 % 15 Year 100 % Not Depreciable 0 Investment Tax Credit 0.00 Property Tax (%) 1.80 Annual Increase in Property Tax (%) 2.50 Garage Cost ($1000's- w/o 1st Lev. Concrete Floor) 3511.00 Revenue Assumptions $/Space weekday 3.00 $/Space weekend 4.00 $/Space 305 Annual O&M (Incremental-$1000's) 13.00 Annual Inflation 6.50 (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) Revenue Annual Property Tax After Aft. Tax Inc.+ Net Present Net Present Net Present (2nd. Lev Loan\ (Increasing Annual Taxable Tax Depreciation-Principal Value of Aft. Value of Equity Value + Inc. Repay. Interet Principal Depreciation 2.5%/Year O&M Income Income =Aft.Tax Cash Flow Tax Cash Flow Cost Flow Equity 1st. Lev. (1) (2) Year Equity Debt Cost. Calc. from (4) Calc. From Cost x (3-5-7-8-9)(10x.50) (11)+(7) @Discount Rate Sue of (12) (14)-(1) Term, ACRS above Prop. tx Int. Rate 0 702.20 2808.80 0.00 1 106.65 387.87 379.19 8.69 421.32 63.20 13.00 -770.05 -385.03 27.61 27.61 -417.63 -1119.83 2 113.59 387.87 378.02 9.86 351.10 64.78 13.85 -694.15 -347.08 -5.83 -5.14 3 120.97 387.87 376.68 11.19 315.99 66.40 14.74 -654.85 -326.42 -21.62 -16.79 4 128.83 387.87 375.17 12.70 280.88 68.06 15.70 -610.98 -305.49 -37.31 -25.52 5 137.21 387.87 373.46 14.41 245.77 69.76 16.72 -568.50 -284.25 -52.90 -31.97 6 146.13 387.87 371.51 16.36 210.66 71.50 17.81 -525.36 -262.68 -68.38 -36.30 7 155.62 387.87 369.30 18.57 210.66 73.29 18.97 -516.60 -259.30 -66.21 -30.97 8 165.74 387.87 366.80 21.08 210.66 75.12 20.20 -507.04 -253.52 -63.94 -26.35 9 176.51 387.87 363.95 23.92 210.66 77.00 21.51 -496.62 -248.31 -61.57 -22.36 10 187.99 387.87 360.72 27.15 175.55 78.93 22.91 -450.13 -225.06 -76.66 -24.53 11 200.21 387.87 357.06 30.82 175.55 80.90 24.40 -437.70 -218.85 -74.12 -20.89 12 213.22 387.87 352.90 34.98 175.55 82.92 25.99 -424.14 -212.07 -71.50 -17.76 13 227.08 387.87 348.18 39.70 175.55 84.99 27.68 -409.32 -204.66 -68.81 -15.06 14 241.84 387.87 342.82 45.06 175.55 87.12 29.48 -393.13 -196.56 -66.07 -12.74 15 257.56 387.87 336.73 51.14 175.55 89.30 31.39 -375.42 -187.71 -63.30 -10.75 16 274.30 387.87 329.83 58.04 0.00 91.53 33.43 -180.50 -90.25 -148.29 -22.19 17 292.13 387.87 321.99 65.88 0.00 93.82 35.61 -159.29 -79.65 -145.52 -19.19 18 211.12 387.87 313.10 74.77 0.00 96.16 37.92 -136.07 -68.03 -142.81 -16.59 19 338.34 387.87 303.01 84.87 0.00 98.57 40.59 -110.62 -55.31 -140.18 -14.35 20 388.88 387.87 291.55 96.22 0.00 101.63 43.01 -82.72 -41.36 -137.68 -12.42 From the private develo2ment perspective, "moderate" rates of $5.00 on weekdays and $7.00 on weekends would generate insufficient funds to cover debt service, O&M costs and required return on equity invest- ment. It is estimated that a grant or other incentive equivalent to approximately $383,000 would be needed in the first year to attract private investment in a parking garage. If parking rates equivalent to current Town 1984 levels were charged and parking rates and O&M costs increased with the annual projected rate of inflation (6.5 percent) it is estimated that a grant or other incentive equivalent to approximately $1.1 million would be needed to attract private invest- ment. VI-12 A& Arthur D. Little, Inc. VII. FINDINGS AND IMPLEMENTATION RECOMHENDATIONS A. Findings Based on recent trends in recreational activity and parking in Hampton Beach, on recreational trends elsewhere along the coastline of New Hampshire, Northeastern Massachusetts and Southern Maine, and antic- ipated continued growth in population- and economic activity in the region, demand for parking at Hampton Beach will continue to grow at an estimated rate of one to three percent annually. This growth is expected to be constrained only by the physical constraints of the beach, itself, other recreational facilities, parking facilities and other support infrastructure. The net additional spaces provided by a two-level parking garage represent only 10 to 15 percent, depending on the design, of the total inventory of spaces in the Hampton Beach Precinct (south of Boar's Head, and exclusive of the lot at the State Park and miscellaneous spaces at motels and*private homes). In light of the demand for parking, the utilization of the garage during the summer months is expected to be high. Based on cost analyses for the preliminary designs of two alternative parking garage developments, and an assessment of anticipated revenue flow and potential finance; the two parking garages are financially feasible under the following circumstances: 0 Publicly Developed Garage at the Ashworth *Lot This lot is feasible if the Town of Hampton develops the garage by establishing an enterprise fund for all parking at Hampton Beach. This mechanism is allowed under New Hampshire state law and has been utilized for development of a parking garage in Keene. Through this mechanism, in the early years of development when the garage would not be self-supporting, the town would support the debt and operating costs through increased daily parking fees ($5.00 per space on weekdays and $7.00 on weekends at the garage, $3.00 per space on weekdays, $5.00 on weekends at all other Town lots), combined with the allocation of a portion of net parking revenues from the other Town parking lots to offset the debt. If this "offset" approach were implemented, there would be a net revenue surplus of $49,000 in year 1, rather than the roughly $230,000 surplus in 1983. However the surplus would increase annually and by year 7, surplus revenues would return to the 1983 levels and by year 11, the garage would be generating revenues, itself. 0 Private Development at the Casino Site - The private devel- opment will be feasible at the Casino site if an incentive equivalent to approximately $383,000 is provided to the developer of the site and if parking rates at all lots are raised to the "moderate" levels assumed. Without such an VII-1 AL Arthur D. Little, Inc. equivalent incentive, the parking garage as a stand alone investment is not viable under current interest rates. In addition, the parking fees required to generate suppor ting revenues will not capture a sufficient share of the "parking market" if adjacent Town lots provide substantially cheaper parking. A generally consistent rate structure throughout Hampton Beach will be particularly important in the context of weekday parking demand. If the Town does generate additional revenues through increased parking fees, these could support an incentive program to a private or qua- si-private development group for the garage, either in the form of direct incentives or in the form of financing assistance. B. Recommendations Hampton Beach faces a limitation on parking facilities in the Precinct to serve the increasing demands of recreational visitors. Due to the nature of the recreational season that is, extended summer season only, the parking lot will cunsistent ly generate revenues only during f our months of the year, at a maximum. The garage will be feasible under the circumstances noted above, and for successful implementation we recommend the Hampton Beach Chamber of Commerce with the support of the New Hampshire Office of State Planning undertake the following steps. 0 The Chamber should work closely with the Hampton Precinct and Board of Selectmen to review the findings and as- sumptions in this analysis and encourage the Selectmen to initiate three actions: establish an enterprise fund for collection and admin- istration of all Town parking lots. Whether or not the garage is developed by the Town at this time, estab- lishment of an enterprise fund will provide the Town with flexibility over the longer term to expand on-grade parking facilities or develop a garage. increase parking rates-to the "moderate" level of $5.00 daily on weekdays and $7.00 on weekends at a garage, and $3.00, and $5.00 respectively at other lots. This increase should be linked to an implementation plan for improved parking facilities, either publicly or pri- vately developed. establish a capital investment program for the Town to finalize designs and construction plans for the garage. A construction schedule should be established providing for a minimum disruption during peak season. AL Arthur D. Little, Inc. VII-2 0 If the Town choses not to implement a capital investment program at its sight at this time, the Chamber and Precinct should work with the Town to initiate the following: - monitor interest rates until they decline sufficiently to reduce the required allocation of other parking revenues. There is considerable risk here, due to the fact that interest rates could remain at the assumed levels over the long term. In addition, if the invest- ment is delayed, construction costs are also likely to escalate. - monitor the status of major lots which are not the full responsibility of the Town -- namely the Casino Lot (privately owned) and Church Street Lot (which is only leased by the Town). If either of these parking lots is removed from the parking inventory, this'will add considerable disruption to traffic and parking in the Precinct and the Town might reconsider capital invest- ment at such time. 0 In the meantime, the Chamber and Precinct should work closely with interested private development groups to consider a feasible*private investment program to build the garage. In order to make the garage financially viable for a private investor, one of at least two steps will be required: - the Chamber and Precinct will have to work with the Town to provide an appropriate incentive to the devel- oper equivalent to about $380,000. Under one option, the Town could provide the developer a full tax abate- ment for 30 years, after which the up-front investment shortfall would be only $70,000. The Town could provide $70,000 in the form of an investment incentive, funded in the first year by additional revenues provid- ed by increased Town parking rates. While the Town would lose control of the garage under this develop- ment, the Town could sign certain agreements with the developer providing@ for the long term availability of the lot and establishment of equitable rates. - the developer will undertake the parking garage devel- opment as a multi-use facility in combination with retail or other facilities. In addition, the developer could consider promoting use of the garage during the off-season for boat storage or other uses to generate supplemental revenues. VII-3 AL Arthur D. Little, Inc. I i i i I I I I I I i i I I I I I . 1 @,P668 00001 6537 r . 1. i