port stanley harbour feasibility study business plan - final- october 27, 2009

8/14/2019 Port Stanley Harbour Feasibility Study Business Plan - FINAL- October 27, 2009

1/54

Port Stanley Harbour Feasibility Study and

Business Plan

The Municipality of Central Elgin

Du Toit Allsopp Hillier

Riggs Engineering

N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited

SEPTEMBER 2009


2/54


Port Stanley Harbour Feasibility Study and Business PlanSeptember 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary .......................................................................................... i1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................... 12.0 Objectives-Mission Statement ......................................................... 23.0 Port Stanley as a Commercial Port ................................................ 34.0 Moving Forward Key Principles .................................................. 55.0 Development Options ....................................................................... 66.0 The Preferred Plan ......................................................................... 107.0 Operating Plan ............................................................................... 178.0 Summary ........................................................................................... 23Appendix A: Analysis of Current Conditions ........................................... 24Appendix B: Information Gathering & Community Input ...................... 27Appendix C: Municipal Marina Analysis ................................................. 42Appendix D: The Case for Residential Development ............................ 44Appendix E: Correspondence .................................................................... 45


3/54


4/54


Port Stanley Harbour Feasibility Study and Business Plan 1 | P a g e September 2009

1.0 INTRODUCTIONN. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited, along with du Toit Allsopp HillierArchitects/Designers and Riggs Engineering have been retained byCentral Elgin to assess the most appropriate future use of PortStanley harbour considering the future of commercial harbourdemand and other economic forces, as well environmental, marketand community planning influences. These factors are then shaped intoa business plan that meets the objectives of Central Elgin.

This study was supported by the input of the community, structuredaround a workshop in June 2009 and an open house and publicmeeting in July 2009. These meetings allowed the community formalopportunities to engage and provide input and comment into theprocess of assessing the feasibility of different ideas and the structureof the business plan.

Figure 1- Limits of Federal Land and WaterlotsSource: DTAH, 2009


5/54


6/54


7/54



Table 1

Year 199091 199192 199293 199394 199495 199596 199697 200102 200203 20030 4* Ave rage

Revenues

HarbourDues $8,083 $4,992 $2,308 $2,980 $4,053 $5,726 $8,040 $992 $1,366 $1,751 $4,029

Wharfage $133,957 $122,409 $114,031 $48,161 $138,404 $137,797 $160,584 $43,002 $25,124 $70,526 $99,400

Berthage $20,768 $20,534 $22,177 $52,437 $15,793 $13,297 $47,439 $26,007 $22,359 $38,469 $27,928

Rentals $87,365 $61,288 $44,133 $110,768 $120,690 $81,258 $81,429 $73,678 $77,218 $65,513 $80,334

Other $0 $0 $0 $23,032 $0 $0 $585 $0 $0 $0 $2,362

Subtotal $250,173 $209,223 $182,649 $237,378 $278,940 $238,078 $298,077 $143,679 $126,067 $176,259 $214,052

ExpensesHarbourMasterCommissions $2,482 $2,651 $1,833 $1,969 $3,408 $1,398 $2,517 $1,432 $1,385 $1,815 $2,089

WharfingerCommi ssi ons $13,505 $23,972 $26,614 $27,838 $27,242 $29,055 $28,311 $14,021 $12,032 $23,002 $22,559

O&M $1,495 $6,758 $1,408 $974 $4,216 $4,214 $22,845 $143,389 $31,920 $8,266 $22,549

PortRepairs $447 $79,081 $151,673 $180,181 $760,633 $647,271 $365,735 $14,177 $6,076 $6,489 $221,176

Grants in LieuofTaxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,005 $3,134 $3,244 $938

Subtotal $17,929 $112,462 $ 181,528 $210,962 $ 798,504 $ 685,072 $422,652 $ 173,019 $51,413 $39,572 $269,311

Dredging $413,675 $419,987 $711,029 $22,986 $253,597 $765,976 $1,982,240 $456,949

Surplus/Loss $181,431 $323,226 $709,908 $3,430 $773,161 $1,212,970 $124,575 $29,340 $1,907,586 $136,687 $512,208

Note:Noinformationwas providedfor1998to2000;*2004ReportinguptoJune26, 2004; Source:TransportCanada

PortStanley RevenuesandExpenses 1990to2004


8/54


9/54



5.0 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONSIn testing the potential development options available to Port Stanleywe examined three general concepts, each with a range ofdevelopment components, as well as varying degrees of risk andpotential benefits to Central Elgin.

The plan options were developed by the consulting team with anunderstanding of other successful waterfronts and a general sense ofcosts, market potential and possible revenues. The options offered a

range of developments from relatively modest and simple to a moreintensive, complex and riskier development strategies.

Each plan protects the west side of the harbour for continuedindustrial use. Each concept also reserves both the east and westdockwall of the harbour for commercial fishery or barge use.

These plans and were presented at a community workshop as a wayto stimulate thoughts and public input. The following summarizes thecentral elements of each plan option.

5.1 Option OneOption One provides an opportunity for significant change with theleast amount of investment of all options considered.

The concept provides significant public open space with opportunityfor developing an iconic landscape with a passive recreationalwaterfront focus. The public boat launch adds a revenue source forthe municipality; the cost of constructing a boat launch is relatively

low, yet can generate significant revenue through summer months. Therevenue potential from the public boat launch would likely besufficient to cover operating/maintenance costs. They would howeverbe significant enough to fund any reserve fund requirements. Annualoperating costs of this development concept would likely be relativelymodest.

In the public workshop, there was little support for this optionessentially due to its lack of activity.

Figure 2- Option One


10/54



5.2 Option TwoThe second concept builds on Option One but adds additionalrevenue generating facilities including a community hall and 20transient boat slips. This marina option provides an opportunity forvisiting boaters to dock and experience the Port and the community.

The incorporation of an iconic community hall, similar to the historicStork Club is an important consideration in both Options Two andThree.

The Stork Club was popular for big-band entertainment in PortStanley, featuring a 13,000 square foot dance floor. The Clubopened in 1926 and closed in 1979 after a fire1. While replicatingthis facility is not feasible, a much smaller venue, which provides anopportunity to recognize the Port Stanleys history, while at the sametiming offering a new centre for entertainment and communitygathering that can generate income is worth serious consideration.Our market analysis shows evidence of good demand potential for afacility of this unique nature from weddings, banquets and specialevents. The building, could also offer space for public washrooms. Forease of description this building is described as the Stork Clubthroughout the report.

The revenue generating potential of these facilities would likely besufficient to cover operating costs with a modest surplus each year atstabilization. This option also would have the potential to create amore significant destination with strong potential to support localeconomic development objectives.

This option reserves the opportunity for expansion of the marinafacilities in the future as market demand grows.

1 The Stork Club Big Band Museum and Hall of Fame, 2009

Stork Club circa 1930

Figure 3- Option Two


11/54



5.3 Option ThreeThe third concept includes an expanded space for commercialdevelopment, a full scale marina and provides for the opportunity forresidential development in the longer term.

This development scheme offers the potential to create significant lifeand vibrancy on Port Stanleys waterfront. There was a surprisingamount of support for this option in the public meetings although theviews on the residential component were mixed. This option clearlyoffers the best long term plan if economic development and revenuegeneration were the core criteria.

However, Option Three also exposes the Municipality to greater risk.Both the 300 slip marina and residential development are subject tomarket demand and economic fluctuations. These developmentcomponents also require costly up front investments. Potentialshortcomings to Option Three include competition issues with localmarinas, need for increased capital investment, risk to themunicipality, sensitivities of the boating industry, noise and congestion

issues, and the potential negative perception of privatizing thewaterfront in support of residential development.

Figure 4- Option Three


12/54



5.4 Outcomes from the Consultation ProcessCentral Elgin has a vision for Port Stanley as an active and vibrantwaterfront composed of a full range of commercial and publicactivities. There is a clear desire on the part of the municipality andparticipants in the consultation process, to take back the waterfrontfor the enjoyment of the community and in support of the regionaleconomic base.

A strong majority of attendees believed that development on thedivested lands should be comprised of more than just green space.Many felt that the features of Option One were a great start increating a new community gathering place, and would be far betterthan the lands current condition. However, general consensus was thatthe concept was too simple and may not serve as a community draw,especially during winter months.

It was noted by many that the features presented in Option Two andThree held the greatest potential for improving the quality of life inPort Stanley, not to mention the potential to create a development

that is financially self-sustaining. Many attendees indicated that theywould welcome increased development density on the lands. Itseemed that most preferred to see the lands in a use that would keepit active, especially during winter months.

Many participants felt that it would be important to extend MainStreet, along with its character and activity, down to the watersedge. The idea of creating an anchor for Main Street (in variousforms, i.e. a pier, pavilion, amphitheatre, community hall) was verypopular.

A significant amount of support was shown for developing the Port sothat it could be developed in phases. Many liked the idea of startingwith the features in Option One or Two, and perhaps moving towardsa design along the lines of Option Three based on market demandand success.

A summary of community comments is contained in Appendix B.


13/54



6.0 THE PREFERRED PLANAfter considering our objectives and criteria and the comments of thecommunity, the preferred plan is based on Option Two. This optionprovides a balance between active and passive recreationalopportunities as well as opportunities to generate sustaining revenueswithout encountering significant risk to Central Elgin. Option Two alsoforms a good basis for future development. For example, while the300 slip marina was deemed unfeasible for Central Elgin at this time,there may be an opportunity in the future, perhaps as a private

public partnership, to explore this in the future.

The future use of the Port Stanley harbour facility includes a dredgingstrategy that will maintain draft at a level suitable for recreationalboating and the local commercial fishery operation as well as othershallow draft commercial vessels. This strategy is critical to the successof the harbour as without it, the harbour would eventually becomeimpassable, eliminating any use of the waterway and reducing theaesthetic value of the waterfront.

The key elements of the preferred plan are:

Main Street Extension/Stork Club; Transient boat docks/Boat Launch; Commercial Berthing; Central Open Space and Amphitheatre; Water play area; Public Access to West Breakwall.

Dredging Strategy

6.1 Main Street Extension and Stork ClubExtending Main Street directly to the waters edge not only providesthe necessary access to the site but also serves as a symbolicextension of Main Street, drawing visitors to the waterfrontterminating at the Stork Club Building. New facilities would includeparking that could serve both the new park and Main Street; a linear

park and promenade alongside Kettle Creek that, together, might

support a farmers or artisan type of event market.Architecturally, the Stork Club should be iconic and a symbol of therenewed waterfront and broader waterfront community offering aconcession, washrooms and transient marina support at grade, and abanquet type facility overlooking the lake, creek and park on thesecond floor. There has also been interest expressed for inclusion ofthe Stork Club museum within the new building by the museum group.Appendix C outlines the demand analysis and achievable revenuesfor hall facility in Port Stanley.

Figure 5- Perspective Sketch of Preferred Option


14/54



.

NBLCs financial analysis is based on revenue derived from a modestflat rate hall rental fee. Operating costs are limited to maintenanceand utilities and existing Central Elgin administrative staff are

available to manage the facility and coordinate hall bookings.However, it might be more beneficial if a partnership with arestaurant or catering business could be established through amunicipal procurement process. This partnership would likelyrepresent the best case scenario for the Stork Club facility, where aflat fee could be negotiated for the municipalitys benefit, and a fullservice banquet facility could operate with little cost to Central Elgin.A secondary benefit of the arrangement would be derived asmarketing the Stork Club facility would be undertaken by the

restaurateur or catering business.

The Stork Clubs building size is assumed to be 6,000 square feet, attwo storeys, construction costs per square foot are to beapproximately $250. Overall, the building is estimated to costapproximately $1,500,000 to build.

The cost of renting the hall is estimated at $500 per event, with 75events expected annually at stabilization, therefore resulting in grossrevenues of $37,500 annually.

6.1.1 Transient Docks and Public Boat LaunchThe marina facilities would be focused on a public launch and a smalltransient boating facility. It is envisaged that approximately 20serviced overnight slips for larger recreational marine craft could beestablished at the outset. A user pay public boat launch and parkingfor cars and trailers could serve both the launch area and Stork Club.

A pier within harbour serves to shelter the facility is also shown as a

public feature and destination at the end of Main Street. A supportspace for the transient dock would be included in the lower level ofthe Stork Club.

Currently, the public marinas along the north shore of Lake Erie whohave significant volumes of transient traffic are the SugarloafHarbour Marina, and Leamington Municipal Marina which generated$113,715 in gross revenue from transient boaters in 2008 (175transient slips). On a smaller scale, the Port Dover Harbour Marina,

Figure 6- The Preferred Development Concept


15/54


16/54


17/54



by all when the picnic area is occupied by a large, single group whomight monopolize their use.

6.4.1 The West BreakwallAccess to the west breakwall is recommended as an importantattraction for the waterfront west of Kettle Creek. Functionalimprovement to the breakwalls are required in any case, and wepropose that a new concrete deck be provided that raises thewalking surface in addition to a turned up concrete wall on the lakeside to enable higher and more substantial break water of armourstone. This measure, together a metal hand rail, set back about 1 mfrom the harbour side will facilitate pedestrian access to the breakwall and light house area. A gate or similar should be provided toclose the breakwater access during the winter months and extremeweather events

The reopening of the western lighthouse pier is a critical component tothe recommended development plan. This component was supported

during community consultation, and represents a rediscovering of aonce enjoyed component on the Port Stanley shoreline.

Figure 7- Port Dalhousie Pier


18/54



6.5 Remaining Industrial and Port UsesThis proposal does not include specific recommendations for port and

industrial uses beyond the federal holdings. However, the workingwaterfront activity and character are beneficial to the community forthe most part, provided that environmental standards and acceptedpractices are observed. Built forms such as the grain silos help definethe history and purpose of the Port and should be retained in thefuture if economically viable. Where practical, public access sharedwith the working wharf is a desirable feature and adds authenticityand interest to the port which supports tourism.

6.6 Dredging StrategyThe dredging strategy is based on retaining harbour depth for onlyshallow draft vessels including recreational boats (both power andsail) and commercial fishing vessels and barges. A target depth to theharbour mouth of 3.0 to 4.0 metres would be maintained.

Studies conducted by Riggs Engineering suggest that with a programof annual dredging, the harbour could be maintained at this depthfor relatively modest costs. If the Federal Government conducted a

full depth dredging (seaway depth) prior to the transfer, this annualprogram would not need to be initiated for about 20 years.

Within those 20 years, the strategy would involve the creation of twodisposal cells within the harbour where dredgate could be deposited.This would eliminate the need for the current approach of open waterdisposal while at the same time having the following benefits:

Providing addition protection to the breakwalls;

Creating new wetlands/habitat; and, Reducing storm surge within the harbour.Construction of disposal facilities within the harbour property will alsoprovide a modest form of protection from an adverse change inenvironmental regulations. Typically, regulatory requirements forconfined disposal are less stringent than unconfined open waterdisposal.

Figure 8 - Possible Disposal Cells/Park/Wetlands in Red


19/54



Figure 9- 2009 Harbour Depth


20/54


21/54


22/54



Commercial Berthing

Commercial fishery boats in the Port Stanley Harbour are to beinitially charged $10 per linear foot per season in the referencecase for dock wall berthing;

It is assumed that there are two commercial ships docked in theharbour every season; and,

It is assumed that commercial boats are 70 in length.7.3.3 DredgingOur analysis assumes that Transport Canada will do a full seawaydepth dredge prior to transferring the property. In Year 8 of the

cashflow analysis funds would be expended to create the disposalcell on the east breakwall to facilitate a minor dredging at the mouthof the harbour and help reduce storm surge into the harbour. Thisexpenditure is estimated at $1,645,000

In Year 15, the disposal cell in at the base of the western breakwallwill be constructed at an estimated cost of $1,146,000.

By Year 20, we expect that an annual program of dredging will berequired at an estimated cost of $200,000 per annum.

To fund these long term costs an annuity of about $6.0M will berequired (assuming an annual rate of return of 3.0%)

7.3.4 Proforma Methodology & ResultsThe following tables summarize the major capital costs andanticipated revenues under three scenarios; a low scenariorepresenting a period of high costs and low revenues, a referencescenario which represents the most likely scenario based on our

current assessment of the market and a high scenario which representsthe most optimistic outlook for the development. The following tablesummarizes the central assumptions for each scenario. The followingcash flow analysis incorporate these assumptions along with the costestimates contained in the Routine Detailed Inspection (2007) and costestimates from DTAH and Riggs for park and waterfrontdevelopments.

Subject to a $24.0M contribution agreement all scenarios result in acash flow that stabilizes midway through the 15 year forecast periodwith modest annual increases, building a reserve fund pool in theevent of any unforeseen circumstances.

The total costs of the development can be summarized in thefollowing table


23/54




24/54




25/54




26/54


27/54



28/54



The Figure 10 illustrates sounding data collected by RiggsEngineering as part of this study. The soundings illustrate the annualrate of sedimentation within the main channel of the harbour between

the years 2001 and 2005. In 2001, there was major dredgingundertaken of the harbour. However, the figure illustrates the rapidsedimentation each year of the harbour.

Interestingly, the basin area, south of the East Pier, seems to belargely unaffected by these forces and has maintained, a relativelyconsistent depth in the 4 to 8 feet range. This is important as thisreport considers the concept of a marina as an alternative revenuesource in the following sections.

Looking at Transport Canada records, it appears that up to the mid90s, Transport Canada was engaged in a regular annual dredgingprogram. However, it appears that as the future of Port Stanleybecame more questionable, so did its investment in dredging.

Annual dredging costs have averaged over $450,000 per year since1991.

The analysis indicates that to maintain a sufficient depth for safecommercial traffic, this annual dredging requirement must be

maintained.

Central Elgin would also have to retain responsibility for thecontaminates that are known to be contained within the dredgedmaterials. The shift from federal to municipal ownership could triggerthe need for an environmental assessment to continue dredging.



29/54



Figure 10: Sedimentation 2001 to 2009 Source: Riggs Engineering



30/54

p y g



31/54



32/54




33/54


Annual Infilling Distribution

The following legend shows the colours used to represent thickness ofannual deposits in the figures in this appendix.



34/54




35/54



36/54


37/54



38/54


Parking Solutions

It was a common theme among all marina managers, that boaterparking was in short supply. A majority of marina managers indicated

that they did not have enough space, or would like to have moreroom for parking at their facilities.

Several of the marinas surveyed solved part of their parkingdemand issues by allocating one or two parking space(s) perseasonal slip purchaser.

While seasonal users were generally accommodatedcomfortably, for many public launch visitors (who arrive with botha vehicle and trailer) crowding is an issue at a majority of

marinas, especially during weekends. Marinas that did not allocate spaces to slip purchasers often had

excess land/lawns where spill-over parking could beaccommodated.

Some marinas have mitigated crowding by using separatedparking lots for seasonal dock owners and launch ramp users.

Winter Boat Storage

Of the marinas surveyed, only the Port Dover Harbour Marinaoffers winter storage. Of its almost 500 seasonal slip purchasersit expected that about 100 seasonal dock purchasers will storetheir boats at the Marinas facility.

It was explained by the marina manager that the low ratio of slippurchasers to storage users was due to the Municipal Marinasclose proximity to other private boat storage locations. Becausestorage pricing is set by government no deals can be offered toclients, and private operations are able to undercut the Municipal

facility. Despite storage usage being relatively low, compared to the

marinas slip sales and vacancy rates, the Port Dover HarbourMarinas storage facility generates $40,000 annually.

Marina Staff Organization

All marina managers are full-time, municipal employees. Othermarina staff members are summer contract employees, oftenstudents.

At the Sugarloaf Harbour Marina in Port Colbourne, it was notedthat launch ramp attendants are contracted out in order to avoidunion issues.

Facility Maintenance

At all municipal marinas surveyed, it was indicated that smallmaintenance issues were looked after by either marina staff, or

municipal works staff. Larger scale maintenance jobs that couldnot be efficiently completed by municipal works are commonlycontracted out to private firms.



39/54

Port Stanley Harbour Feasibility Study and Business Plan September 2009

Table A

Un

serviced

Serviced

Rate

Charter

Rate

Un

servicedServiced Day

ColchesterHarbour,Essex 122 35' 7' $40.00/ft $45/.00ft $47.00/ft $37.50/ft $42.25/ft A.C.$99/season Yes Yes N.A. $12 N.A. $12

CedarIslandMunicipal

Marina,Kingsville94 36' 5' $38.00/ft

$1.50/ft/

nightYes N.A. N.A. N.A. $7

LeamingtonMunicipal

Marina

Leamin ton

350 300' 10'


40/54


41/54



42/54


Name HallCapacity/Size:Dinnerdanceevent Price Notes

TheMarconiClub Upto450 people $38 $58/personDepositof$750 $1500required,6

courseItalianmeal

MalteseCanadian Club Upto250 people,mainroom60'x70' $27 $34/person Depositof$700required

BestWestern

Lamplighter

Inn up

to

100

ppl

(1900

sq.

ft.);

up

to

250

ppl

(4300

sq.ft.);upto450 ppl (7000sq.ft.)

$28 $48/person;al linclusiveweddingfrom

82.95/

person

(includes

al l

service

charges,

gratuitues,ballroom,decorations,hotelroom

forbridal couple)

Depositrequired

BestWesternStoneridgeInn &

ConferenceCentre

upto60ppl (1521sq.ft.);upto120 ppl (2106


Ala carte:$29 $45/person;al linclusive$98

$120/person(includes:cocktail reception,full

3or4coursemeal,3bottles ofwine/ table,

bar staff,latenighttea,coffee,and desert,hotel

roomfor bridalcouple)

Depositrequired

PineKnotGolfand CountryClub upto200 people Typically$40 $60/person Depositrequired

SunningdaleGolf

&

Country

Club up

to

210

people,

hall

40'

x80'

Roomrental $1500,dinnerfrom$50 $150/

person

$1500Roomfeerequiredas a

deposit

FireRockGolfClubUpto70people(2000sq.ft.);upto120 ppl

(3000sq.ft.);upto220 ppl (6000sq.ft.)

Roomrental $1250,dinnerfrom$30 $120/

personDepositof$1000required

ElsiePerrinWilliams Estate&

GrosvenorLodgeUpto150 people $1000to$1300torentestate(5hours) Depositof$500required

DeltaLondonArmouriesupto200 people(2035sq.ft.and 2580sq.ft.

ballrooms)All inclusiveweddingfrom$86 to$105/person $750depositrequired

HessenlandCountryInn Upto170 people

Several weddingpackages available,includes

hall and groundsrental,setup,meal,etc.

Packagesrange

from

$51

$137

per

person.

Depositof$1500required

TheOaks Golfand CountryClub Upto150 people

Hallrental $750(includessetup,tables,chairs,

linens,tablesettings,podium.)Dinnerranges

from$30 $50 perperson

Depositof$1000required

HiltonLondonUpto50ppl (1000sq.ft.);upto100 ppl (2225


$79 to$117/person(Includeshall rentaland

dinner)Depositof$1000required

BanquetHalls&WeddingVenues LondonOntario

Source:NBLC,londonweddingring.ca

Table B


43/54


44/54


45/54



46/54


market conditions gradually improve over time, and that no significantchanges in market economic factors or any major unforeseenmaintenance costs arise.

A major variable in this analysis is the price of fuel, as it directlyaffects boater usage, especially for transient boaters, subsequentlyaffecting marina revenues. For example, if the ratio of seasonalboats to transient boats stabilizes at about 65% seasonal boats, and35% transient boats, the marinas projected NPV decreases to$697,206, with an average net cash flow between years 13 and 20falling to $245,350. This is a difference from NBLCs original scenarioof about $70,000 in net cash flow when the project is expected tostabilize in year 13.

While positive net cash flows seem likely to occur, it cannot be saidwith great certainty that market variables will hold true over the longterm. This uncertainty further increases the risk of constructing a 300slip marina on Port Stanleys waterfront. Some marina managers havealready indicated that boaters have begun to trailer boats to theirmarinas in an effort to reduce personal costs. Furthermore, severalmunicipal marinas on Lake Erie see very few transient boaters overthe course of a season. Even if a Port Stanley Municipal marina can

attract significant transient volume, other fluctuating variables mayrender net cash flows to unsustainable levels.

The uncertainty in the recreational boating marketplace, the very highcapital costs associated with the marina and relatively modest returnsin the early years of the project suggest that a municipally run marinacould represent a high level of financial risk.

It is important to note that a private operator would likely be able toimprove significantly on the financial performance of a marina

through reduced labour and operating costs.



47/54


APPENDIX D: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

A residential component was included in one of the final development

schemes. Community reactions appeared equally split over thepossibility of residential development on the waterfront.Economically, the addition of residential development creates anincrease in municipal property tax assessment base, thereforegenerating annual revenue for Central Elgin. Moreover, the sale ofland to a residential developer would produce municipal revenue.Further, added residents will help to sustain local Main Streetbusinesses.

From a planning perspective, including residential development on thedivested land will animate the area, creating a sense of place andensuring that public spaces are used all year round. Safety andsecurity are also improved, as a constant community presence andthoughtful design encourage eyes on the street.

The residential component has been included in the form oftownhomes. Townhouse development is the preferred housingtypology as it is well absorbed by the housing market, and is afamiliar, understandable built form.

Based on an estimated sale value of $350,000, townhomes on thisproperty would likely support about $80,000 per lot. This couldgenerate about $1.6M in land revenue and $40K to $50K in annualtax revenue after servicing.

However, residential development will obviously take land awayfrom public use. Design and the relationship to the waters edgebecomes critical to ensure that there is no sense that edge iscontrolled by private interests.


48/54


49/54


50/54


51/54


52/54


53/54


Just look at the recent American Wind Symphony event. A poor turn


54/54


Just look at the recent American Wind Symphony event. A poor turnout yet the parking pier was overloaded.

The Harbour development is an opportunity to plan for potential

future problems in Port e.g. when the Prespa development isactivated.

Terry Campbell

Jean L Macdougall Resident [email protected]

Additional comments from Jean by phone.

Jean would like to mention that she is greatly involved with LizJackson (the President) in the Stork Club and this is a very importantpart of Port Stanley. The dance floor was the largest in the continentin the 1920s until the 1960s. People dont know how to playanymore, as she says so well. The committee is working on havingthe Stork Club back to Port Stanley with the Railway as part of thewhole entertainment. They are trying to put the Railways back infonction (from London to Port Stanley) with a great connection to thesouth to bring people back to the beach.

The Railway built the Casino around 1920. The Stork Club was builtsoon after.

The people still call Port Stanley The Railway Capital of Canada.The access right in the middle of the lake to connect to American landsis a very important reference.

port stanley harbour feasibility study business plan - final- october 27, 2009

Documents