KYC Harbour Redevelopment - Town Hall No 2 Presentation


Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • SGM scheduled for May 15thSTART ----------------------------------------I’d like to Welcome everyone to the second town hall meetingpresent and discuss the Boards harbour redevelopment proposalThank you for your feedback~90 People have filled out the survey~20 People have e-mailed questions and commentsNumerous discussions around the club People have been thoughtful and
  • Here is the planThe Goal is to ensure the long term sustainability of the Club on this site. How did  establish this goal?brain storming session with the board and members, member survey and a town hall meeting. Focus Areas:MembershipFacilitiesHarbourFinanceWe’ve done some much needed maintenance and upgrades to the gas dock and Jemmett’s Landing.Our focus now is the Harbour.·         Membership survey and input from Town Hall  (spring 2011)·         Appraisal of club property to facilitate financing (Fall 2010)·         Concepts for upgrade/expansion of clubhouse and Saints Rest developed with Shoalts & Zaback Architects (Fall 2011)·         Initiated negotiations (July 2012) with Transport Canada for lease (& subsequent purchase) of adjacent water lot·         Engineering/wave climate study with Shoreplan Engineering (Fall 2012)·         Identification of attenuator & dock suppliers (Fall 2012)·         Issued Request for Proposals to identified suppliers (Feb 2013)
  • Since we last metWater lot appraisal arrived today, $117KTransport Canada has provided a list of required approvals The decision is now to leave this final stage of lease approval requirement to the engineering firm we would engage immediately after project approval.This is a service that is commonly handled by such firms, and we don’t expect any significant issues
  • Review of the timelines of the projectFor those present at the last meeting or who have reviewed the presentation, relatively little has changed
  • Schedule of meetingsSGM on May 15th-----------------------------------The Lease step has moved to May or into June, and as noted earlier, will be one of the tasks taken over by the Engineering firm we contract to help us with harbour design.If approved by the membership and number of activities would begin immediately:Active marketing of the new harbour to fill new slipsDesign and Engineering phase to finalize harbour design and detailsIncluding lease requirementsMembership engagement during this processPlans available at the Club, information sessions
  • 1 A: Every effort will be made to ensure the mooring fees will not increase for boats not receiving a finger dock. As part of the New Harbour proposal, we will be implementing a simpler per-foot mooring fee system. Slips 1-34 (which primarily include the Shark Basin), will remain med style moorings. These slips will receive an approximate 35% discount (~$40/ft)of the finger dock per-foot fee. This discount is calculated to ensure the transition to a per-foot mooring fee system is as equitable as possible for the remaining med-style slips.2 A: Only boats in slip 35 and above (the proposed upgraded and expanded harbour) would pay the deposit3 A: We do not anticipate the Refundable Dock Deposit will increase each year with the cost of living The requirement is to maintain a specific capital amount, so in general it would remain a fixed costOne time fee only, when you first are assigned a slip in the new/expanded harbourChanging boat length would result in the difference being levied or refunded as appropriateRefundable when you leave the harbour
  • 1 A: We were quite excited to see 15 members with boats moored elsewhere indicate at the first Town Hall meeting that they would consider relocating to KYC We have also had numerous inquiries about the project from prospective members looking for mooring facilities. We are confident that this, coupled with our marketing strategy, will fill the 30 new slips.The Survey (which I will talk about later) supports this, in that at least 12 boats indicated then are interested in moving to KYCHowever, the Board has considered the possibility that all 30 will not be filled in the first year and has done some financial modeling to ensure that we can deal with this shortfall, should it occur. I will discuss this in a little more details later on.2 A:It is a core requirement of the harbour design that these two issues be properly addressed even if the sample harbour layout diagrams do not yet have these identified. We would work with the harbour design engineers to come up with viable solutions.If the design phase did not result in viable solutions, then we would either not move forward, orwork to solve the problems. There are a number of design requirements that the harbour must satisfy
  • 1 A: The Club has commissioned an extensive wave study, prepared for this project and with the idea of a wave attenuator in mind. This in turn is supplied to potential suppliers and design engineers for the project to ensure that they offer solutions that are able to withstand our local conditions. The manufactures and engineers are able to recommend appropriate attenuators for our conditions, and the appropriate anchoring solutions.The example presented at the last meeting is likely sufficient for our conditions.Another advantage to an anchored wave attenuating solution is that the environmental impact is significantly less, and the permitting and approval process will have significantly fewer obstacles.1 A: Sufficient protection from wind and waves from the East will be considered in harbour design and layout optionsThe Wave study has specific recommendations for the necessary amount of east attenuation,This is significantly lesser than that required for the South exposure
  • We have received a excellent response to our online surveyI’ve like to summarize the results for you now, touching on the following general subject areas
  • Percentages for each question?
  • Harbour questions:65/77 (84%) members answered yes to having more finger docks to attract new members72/76 (95%) supported expanding with additional moorings
  • • Per foot fee structure n=6659/66 (89%) in support72% felt important to have same fee structure50/62 felt $61/foot competitive
  • -----------------------------------------------------Refundable dock deposit questions n=6885% felt it reasonable method82% felt proposed amounts were about right (16% too high; 2% too low)51/62 (82%) not a deterrent to mooring at KYC– Split on interest in debentures/bonds 28/59 (47%) yes
  • Top Concerns#1 concern for 39% (n=74) was sufficient protection from wind and waves; #2 for 24% was Harbour layout; and, #3 was Harbour density and turning radiusFor the Board, we were planning on engaging the membership during the design phase, butThis result re-enforces the need for this.It bears repeating that if we will not proceed until we have a design that is both safe and Reasonably satisfies our design requirements
  • Electrical service questions n=68What service should be included?38% 30 Amp32% 15 Amp22% shared 15 Amp7% noneWhat service would you use?14% 30 Amp27% 15 Amp30% shared 15 Amp29% none
  • No surprisingly, the reaction to Entrance fees was mixed.The survey result were basically split down the middle.I will discuss this more later, but the board does feel that:Entrance fees would have a positive effectWould be valuable in helping market the new harbourSince the harbour project doesn’t financially depend on this aspect of the proposal,we plan to leave this off the table , possibly to be revisited at the AGM in November.-----------------------------------------Entrance Fees n=64Split on support, 53% yes56% felt will help member retention50% felt proposed rates too high; 45% about right;and, 5% too low30/58 (52%) felt introduction would help fill new harbour
  • - Review
  • Basic Financing
  • REMEMBER, this is if we spend all $1.6M!!!What if we don’t fill the harbour right away?The above scenario illustrates what the impact of having 9 too few boats the first yearDon’t forget that have express interest from 12-15 boats already.9 boats short in 2014 = Shortfall would be < $10K6 boats short in 2015 = Shortfall would be < $2KCost of living assumption at 2.5 %
  • Mooring fees are a key factor in the financial plan for this project$61/ft is the target price point.We will fine tune the details of this aspect of the proposal to bring to the AGMEntrance FeesValuable for the Club and project, but not criticalWe wont be making this a required part of this project,But will revisit and possibly bring to AGM
  • Checkpoints all along the way:Will not proceed if we cannot secure the leaseBold Items are checkpoints along the way were we suspend the project with limited financial investmentRequire Harbour Layout/Design that is satisfactory financially, and satisfies requirementsAfter Quoting and RFP responses received, overall budget needs to be within approved limits ($1.5M or less)
  • KYC Harbour Redevelopment - Town Hall No 2 Presentation

    1. 1. Harbour RedevelopmentTown Hall Meeting #2: Questions & DiscussionMay 1st, 2013Correct as of May 6, 2013 (Slide 26)1896-1996: a vision towards 2046
    2. 2.  Financial Strategies & Strategic Plan Review Where are we now? Timelines Q & A Review Survey & Feedback Results Financing Draft Motion Open Session for Questions & Feedback What’s Next? How to provide feedbackAgenda
    3. 3. Financial HistoryProjects that have been done recently JS boats, boat sheds, new garageHow do we schedule and prioritize from board toboardWe have a history of using loans to pay forinfrastructure improvements, JS Boats, BreakwallUsing a long term financing model means that allmembers over longer time bear the responsibilityfor projectsSelf sustaining projects…JS supports JS.. gas docksupport gas dock.. Harbour support harbour
    4. 4. Strategic Plan (review)• Development of Strategic Plan• Identification of key focus areas• Phased approach• Execution
    5. 5.  Water lot Appraisal has been received Transport Canada has provided a list ofrequired approvals Design/Engineering firm to manageapproval process.Where are we now?
    6. 6. Timelines
    7. 7. April-May 2013• Town Hall meetingsMay 2013• Special General Meeting• Lease from Transport CanadaJune-July2013• Harbour Marketingbegins• Engineering• Electrical• Centre dock &harbour soundings• Design and layout
    8. 8. July 2013•Finalize Design andSpecifications•Town Hall Meeting to presentDesign Options•Send out RFPAug-Sept2013•Select PreferredContractor•Negotiate ContractOct 2013Mar 2014•Manufacture ofattenuators anddocksApril2014• On SiteInstallation
    9. 9. Q&A
    10. 10. Q: I have a Shark moored in the inner basin (theShark Basin), will my mooring fees go up?Q: Would all mooring holders in the harbour berequired to pay the Refundable Dock Deposit?Q: Will the Refundable Dock Deposit rise annual withcost of living increases?Q&A
    11. 11. Q: Has the Board considered the possibility that all30 slips might not be filled? Q: Will there continue to be a safe dinghy launch andswimming area (JS Launch, etc.)?Q&A
    12. 12. Q: What studies have been done to ensure that thewave attenuator solution is appropriate to our windand wave conditions?Q: What measures are being put in place to protectmoorings from Eastern exposure?Q&A
    13. 13. Survey Results
    14. 14. Who Responded?Strategic VisionHarbour ExpansionMooring Fees & StructureDock DepositConcernsEntrance FeesSurvey Results
    15. 15. 90 members (43 Family, 16 Single)60 are boat owners (40 currently moored at KYC)25 of which are in the affected portion of the harbour12 of 20 boats are interested in moving to the harbourWho Responded?
    16. 16. Strategic Vision• >90% SupportSurvey Results
    17. 17. Harbour Expansion• 95%Survey Results
    18. 18. Mooring Fees & Structure• 89% in favour• 80% feel proposed $61/ft is competitiveSurvey Results
    19. 19. Refundable Dock Deposit• 85% Support• 82% Feel the rate is about right• 82% Feel this wouldn’t be a deterrentSurvey Results
    20. 20. Top Concerns1. Sufficient protection from wind and waves2. Harbour density and turning radius3. Harbour layoutSurvey Results
    21. 21. Electrical• People thought it valuable to offer 30A service (38%)• But only 14% would be willing pay for it.• We do have good feedback to help plan our electricalrequirements.Survey Results
    22. 22. Entrance Fees 53% Support the idea 56% Think it would help retain members 50% Think proposed fees are too high, 45% think theyare about right.Survey Results
    23. 23. FinancingA Self Sustaining Model
    24. 24. How will it be Funded?Harbour will be Self Sustaining Only new revenues will service debtSources of Funding for Project ($1.6M) Capital Reserves ($100K) Refundable Dock deposit (~$127K) Loan at 4.5% over 25 years (~$1.37M)Sources of Debt Servicing ($85K/year) Fees from ~30 new moorings (~$64K/year) Incremental fees for those converted to fingers (~$15K/year) Incremental fees from other sources (~$15K)
    25. 25. Financing Risks How did we model the financing?• What if the harbour slow to fill? Summary Sheet will be available online
    26. 26. Financing (Costs)
    27. 27. Financing (Risks)
    28. 28. Motions
    29. 29. Motions Mooring Fees & Structure• Broad member support for moving ahead with this• $61/ft is a key component to the financing model• Board will bring a finalized motion to the AGM Entrance Fees• Membership was split on this issue• Will revisit and consider bringing to the AGM
    30. 30. MotionsHarbour Project Motion (Draft)The membership authorizes the Board to proceed with the harbourredevelopment project as presented, with the following conditions:• A Harbour design that will meet the needs of the membership and theenvironment• The maximum total project expenditure will be capped at $1.6 milliondollars. This amount to include:• A portion of existing Club capital funds• No more than a $1.37 million loan• Introduction of a Refundable Dock Deposit
    31. 31. Questions from the FloorPlease come to the microphone to ask your questions
    32. 32. What’s Next? Special General Meeting – May 15th Following Approval Engage Engineering Firm to: Resolve Lease and Permitting Develop Harbour Designs Alternatives withmember input Update Quotes and Budgeting Issue RFP for final design Sign Contracts
    33. 33. Ongoing Feedback Options• E-mail:• Web:• Financial Model Summary• Draft Motions• Moore Fee Chart• Q&A• Paper Questionnaire and input form at the bar• Electronic Survey still available for those who haven’t completed it.Getting your input