APPENDIX A FINAL REPORT Phase Two of the Feasibility and Capacity Study Town of Oakville prepared by Engineering Limited May 2018
Harbours Master Plan: : Conceptual Marinas Phase Two of the Feasibility and Capacity Study Prepared for by SHOREPLAN ENGINEERING LIMITED VERSION 01 02 DATE 2016-08-29 2018-05-22 STATUS draftt final COMMENTS for review This report was prepared by Engineering Limited for use by the Town of Oakville. The material within reflects the judgment of based on the information available to them at the time of preparation. Any use of this report by Third Parties, including relying on decisions made because of this report, are the responsibility of the Third Parties. Engineering Limited is not responsible for any damages suffered by any Third Party as a result of decisions made, or actions based, on this report.
1 Introduction... 1 1.1 Report Structure... 1 2 Marina Design and Planning Parameters... 2 2.1 Slip Space Requirements... 2 2.2 Land Requirements... 3 2.2.1 Parking... 3 2.2.22 Winter Storage... 4 3 Development of Conceptual Marina Layouts... 5 3.1 Selection of Sites... 5 3.2 Conceptual Marina Layouts............ 6 3.2.1 Methodology... 6 3.2.22 Conceptual Marina Layouts............ 6 3.3 Approval Process and Comments on Site Selections... 9 3.4 Comments on Site Selections... 10 4 Launching Facilities... 18 References... 19 Appendix A Cost Estimates Table of Contents List of Figures Figure 3..1: Conceptual Marina Locations... 12 Figure 3..2: Lakeside Park Marinaa... 13 Figure 3..3: Tannery Park Marinaa... 14 Figure 3..4: Bronte Outer Harbour Marina Expansion... 15 Figure 3..5: Bronte West Marina... 16 Figure 3..6: Shell Park Marina... 17 List of Tabless Table 2.1: Slip Sizes... 2 Table 3.1: Summary of Marina Concepts... 8 Table 3.2: Summary of Parking and Winter Storage... 8 Table 3.3: Preliminary construction cost estimates for marina concepts... 9 i
1 Introduction Engineering Limited () was retained as part of a multidisciplinary team by the Town of Oakville to complete Phase Two of the Feasibility and Capacity Study. Phase One was the Region of Halton boating study that wass finalized in 2014. The study looked at boating demand along the north shore of Lake Ontario. The present study is a high-level the following work items: conceptual design study for a new 500-slip marina in Oakville. The work included Review of existing harbours and shoreline parks, and background information such as bathymetry, wind and wave conditions, to identify potential locations for a future marina, and, Development of conceptual marina layouts at thee identified locations, ncluding the need for dredging, protection structures, launching areas, parking facilities, and marina buildings. This report presents the work items above. 1.1 Report Structure The report is organized as follows. Chapter 2 provides a summary of planning parameters used for marina planning and design. Chapter 3 describes the site selection process for the new marinas and presents conceptual marina layouts at five locations.. Chapter 4 provides a short discussion on launch ramp planning parameters and siting. Figures are presented at the end of each chapter. Tables are located within the text, after they are first referenced. 1
2 Marina Design and Planning Parameters This section presents planning and design guideliness used to identify potential sites and to prepare the conceptual marina layouts presented in Section 3. The in-water space requirements are described in Section 2.1 and the land-based requirements for support facilities are describedd in Section 2.2. The requirements described are for approximately 5000 slip marina. The size of 500 slips was selected as a epresentative size of marinas along north shore of Lake Ontario. Past assessments have shown that marina operations of this size can be financially sustainable. The selection of an optimum size at each of the locations considered would be a subject of future studies. 2.1 Slip Space Requirements The in-water area for a marina includes area required for docks, fairways, breakwaters, turning and maneuvering areas. The average area required perr slip depends on the mix of slip sizes in the marina and marina layout. Table 2.1 provides a summary typical slip dimensions for common slip sizes on Lake Ontario. The double slip width is the clear width between two adjacent finger docks thatt can accommodate two boats. The internal fairway width is the clear width of the internal aisles between adjacent docks. A typical fairway width is twice the slip length, although factors less than 2 are sometimes used where space is a limiting factor. Table 2.1: Slip Sizes Boat Size 9 m 11 m 14 m 16 m 18 m Double slip width 8 m 10 m 11 m 12 m 12 m Internal Fairway Width (2x boat length) 18 m 22 m 28 m 32 m 36 m We have been involved with a number of marina projects on Lake Ontario. We looked at four marinas to determine the average area equired per boat including breakwaters, entrances, aisles, turning areas and maneuvering. The average area per slip ranged between 190 and 270 m 2 /boat. This is consistent with the ACSE (2012) guidelines which recommend allowing 160-270 m 2 /boat for an average boat length of 10.7-12.2 m. Forr the present study, we used an area of 250 m 2 per boat in review of potential locations for marinas in Oakville. For 500 slips, that equates to a total in-water area of approximately 125,000 m 2. The in-water area described above must be in sufficiently deep water. Providing a minimum 2 metre water depth at low water levels is typical for marinas on Lake Ontario. This water depth 2
can accommodate most recreational boat drafts. Thee chart datum of 74.2 m IGLD 1985 is commonly taken as low water level on Lake Ontario. Thus, the lakebed in the in-water area describedd above should be at approximately 72.2 m or lower. 2.2 Land Requirements Land is required adjacent to the marina to provide land-based support facilities for the marina operations. Basic services include: road access, parking, winter storage and a marina centre with offices, washrooms, laundry and other basic services. Additional features or servicess that may be provided include: haul-outs, boat sales, repair services, fuel sales, and onshore recreational facilities. In the development of the conceptual marinaa layouts, we have allowed for a buffer between the shorelinee protection and the land-based facilities, car parking and a marina centre. Additional facilities will increasee the area demands of the land-based facilities of the marina. 2.2.1 Parking The areaa that should be allowed for parking at the planning stage is the number of parking spaces multiplied by the area required per parking space. The number of parking spaces required to support a marina is typically given as ratio of the number of slips. Planning guidelines and regulations vary on the number of spaces per slip that should be provided. Small Craft Harbours Branch (1992) recommends 0.3 to 0. 4 spaces per slip under typical demand with 0.5 to 0.7 spaces per slip during peak periods. The Department of Fisheriess and Oceans (DFO) Canada (1985) guidelines give a planning ratio of 0.75 spaces per slip. Ross, N.W. (1989) recommends 0.5 spaces per slips. We looked at some regulations in Canada, the USA and Australia. The minimum parking ratios ranged between 0.6 and 0.8 spaces per slip. The Zoning By-Law 2014-014 specifies a minimum ratio of 0.6 parking spaces per berth. Consistent with the Town by-lawmarina, thatt equates to 300 parking spaces. we have used a parking ratio of 0.6 spaces per slip for this study. For a 500-slip The average area per parking space includes the parking space itself, plus an allowance for circulation aisles, landscaping and buffers. The Zoning By-Law gives a minimumm parking space dimension of 2.7 m wide by 5.7 m long. The minimum aisle width specified is 6.0 m. With efficient parking layout and minimum landscaping and buffers, the average area per space with the minimum Town dimensions could approach 30 m 2 per space. ASCE (2012) guidelines recommend a planning density of 40-50 m 2 per space. For this high- level study, we have used a conservative planning density of 50 m 2 per space to allow for sufficient circulation and maneuvering areaa and some landscaping. Multiplied by 300 spaces, that gives an area of 15,000 m 2. 3
2.2.2 Winter Storage The areaa for winter storage is the number of boats to be stored multiplied by the area required per boat including access aisles. The areaa required per boat depends on the average boat size and packing density. calculated winter storage densities at other marinas on Lake Ontario as part of previous studies in Hamilton and Mississauga. The winter storage densities ranged between 444 m 2 per boat and 63 m 2 per boat. ACSE (2012) recommends a planningg density of 62 to 74 m 2 per boat for an average boat size of 10.7 m to 12.2 m with 6 to 8 m wide access aisles. For this study, we have assumed a winter storage density of 70 m 2 per boat. As far as we are aware, there are no guidelines or regulations for the proportion of winter storage that must be provided for a marina. Providing 100 percent winter storage is ideal, but rarely practical. The land required to provide this proportion of winter storage is not realistic unless there is an excess of land. Where space is a limiting factors, car parking areas can be used for winter storage during the winter season. In the development of alternatives, we have not included an areaa allowance for dedicated winter storage. We assumed that car parking area could be used for winter storage during the winter months. 4
3 Development of Conceptual Marina Layouts 3.1 Selection of Sites We studied the Oakville shoreline to determine suitable sites for a new marina. The following factors were used to determine suitable sites: Shoreline in public ownership, Ease of access, and Proximity to commercial centres. Only locations where the shoreline is in public ownership were considered. Seven locations were considered where there was a sufficiently long section of shoreline in public ownership. Coronation Park has approximately 700 m of shoreline in public ownership. We understandd that the park is well-used for mostly passive recreational activities and has natural beaches. This site was deemed to not be appropriate and excluded. Another site excluded was Carrington Promenade. Approximately 500 m of shoreline is in public ownership with residential land-use in the backshore. This site was not consideredd further as there are only narrow access ways from the municipal road to the shoreline. All feasible sites are located on the open lake with a similar level of exposure. They will be subject to typical open lake wind and wave conditions experienced on the north shore of Lake Ontario in Oakville. All sites will require the construction of breakwater structures to create a harbour and shelter the docks from waves. The marina entrance(s) ) will need to be oriented and designedd to reduce wave penetration into the harbour. Existing Lake Ontario bathymetry was also consideredd in the siting of potential marinas. As describedd in Section 2.1, deep water is desirable, with a lakebed elevation of 72.2 m typically used as the highest feasible lakebed elevation withinn marinas on Lake Ontario. Obtaining sufficiently deep water can be achieved by siting the in-water marina area beyond the existing 72.2 m contour and infilling to create a landmass out from the existing shoreline. Alternatively, dredging can be carried out during the initial construction within the marina basin. Sites where the lake bed reaches 72.2 m or below relatively close to the shoreline are desirable to reduce dredging and infilling costs. Most of the potential sites inn Oakville meeting the criteria described above would require so dredging, thus we did not eliminate sites based on this criterion. Five locations were retained for the development of conceptual marina layouts. The conceptual marina locations are identified on Figure 3.1 and are: Alternative 1 Lakeside Park Marinaa Alternative 2 Tannery Park Marina Alternative 3 Bronte Outer Harbourr Marina Expansion Alternative 4 Bronte West Marina Alternative 5 Shell Park Marina One conceptual marina layouts were developed for each of the five locations and are presented in the following section. 5
3.2 Conceptual Marina Layouts The methodology and design parameters used to develop the conceptual marina layouts are describedd below followed by a description of the conceptual layouts. 3.2.1 Methodology Each conceptual marina layout was developed to accommodate approximately 500 slips. A common slip size of 11 m was used to develop the conceptual dock layouts. The 11 m slip was used as a representative average slip size. A mix of larger and smaller slips would be incorporated in the later stages of the marina layout development. The 11 m slip used has a finger dock length of 11 m and a finger dock width of 1 m. A fairway width of 222 m was used for the internal aisles. Around the perimeter of the marina, a minimum 30 m clearance was allowed between the docks and the 72.2 m (2 metres below datum water level) on the existing and proposed shoreline protection structures. The 72.22 m (-2 m contour) was used as the navigation contour for the development of conceptual layouts. Our initial approach was to locate the docks where the existing lakebed is 72.2 m or lower and fill to createe a landmasss out to the 72.2 m contour. At most of the sites, this resulted in a land mass that was, in our opinion, excessively large. To get a realistic and compact marina footprint, some dredging during the initial construction would be required for most of the conceptual layouts. The marinas are enclosed by stone breakwaters. The conceptual breakwaterr section used at the conceptual design stage has a 5 m wide crest and side slopes of 2h:1v. The structure consists of layers of armour stone overlaying a core.. For the conceptual cost estimate, we assumed that the sides of the landmass created by the lake infilling would be protected by a revetment structure. We allowed a 10 m wide buffer landward of the crestt of the shore protection structure. This buffer provides an allowance for the crest of the shore protection structure, a walkway, landscaping and buffers. An area of approximately 5000 m 2 was allowed for a marina building with basic amenities. The areaa bound by the landward limit of the buffer and the existing shoreline, and excluding the marina building, was counted as parking area. 3.2.2 Conceptual Marina Layouts The five conceptual marina layouts are presented on Figure 3.2 through Figure 3.6, for Alternatives 1 through 5, respectively. A short description of each conceptual layout is provided below. Figure 3..2 presents a site plan of Alternativee 1 Lakeside Park Marina. The conceptual marina layout is located on the east side of the existing Sixteenn Mile Creek entrance piers. The marina backs onto Lakeside Park. The shoreline was filled to create a landmass for the required amount of parking. Approximately 15,500 m 2 of area for parking is created. Six main docks provide 492 slips and extend from the land mass approximately perpendicular to the existing 6
shoreline. The existing bathymetry contours indicate that no or minimal dredging would be required. The marinaa entrance is located just south of the existing entrance piers to Sixteen Mile Creek. An addition or modification to the existing east entrance groyne may be required to reduce wave penetration into the basin. A site plan of Alternative 2 is shown on Figure 3.3 Tannery Park Marina. The conceptual marina layout is located on the west side of the existingg Sixteen Mile Creek entrance piers. The shorelinee was filled to create a sufficient landmass area for the equired minimum amount of parking. Approximately 15,400 m 2 of parking area is created. The east breakwater extends from the end of the existing west entrance pier along approximately the same alignment. Seven docks extend along approximate ely the same alignment as the east breakwater and existing west entrancee pier. The marina entrance is located in the south-west corner of the marina basin. The marina basin is sheltered from the west by a breakwater that extends from the west side of Waterworks Park. Some dredging would be required in the northwest part of the basin to provide a lake bed elevation of 72.2 m or lower within the entire basin. Figure 3..4 presents a site plan of Alternativee 3 Brontee Outer Harbour Marinaa Expansion. The conceptual layout involves expanding the existing Bronte Outer Harbour Marina to the south and east to create an additional 482 slips. The existing east stone breakwater would be removed and new breakwaters constructed around thee perimeter of the new marina. Parking and other land-based facilities are located on the lake infill area along the shoreline of Waters Edge Park. Approximately 25,700 m 2 of parking is created. Two marina entrances are proposed for the expanded marina. The entrance to the existingg Bronte Outer Harbour Marina will be modified slightly to address existing wave agitation problems in the basin. A second entrance is created at the southeast corner of the expanded marina basin. The northern part of the expanded marina basin will need to be dredged too provide suitable water depths. This alternative requires the most dredging of all the alternatives. A site plan for Alternative 4 Bronte Harbour West is shown on Figure 3.5. The site is located on the west side of Bronte Harbour in front of Bronte Bluffs Park and Bronte Beach Park. Approximately 24,500 m 2 of infill area is created along the shorelines of the parks. The conceptual dock layout has four docks extending perpendicular to the existing shoreline and two shorter docks in the west part of the basin at an anglee to the shoreline. The west breakwater extends from Harbourside Park, to the west of W River Street Right-of-Way. The east breakwater extends from the end of the existing west entrance groyne to Bronte Harbour. The north-west part of the marina basin would need to be dredged during the construction to lower the existing lake bed to the navigational depth. Figure 3..6 presents a site plan for Alternative 5 Shell Park. The conceptual marina is located on Lakeshore Road at Shell Park. A land mass is created by filling along the publically owned shorelinee out to the end of the stone protection along the Shell Pier. This alternative creates 33,600 m 2 of area that could be used for parking and other uses; the most of all the alternatives. The east marina breakwater is offset from the pier andd extends at an angle slightly away from the pier so as to maintain access and maneuvering space around the pier which is still used by large ships. Six docks extend along the same alignment as the east breakwater. The marina 7
entrancee is located at the south west cornerr of the basin. Dredgingg is required in the northwest part of the marina basin. Table 3. 1 provides alternative. a summary of the number of slips and parking area provided by Table 3.1: Summary of Marina Concepts each Alternativee 1 Lakeside Park Marina 2 Tannery Park Marina 3 Bronte Outer Harbour Marina Expansion 4 Bronte West Marinaa 5 Shell Park Marina Number of Slips 492 516 482 488 500 Parking Area 15,500 m 2 15,400 m 2 25,700 m 2 24,500 m 2 33,600 m 2 Table 3.2 provides a summary of the ratios of parkingg and winter storage provided for each conceptual layout. The ratio of parking spaces per slip was calculated using the actual parking area and slip counts for each of the layouts. The winter r storage percentage is the ratio of boats that can be stored on land during the winter to the total number of slips. It was calculated by dividing the parking area by the approximate area per boat in winter storage described in Section 2.2.2. We note that this assumes that the entiree parking area would be used for winter storage in the winter months. In practice, it may be desirable to only use a portion of the parking area for winter storage. Table 3.2: Summary of Parking and Winter Storage Alternativee 1 Lakeside Park Marina 2 Tannery Park Marina 3 Bronte Outer Harbour Marina Expansion 4 Bronte West Marinaa 5 Shell Park Marina Parking Spaces per Slip 0.63 0.60 1.07 1.00 1.34 Winter Storage Provided 45% 43% 76% 72% 96% 8
Preliminary construction cost estimates were prepared for the five conceptual marina layouts. The cost estimates were calculated using unit prices are derived from similar projects recently completed in south Ontario. The armour stone cost may vary depending on the availability of material at the time of construction. Allowances for electrical supply and dock anchors were based on typical proportions of the dock costs. An allowance of $2.5 million was added for the marina centre. For the surfacing and landscaping of the backshore, we have assumed that 30 % of the sum of the buffer and parking area would be landscaping and the remaining 70% would be paved with asphalt. The cost estimates for the five alternatives are presented in Table 3.3. A more detailed breakdown of the construction cost estimatee for each alternative is provided in Appendix A. In the summary table a total construction cost estimate and a costt per slip are provided. The construction cost estimates do not include any mobilization and demobilization, construction contingencies, design costs or taxes (HST). We suggest that a minimum 30% contingency for design and construction is applied at the conceptual design stage. Table 3.3: Preliminary construction cost estimates forr marina concepts Alternative 1 Lakeside Park Marina 2 Tannery Park Marina 3 Bronte Outer Harbour Marina Expansion 4 Bronte West Marina 5 Shell Park Marina Total Cost Estimate $44.5 million $45.1 million $58.3 million $43.9 million $50.6 million Cost per Slip $91,000 $88,000 $121,000 $90,000 $101,000 3.3 Approval Process and Comments on Site Selections The implementation of a marinaa by the, similar to the concepts described in this report, will require a number of steps and the acceptance of approval agencies. First, the will need to make a formal decision to proceed with the undertaking. Under the Environmental Assessment Act, an Individual Environmental Assessment (IEA) would need to be completed for the project. The IEA process starts with the preparation of Terms of Reference that need to be approved by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). The term of reference are developed with public input and define the objectives of the undertaking and scope of assessment. The scope could be limited to a site or include all potential sites within the town and could include alternate boat storage arrangement. Any assessment of sites prior to the approval of the terms off reference is premature. 9
Following the completion and approval of the EA and thee detailed design, the project will equire approval from regulating agencies. A permit from Conservation Halton under Ontario Regulation 162/06 and an MNRF Work Permit would be required. A purchase of lease of crown land from MNRF of the water lot occupied by the new structures iss likely to be required for all alternatives. All alternatives would require review by Transport Canada under the Navigation Protection Act because of the extent of the works beyond the high water mark. Authorization from Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) under the Fisheries Act would likely be required. DFO would likely consider the work to result in serious harm due to the loss of fish habitat due to the footprint of the structures. DFO will likely require offsetting measures, such as the creation of aquatic habitat features, to offset the loss of fish habitat. We note that an allowance for aquatic habitat creation was not carried in the construction cost estimates described above. 3.4 Comments on Site Selections The concepts developed at the six sites presented above in Section 3.2 have not been assessed or compared in a way that would allow selection of a site or a particular design concept. The information provided herein outlines the physical requirements and a sense of scale for the type of marina facility that could operate efficiently and profitably. The assessment answers the question Are there publically owned sites that can allow the construction of a public marina on Lake Ontario? The assessment clearlyy affirms the existence of such sites. All sites will provide many challenges and opportunities should the Town decidee to proceed with the undertaking. Many compromises will need to be made at any and all of the sites. The EA process will allow for this decision process within the context of a public consultation process. Constructing such a large facility will clearly change the parkland uses at the identified locations, likely to more active and structured spaces. New locations may need to be found for the displacedd uses. The views along the waterfront will bee changed, but the proposed structures may also provide an opportunity for new views along the shore. The uses along the waterfront will clearly change; possibly providing opportunity forr some commercial activity, but public access along the shore can be maintained and should be one of the corner stones of any marina developmen t considered. Each of the sites provides a different connection to the existing community and will provide a different experience for the boaters, particularly visiting transient boaters from other communities. Some locations connect to the commercial core of the Town while others provide more remote and quiet location. Challenges will be posed by any of the concepts and locations. Parking and vehicular access is likely to be one of the most significant challenges. Public transit connections will need to be investigated and enhanced as much as possible. Impacts on adjacent neighbourhoods during the construction and during operations will need to be considered. The construction implementation of such a project is likely to be a multi-yeaof material being delivered. Winter storage of boats undertaking with heavy equipment operating on the sites and many truckloads will also provide a challenge as the parking anticipated to be provided at each site can only accommodate about one quarterr of the boats that can use the marina. 10
There will also be impacts on the natural environment including aquatic and terrestrial habitat and coastal processes. The construction of breakwaters often provides an opportunity to constructt new features and provide sheltered habitat along an open coast. 11
4 Launching Facilities The Region of Peel Boating study identified a need for additionall launching future demand. The following provides a short summary of planning considerations for launching facilities. facilities to parameters meet and The main land space requirements for a launch rampp are for maneuvering space and car & trailer parking. As a rule of thumb, allowing a minimum of 20 car and trailer parking spaces per launch lane is recommended at the planning stage (ASCE, 2012, Small Craft Harbours Branch, 1992). The recommended space requirements per parking space vary from approximately 150 m 2 /car and trailer space on average (ASCE, 2012) to 250 m 2 per car and trailer space (Small Craft Harbours Branch, 1992). This equates to an area of 3,000 to 5,000 m 2 for 20 spaces. The space requirements for the car and trailer parking can be minimized by incorporating some one- and turning space is also required adjacent to the ramp. Small Craft Harbours Branch (1992) recommends an area at least 20-30 m by 40-60 m. This equates to an area of approximately 1,500 m 2. We note that the areas described are for a single launch lane. Launch ramps with way circulation and minimizing landscaping, for example. In addition to parking, maneuvering more than one lane are common on Lake Ontario. The ideal site for a launch ramp is relatively sheltered and has sufficient water depth at the end of the ramp. In theory, it would be possible to incorporate launching facilities into one of the conceptual marina basins described in Section 3. In practice, bringing the two groups of boaters (launch ramp users and marina basin users) can often create tension. This is sometimes attributed to wake and noise generation in the basin, for example. In addition, and as described above, the space demands of the launching facilities, manoeuvering area and car & trailer parking are considerable. Potential conflict can be minimized by separating the two groups as much as possible in the same facility through careful layout. The alternative would be to consider constructing a launch ramp at a separate location. Sites on Lake Ontario would likely require the construction of a breakwater or the modification of existing shore protection to shelter the ramp. Developing conceptual launch rampp layouts was beyond the scope of the present work. Facilities could also be providedd for small boat accesss (canoes, kayaks etc.). A floating dock could be incorporated into a launch ramp facility. There are also purpose designed docks for kayaks and canoes on the market. We understand that the shorelines of some parks in Oakville are presently used to launch small boats. An alternative to providing new small boat access could be to formalize a small craft launching area at onee of these locations. 18
References American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2012). Planning and Design Guidelines for Small Craft Harbors, Third Edition, Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers, 2012 Department of Fisheries and Oceans Accommodation Canada (DFO) (1985). Guidelines of Harbour Ross, N..W. (1989) Auto Parking in Marinas, published in Marinas: Planning and Feasibility, Proceedings of the International Conferencee on Marinas, Editors: W.R. Blain and N.B. Webber Small Craft Harbours Branch (1992) Planning Guidelines for Recreational Harbours in Ontario, prepared for Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) Canada, by Hough Stansbury Woodland Limited, September 1992 (2014) Town February 25, 2014 of Oakville Zoning By-Law 2014-014, Passed by Council on 19
Appendix A
15 2329 Oakville Harbours Master Plan May 22, 2018 Summary of Cost Estimates of Conceptual Marinas Lakeside Park Marina Tannery Park Marina Bronte Outer Harbour Marina Expansion Bronte West Marina Shell Park Marina Docks $ 5,360,000.00 $ 5,790,000.00 $ 5,550,000.00 $ 5,760,000.00 $ 5,430,000.00 Shore Protection/Breakwaters $ 31,770,000.00 $ 28,980,000.00 $ 31,850,000.00 $ 24,350,000.00 $ 29,930,000.00 Fill $ 3,550,000.00 $ 3,870,000.00 $ 5,460,000.00 $ 4,890,000.00 $ 7,790,000.00 Dredging $ $ 2,710,000.00 $ 10,990,000.00 $ 4,620,000.00 $ 2,550,000.00 Parking and Landscaping $ 1,170,000.00 $ 1,120,000.00 $ 1,820,000.00 $ 1,610,000.00 $ 2,230,000.00 Buildings $ 2,660,000.00 $ 2,660,000.00 $ 2,660,000.00 $ 2,660,000.00 $ 2,660,000.00 Total $ 44,510,000.00 $ 45,130,000.00 $ 58,330,000.00 $ 43,890,000.00 $ 50,590,000.00 Number of Slips 492 516 482 488 500 Cost per Slip $ 90,500.00 $ 87,500.00 $ 121,100.00 $ 90,000.00 $ 101,200.00 NOTES Construction cost estimates do not include contingencies, allowances, site access, design fees or HST. Minimum 30% allowance for design and construction is recommended