Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MARINACONDITIONASSESSMENT&RESERVEFUNDANALYSISAshleyMarinaCharleston,SC
Prepared for:
TheAshleyMarinaHomeowner’sAssociation
Prepared By:
November2013
TableofContentsProject Background & Methodology .............................................................................................. 1
Project Background ..................................................................................................................... 1
Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 1
Background Information Gathering ........................................................................................ 1
Field Investigation ................................................................................................................... 1
Reporting and Reserve Fund Analysis ..................................................................................... 2
Marina Condition Assessment ........................................................................................................ 3
Input from Kick‐off Meeting ....................................................................................................... 3
Results of Field Inspection .......................................................................................................... 4
Observations ........................................................................................................................... 4
Discussion.............................................................................................................................. 18
Recommendations & Conclusion .............................................................................................. 22
Immediate/Life‐Safety (Year 0) ............................................................................................. 22
Short Term (Years 1‐5) .......................................................................................................... 22
Intermediate/Long Term (Years 5‐10+) ................................................................................ 22
Remaining Useful Life ........................................................................................................... 22
Application ............................................................................................................................ 23
Reserve Fund Analysis ................................................................................................................... 25
Conceptual Capital Cost Estimate ............................................................................................. 25
Capital Project Summary .......................................................................................................... 25
Funding Requirement Summary ............................................................................................... 25
Annual Sinking Fund Requirement Summary ........................................................................... 26
Amortization Tables .................................................................................................................. 26
Reserve Fund Spreadsheets ...................................................................................................... 27
Page 1
PROJECTBACKGROUND&METHODOLOGY
ProjectBackgroundApplied Technology and Management (ATM) has been contracted by the Ashley Marina Homeowner’s Association (HOA) to conduct a marina condition assessment and reserve funding analysis for the Harborage on the Ashley marina, which is also known as the Ashley Marina. The facility is located on the Ashley River on peninsular Charleston, SC directly north of the James Island Connector (SC Highway 30). This effort is being undertaken in order to allow the HOA to understand the annual capital contributions necessary to meet anticipated short and long‐term capital needs.
Methodology
BackgroundInformationGatheringATM held a project kick‐off meeting with Mr. Brian Swan (President of the HOA) and Mr. Bruce Wallace (Senior Dockmaster) at the Marina on September 22nd, 2013 to review the goals of the project and discuss facility condition, maintenance, and development history. Also, we reviewed specific areas of concern regarding physical facility condition with marina personnel.
FieldInvestigationAfter meeting with Mr. Swan and Mr. Wallace, two (2) ATM marina professionals conducted a general condition assessment of the marina. This included a visual inspection of above‐water portions of the marina. Key elements reviewed included:
Floating Docks
Anchor Piles
Gangways and Gangway Connections
Shoreline Protection
Dock Appurtenances (cleats, safety cabinets, etc.)
Marine Utility Systems Note: Detailed materials testing and/or subaqueous inspection were not included in the
current scope of work. Similarly, the assessment of the marine utilities was limited to a cursory, visual overview and did not included specific testing of electrical components, water pressure/flow, etc.
ATM was unable to observe sub‐deck conditions of the floating docks during our initial inspection as the vast majority of the decking was screwed down without easily removable access hatches. After review of the initial findings of our field assessment, we determined that a follow‐up site visit was necessary in order to evaluate the condition of sub‐deck dock components (timber framing, connections, etc.).
Page 2
ATM conducted this follow‐up inspection on November 6th, 2013. With the help of marina staff, several deck boards were removed in selected locations to allow ATM to observe the condition of the sub‐deck framing and utilities. The observations made during these inspections were documented via field notes and digital photography.
ReportingandReserveFundAnalysis Upon completion of the field investigations ATM compiled our findings into this summary report. Included herein are recommendations for repair requirements, estimates of the remaining useful life of key marina elements, and estimates for replacement costs of key marina elements. All of this information is necessary to inform the development of the Reserve Fund Analysis. The Reserve Fund Analysis is also included in this report and presents the annual investment required to properly account for anticipated maintenance and capital replacement expenses for existing marina infrastructure.
Page 3
MARINACONDITIONASSESSMENT
InputfromKick‐offMeetingMr. Wallace and Mr. Swan provided useful information with regard to the historic capital projects at the marina and current conditions. Their comments are summarized below:
The marina was re‐constructed after Hurricane Hugo in 1990‐1991.
A major renovation to the docks was undertaken in 2006‐2007 which included: o Installation of new utilities o Removal old decking and replacement with Ipe decking and fascia
Mr. Wallace noted that some siltation has occurred at the approximate location of a stormwater outfall near the southern end of the marina, but otherwise no dredging has been required or has occurred recently.
Mr. Wallace indicated that the only known area of damage or concern is at the end of the dock under the gangway to the main docks. It was apparent to marina staff that there may be an issue with dock framing integrity in this area.
The upland building is not the HOA’s responsibility and therefore was not included in this review effort.
The marina fueling system is not the HOA’s responsibility and therefore was not included in this review effort.
Page 4
ResultsofFieldInspectionATM’s initial inspection was undertaken on the afternoon of September 23, 2013. The weather was sunny and cool with a strong northwest wind. The inspection was conducted on a falling tide so that a maximum amount of shoreline and anchor piling would be visible/exposed during the course of the inspection.
ObservationsIn general, the marina is in good condition. General observations with regard to each of the primary components of the marina are outlined below. A basic schematic of the marina facility is also presented below for reference.
Figure 1 – Ashley Marina Layout
FloatingDocksThe floating docks are in overall fair condition, noting the following specific observations:
Flotation We understand the flotation units are the original “polytubs” which were installed in
1990‐1991. These are rotationally molded polyethylene “tubs” that encase expanded polystyrene flotation. The polytubs ATM observed on site were manufactured by Carolina Waterworks of Mount Pleasant.
No significant cracking or other damage was noted on the polytubs.
Freeboard heights (distance from the deck to the surface of the water) are low relative to industry standards. Recorded freeboard elevations ranged from 11 to 20‐in.
Where freeboard height is especially low, the timber framing and outer fascia boards of the docks are exposed to splash from wind‐generated waves and boat wakes.
Page 5
Photo 1 ‐ Low Freeboard at the End of "T" Dock
Significant listing (uneven flotation of the docks such that one side of the dock is higher/lower than the other) was noted in several locations throughout the marina. This listing resulted in as much as five (5) inches difference in elevation over the nine (9) foot wide main walkway in isolated locations. This was noted on the main walkways and numerous fingers throughout the marina.
Photo 2 ‐ Listing Finger Pier
It was also noted that the dock is “sunken” in areas around the electrical substations as well as at the floating dock office. This may be caused by the additional weight of these structures that were not specifically included in the initial design.
Page 6
Photo 3 ‐ Uneven Deck where Floatation Under Office is "Sunken"
The section of floating dock underneath the main gangway is noticeably damaged. At lower tide levels, the end of the dock is higher than the main walkway, resulting in apparent stress and failure in the framing and fascia boards.
Photo 4 – Dock Section at Gangway During Low Tide
Field measurements taken along this section of the dock indicate that the freeboard at the end of the dock (beneath the gangway) is approximately 6 ½‐in. higher than that of the main walkway at the end of the gangway at lower tide levels. However, during ATM’s follow up inspection, it was noted that at high tide the freeboard of the end of the dock is not noticeably higher than the adjacent main walk.
Page 7
Photo 5 ‐ Dock Section at Gangway During High Tide
Apparently, at higher tide levels, the PVC utility sleeves underneath the gangway rest upon the end of the dock, effectively pushing it down.
Photo 6 ‐ PVC Utility Lines Resting on End of Dock
Framing ATM observed three (3) selected areas of sub‐deck framing during our follow‐up
inspection. The framing observed appears to be in good condition.
The marine hardware observed on the western (waterward) side of Dock “T” framing is heavily corroded, however. In fact, this hardware has deteriorated to the point to where it was brittle to the touch.
Page 8
Photo 7 ‐ Broken Through‐bolt on Outside of Dock “T”
Photo 8 ‐ Corroded and Broken Through‐bolts and Nuts on Outside of Dock "T"
Hardware on the inside side of Dock “T” and at other sub‐deck locations observed appear to have developed a slight patina, but overall are in fair condition.
Page 9
Photo 9 ‐ Through‐bolts on Inside of Dock "T"
Decking ATM understands that the decking was replaced in 2007 Ipe hardwood.
The relatively new Ipe decking is in excellent condition throughout the facility.
The Ipe was also added as fascia to the outside of the dock framing. This was also observed to be in very good/excellent condition.
Deck screws were coming loose in isolated locations throughout the marina. Though not widespread, these do present a potential tripping hazard in those locations.
ATM has observed this phenomenon at similar marina installations where Southern Yellow Pine framing is used with Ipe decking. The differential movement between the two materials can result in loosening deck screws and necessitate regular maintenance in certain areas.
Page 10
Photo 10 ‐ Protruding Deck Screws
AnchoringSystemThe anchor piles for the marina are square concrete pre‐cast piles approximately 14 X 14‐in. These piles are typically set in internal pile guides (i.e. – inside the frame of the dock). It is noted that some smaller piles are located on Dock “C”. We understand these piles are original (installed in 1990‐1991). Overall, the anchoring system is in fair to good condition, noting the following specific observations:
ConcretePiles Exposed metal was noted on many of the piles, apparently from lifting rings that were
cut off after installation.
Page 11
Photo 11 ‐ Exposed Metal on Piles
Isolated piles were twisted relative to the orientation of the dock. This is generally considered an aesthetic concern only and likely occurred during pile driving as the dock framing was built around the twisted piles.
Photo 12 ‐ Twisted Pile and Internal Pile Guide
Longitudinal cracking was noted on several piles. The majority of these cracked piles are located on Dock C. It is noted that the most severe cracking was observed on the two (2) smaller (10‐in.) piles on the portion of Dock C closest to the shore, one of which is cracked on all four (4) sides.
Page 12
Photo 13 ‐ Cracked Pile (14‐in. Pile, Dock F)
Photo 14 ‐ Cracked Pile (10‐in. Pile, Dock C)
Shellfish (oyster) growth was observed on a number of pilings. In some areas this was substantial and may be adversely affecting dock movement. This also presents an apparent laceration hazard during periods of low tide.
Page 13
PileGuides The majority of the pile guides throughout the marina are in good working order with
free‐spinning rollers.
Photo 15 ‐ Typical Pile Guide
An external pile guide is located near the bottom of the gangway onto the main walkway near dock “D”. This pile guide is loose and it appears that bolts are missing where the pipe framing of the pile guide connects to the metal bracket on the dock. Additional external pile guides of the same design were noted on the outer portion of Dock “C” with similar observed conditions.
Photo 16 ‐ External Pile Guide
Page 14
On Dock C, particularly around the smaller (10‐in.) piles, several of the rollers were “frozen” and would not spin. It was unclear whether this is a result of damaged rollers, shellfish growth, or a combination of both.
Photo 17 ‐ "Frozen" Roller and Shellfish Growth
GangwaysandGangwayConnectionsThere are two (2) aluminum gangways on the property. The main gangway is 34 X 6‐ft. leading from the fixed access pier down to the main part of the marina. The second gangway is 24 X 4 ft. and leads from the access pier down to Dock “C.” Both gangways are in good condition with no apparent damage. However, neither gangway appears to be compliant with the most current guidelines of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Specifically, no graspable handrail and no kick plate were observed on the gangways. Also, the slope of the gangway that services Dock “C” appears to exceed with ADA maximum slope of 1:12. Though notable for management purposes, compliance with ADA guidelines is not a requirement for private marina facilities.
Page 15
Photo 18 – Steep Gangway Slope at Low Tide
FixedTimberAccessPierandDeckThe floating docks at the marina are accessed via a single fixed timber access pier approximately 140 ft. long X 10 ft. wide. The access pier leads to the two gangways discussed above as well as a 30 X 35 ft. deck/pier head. The access pier and deck are in good condition noting the following specific observations:
The handrail around the deck was loose and could be moved relatively easily by hand. This is indicative of inadequate or loose connections to the framing elements.
There is a single aluminum security gate located on the fixed access pier. The gate itself is in good condition, although the coded security lock was not inspected/tested.
Portions of the security screening on the aluminum access gate are damaged and are pulling away from the door framing.
Page 16
Photo 19 ‐ Security Screen Pulling Away from Door Framing
ShorelineProtectionThe shoreline of the property is generally stabilized by a combination of rip‐rap and concrete rubble. Additionally, stands of salt marsh (spartina) and other native vegetation serve to stabilize the shoreline along the subject site.
Photo 20 – Typical Shoreline Stabilization
It is noted that flat pieces of concrete rubble do not typically provide reliable shoreline stabilization, particularly where wave action may occur. Also, the shoreline stabilization observed on the site appears to be organically developed rather than purpose‐engineered for
Page 17
the subject site. Such an approach to shoreline stabilization is not uncommon, however, and the area of the subject shoreline is rather protected from wind/wave activity by virtue of the adjacent marinas, bridge, etc. Overall, the shoreline appears to be stable along the length of the property with no obvious defects or noteworthy observations.
DockAppurtenances(cleats,safetycabinets,etc.)Dock appurtenances throughout the marina are in good condition noting the following specific observations:
Isolated cleats were not fully tightened down. This was not widespread and ATM did not observe any that were loose enough to cause concern.
Fire cabinets were noted to be in good condition with properly charged fire extinguishers.
Dock Boxes are located adjacent to selected slips, though widespread in the marina. Those observed are in good condition. (We realize these may be privately owned and may not be the responsibility of the HOA.)
MarineUtilitySystemsATM understands that the entire marina utility system (power, water, pedestals) was replaced during the 2007 renovation. However, Mr. Wallace indicated that the old marina utility cables and lines were left in place and the new utility lines were placed in the dock raceways beside the old ones.
Photo 20 ‐ In‐deck Utility Lines
Page 18
The marine utility system appears to be in good condition noting the following specific observations:
Water pressure appears adequate at the outermost docks.
Power amperage/voltage was not tested, but marina staff did not indicate any specific problems or concerns.
Water was dripping from the utility pedestals and saturating the deck surface around the base of the pedestal at numerous locations throughout the marina.
Photo 21 ‐ Water Dripping from Utility Pedestal
Discussion Though the marina appears to be in good condition overall, ATM does have a few concerns from a physical/functional perspective that could affect the remaining useful life of the facility. These include:
1. Low Freeboard 2. Dock Listing 3. Dock damage at Main Gangway 4. Framing and hardware on outer side of Dock “T” 5. Cracked piles 6. Exposed lifting hooks
Each of these concerns is discussed in more detail below.
Page 19
LowFreeboardAccording to ASCE’s Planning and Design Guidelines for Small Craft Harbors, floating dock freeboards typically range from 16 to 24‐in., depending upon the specific size and type of vessels utilizing the docks. According to measurements taken during our inspection, approximately a third of the docks at the marina have freeboard elevations below this industry standard. It is likely that this relatively low freeboard is the result of several factors. Specifically, during the 2007 renovation of the docks it is understood that the original decking was replaced with Ipe hardwood decking. Ipe is significantly denser than traditional Southern Yellow Pine (SYP) and as such likely increased the dead load acting on the flotation units. Additionally, we understand that he old utility lines, including the electrical cabling, were left in place on the docks and the new utility lines were laid beside them. This would also serve to increase the dead load on the flotation units significantly. Finally, the age of the pontoons could play into the lower than normal freeboards as well. While the pontoons appear to be in good condition with no widespread deterioration, over time the growth of marine organisms such as oysters and barnacles serve to further weigh down the docks. While many of the docks throughout the marina have freeboard measurements below industry averages, the integrity of the dock system does not appear to be compromised based on this. In areas with very low freeboard (i.e. – less than 12‐in.), the Ipe fascia boards and internal SYP framing are subject to repeated saturation by minor wind‐generated waves. Over time, this could lead to deterioration of the fascia board and adjacent, internal framing. However, there were only a couple of isolated locations where measurements below 12‐in. were recorded. As such, the relatively low freeboard of the docks is not considered to be a critical concern, but should be monitored.
ListingTypically, performance specifications for floating docks indicate that a total deflection under dead load of no more than 1.5 inches in 10 feet (0.15‐in. per ft) is acceptable. On the main walkways, measurements of selected areas indicate ~ 0.4 to 0.55‐in. per foot deflection, which is well above what we would be considered acceptable on a new floating dock system. The listing on several fingers was even more severe, with equivalent deflections of greater than 0.75‐in. per foot in isolated locations. Such listing is not atypical for timber frame floating docks, but should be addressed though dock maintenance (i.e. examination and tightening of dock connection hardware, counter‐weighting where necessary, etc.).
DamagedDockatMainWalkwayIt is apparent that there is either framing damage or substantial framing stress where the access gangway lands on the main access dock. Marina staff have indicated that they believe the uplift at the end of the main walkway (beneath the gangway) may be caused by the utility
Page 20
lines running underneath the gangway and into the docks which puts undue stress on the docks during extreme high tides. While this certainly may contribute to the situation, it appears that the damage is more likely attributable to insufficient flotation directly beneath the gangway. The gangway imposes a direct point load where it comes in contact with the dock. Without sufficient flotation directly underneath the gangway, the point load of the gangway creates a bending moment in the dock during low tide as generally illustrated below.
Figure 2 ‐ Gangway Loading at Low Tide
However, at high tide, the gangway effectively rests on the end of the dock, which changes the
loading pattern significantly:
Figure 3 ‐ Gangway Loading at High Tide
Page 21
Based upon our observations, this cyclical loading pattern is the most likely cause for the
fatigue and failure in the fascia and framing members along this section of the dock, though it is
noted that with the presence of the gangway ATM was not able to access/observe the internal
framing of the dock in this area.
This area should be repaired as it provides critical access to the vast majority of the slips at the
subject marina.
FramingandHardwareonOuterSideofDock“T”Based upon the limited sub‐deck inspection conducted by ATM, the primary area of concern with regard to the framing is the outermost side of Dock “T”. Wind‐generated waves and vessel wakes in the Ashley River splash directly onto the outer side of this dock. This increased exposure is leading to significant degradation of the framing hardware, and particularly the galvanized through‐bolts on the outer side of Dock “T”. Due to the advanced deterioration of the through bolts observed, all of the dock framing hardware in this area of the marina should be replaced immediately with new stainless steel materials. This is a critical concern in light of the presence of marina fueling infrastructure on this dock, direct exposure to wind/wave/wake activity, and the presence of larger yachts in this area of the marina.
ExposedLiftingHooksThis exposed lifting ring remnants on the piles throughout the marina are corroding slightly. While this is not considered to be an immediate structural concern, these can provide an avenue for corrosion to penetrate the interior of the pilings and may also lead to staining of the piles. Given that the rings have apparently been exposed since installation in the early 1990s, the rate of corrosion is apparently slow enough that this is not likely to become a concern during the remaining useful life of the piles.
CrackedPilesThe longitudinal cracking along several of the piles warrants discussion as well. This damage was isolated primarily to Dock “C” (and a limited number of piles in the main portion of the marina). The cracking appeared to occur primarily in the intertidal zone where the piles are exposed to both air and water throughout the tidal cycles. The cracks are moderately severe and appear to penetrate deeply into the pile. This generally indicates that the interior reinforcing steel is likely exposed to water/air as well. The cracks, along with potential corrosion of interior bars, would serve to significantly weaken the pile. This is not likely a concern during normal operating conditions. However, periods of high wind and/or wave loading, particularly during high tide or storm conditions, will place a greater moment on the piles and could lead to further damage to the piles.
Page 22
Recommendations&ConclusionBased upon our inspections and discussions outlined above, the following are ATM’s recommendations with regard to the repair, maintenance, and replacement of various marina elements. These recommendations have been categorized into Immediate/Life‐Safety, Short Term, and Long Term needs based upon severity and potential impact to the longevity of the dock system as a whole.
Immediate/Life‐Safety(Year0)ATM recommends the following immediate maintenance and repair actions at the subject marina:
Replace heavily corroded hardware along the outside of Dock “T” with stainless steel materials. This is critical as the framing through bolts are substantially eroded. Since this dock also houses fueling infrastructure and serves as a berthing area for larger yachts, the structural integrity of the dock is vital.
The screws protruding above the deck surface in isolated locations represent a minor tripping hazard. While this is not considered to be a major threat to life or safety of marina patrons and/or staff, ATM recommends that marina staff tighten and/or replace the screws in these isolated locations to ensure that the condition doesn’t worsen or spread to create a more substantial hazard.
ShortTerm(Years1‐5)ATM recommends the following short‐term maintenance and repair work to help extend the useful life of the floating dock system:
Repair damaged dock section at main gangway. This serves as the main point of access for the marina and could develop into a critical concern if left unchecked.
Brace handrail on fixed deck to ensure appropriate rigidity/safety in this area.
Repair dock listing.
Replace cracked piles ‐ Based upon our observations, ATM suggests a total of seven (7) piles are cracking significantly and require replacement.
Repair damaged pile guides.
Scrape shellfish from piling to ensure free floating docks.
Repair/monitor plumbing leaks.
Monitor dock freeboard regularly.
Intermediate/LongTerm(Years5‐10+)After the immediate and short‐term repairs recommended above are completed, ATM suggests that the marina systems be maintained diligently to maximize their useful life.
RemainingUsefulLifeIt is noted that the typical design life for a timber frame floating dock in a marine environment is on the order of 25‐years. Concrete anchor piling typically perform for a period of 30‐35
Page 23
years. While selected elements of the docks have been replaced recently (2006‐2007), the anchor piling, timber framing, and flotation are ~22 years old. Implementing the repairs suggested above will help extend the useful life of the marina, but not indefinitely. From a capital replacement standpoint the age of the various marine components at the subject facility creates a challenge with regard to offering recommendations for large‐scale facility replacement. Further, the marina is generally in good condition and is well‐maintained. Despite the condition of the marina, infrastructure investment in 2006‐2006, ongoing maintenance by marina staff, implementation of suggested repairs/maintenance described herein, key elements of the marina are becoming aged. In particular the dock framing and anchor piling are reaching the end of their useful lives. In ATM’s experience it is unusual for such elements to be serviceable beyond ~35 years and since these form the foundation of the marina facility, we suggest that full dock replacement be considered when the docks and pilings reach this age (~13 years). Though other marina elements may be newer and serviceable (utilities, decking, etc.), these may be salvaged and re‐used or sold to the extent practical. ATM has estimated the remaining useful life for each of the key marina components. These are outlined below:
Pontoons: 5 to 15 years
Framing: 5 to 15 Years
Decking: 15 to 20 years
Piles: 5 to 15 years
Utilities: 15 to 20 years
Fixed Access Pier 15 to 25 years * The useful life of the framing system assumes that the hardware on the outer side of Dock
“T” is replaced within the next several years.
ApplicationBased upon the anticipated remaining useful lives of the independent components outlined above, we anticipate that the anchor piling and timber framing are likely be the components to reach the end of their useful life first. As such, these components are expected to drive the timeline for eventual wholesale replacement of the dock system. We anticipate that with proper diligence and attention, and without exposure to any outside anomalies such as significant storm events, the existing dock system may remain sufficiently functional for up to fifteen (15) years. As such, we will use this as the basis for the following reserve fund analysis and assume all infrastructure is replaced at this time. As mentioned previously, should any elements of the marina remain in a condition suitable for salvage or re‐use at that time, the estimated cost of facility replacement may be mitigated.*
Page 24
*Note: ATM understands that utility cabling, pedestals, Ipe decking, etc. will be approximately 22 years old at the end of the above‐mentioned 15 year period. Considering this, it is likely that these components may well have additional useful life remaining when the docks and pilings are replaced. A thorough inspection of these elements and careful consideration regarding salvage value or placement of older infrastructure on a new dock system should be included in dock replacement planning exercises. Though ATM has worked on a few dock replacement projects where selected infrastructure is re‐used, it is exceptionally difficult to accurately estimate the value of key materials. A conservative placeholder for salvage value of key marina elements will be included in the reserve fund analysis for HOA consideration.
Page 25
RESERVEFUNDANALYSIS
Utilizing the information presented above, ATM has developed a reserve fund analysis that is intended to assist the HOA in their capital budgeting efforts for major marina maintenance and infrastructure replacement. The attached spreadsheets depict the analysis in detail. The following discussion is intended to provide additional insight related to the genesis of the spreadsheet data.
ConceptualCapitalCostEstimateThe Conceptual Capital Cost Estimate presents an estimated cost for recommended maintenance/repair and capital replacement projects that have been identified in the Marina Condition Assessment. These are separated into discrete line items and have been assigned a year of execution based on estimated remaining useful life/need. Line item costs have been developed through ATM’s experience in the industry though it is noted some of the repair costs are more difficult to estimate (based on nature and scale of projects). We have established preliminary estimates for these repair costs that can be vetted further in the future as capital budgets are finalized. It is noted that a salvage value has been included with the floating dock replacement estimate. As discussed, the Ipe decking and marina utilities (electrical cabling, pedestals, etc.) will be 22 years of age at the time of suggested replacement. These elements will have some remaining useful life and, depending on condition at the time of marina replacement, may be inspected and re‐used if appropriate. If not suitable for re‐use in the marina, there should be salvage value to the Ipe and copper wire.
CapitalProjectSummaryThe Capital Project Summary presents the estimated cost for each identified repair/maintenance/replacement project and also projects the future value of these costs based on an assumed CPI boost. We used a 3% factor for CPI/inflation. This may be slightly conservative, but is based on our experience with similar projects. The most recent CPI data from the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics indicated a 1% increase in CPI from October 2012‐October 2013.
FundingRequirementSummaryThis schedule provides a summary of annual sinking fund requirements necessary to fully fund all identified projects. Individual sinking fund requirements are presented for each project as is a summary of the years sinking fund payments must be made.
Page 26
AnnualSinkingFundRequirementSummaryThis schedule simply combines the required sinking fund contributions to depict an annual contribution requirement necessary to fund all projects identified. It is noted that this summary does not include a sinking fund contribution for the replacement of the marina beyond the suggested replacement of the current marina in Year 15. It is suggested that the HOA develop a funding plan for the replacement of the new marina once it is developed. Assuming a 25‐year useful life for a timber frame floating dock and projecting capital costs out using the aforementioned 3% CPI boost, an annual contribution of ~$441k from years 16‐40 would be necessary to fund the next marina replacement (year 40).
AmortizationTablesAmortization tables are presented for each sinking fund.
Year 0 requirements – Assume funding necessary at beginning of year to fund improvements; no interest earned.
Year 1 requirements – Assume payment at the beginning of each year (0 and 1), 5% interest on the first year’s payment, and commitment of funds at the beginning of year 1 for the necessary works.
Year 15 requirements – Assume payment at the beginning of each year. Interest earned on each year’s payment save for year 15 when funds are committed for construction.
Year 20 requirements – Assume payment at the beginning of each year. Interest earned on each year’s payment save for year 20 when funds are committed for construction.
This analysis is intended to provide a general guide to the HOA only. Construction costs presented herein may vary and some “projects” may be conducted by marina staff under basic maintenance and repair budgets. This analysis also does not include any existing funds that the HOA may currently have on hand for capital projects. The recommendations and costs presented herein are consistent with ATM’s experience in the marina industry and should serve to provide the HOA with general guidance with regard to the establishment and/or funding of their capital replacement account.
Page 27
ReserveFundSpreadsheets
Ashley Marina Homeowner's AssociationConceptual Capital Cost Estimate
Nov‐13
Project Description Qty Unit Unit Cost Total CostYear of
ExecutionComments
Immediate/Life Safety1 Replace Framing Hardware 1 ls $7,500 $ 7,500 0 Allowance, SS hardware
Tighten protruding deck screws 1 ‐ 0 Assume performed by dock staff
Total Immediate/Life Safety $ 7,500 Assume commit project funds at beginning of year
Short Term (Years 1 ‐ 5)2 Repair damaged section of dock at main gangway 1 ls $25,000 $ 25,000 1 Allowance, includes mobilization and repairs
3 Brace handrail on fixed pier & deck 1 ls $1,500 $ 1,500 1 Allowance
4 Replace cracked piles 1 ls $50,000 $ 50,000 1 Allowance, includes mobilization, pile extraction, and new pile driving
Scrape Piling ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 Assume performed by dock staff
5 Repair Pile Guides 1 ls $1,000 $ 1,000 1
6 Repair Dock Listing 1 ls $7,500 $ 7,500 1 Assume done in tandem with project 2
Total Short Term $ 76,500 Assume commit project funds at beginning of year
Intermediate/Long Term (Replacement)Floating Docks
7 Mobilization 1 ls $50,000 $50,000
Contractor Bonding/Insurance 1 ls $100,000 $100,000
Demolition 1 ls $150,000 $150,000
Floating Docks (including piling) 43,000 sf $65 $2,795,000
Outer Atttenuator (Dock "T", including piling) 13,500 sf $100 $1,350,000
Marina Utilities, including: 250 slips $7,500 $1,875,000 Assume 250 slips, Incl. Side Tie
Electrical Cabling ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Utility Pedestals ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Potable Water System ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Marine Pumpout 1 ls $15,000 $15,000 Assume 75% funded by USFWS grant
Fire Standpipe 1 ls $250,000 $250,000 Current fire regs in CHS will call for standpipe in a redev. marina
Fire Cabinets 20 ea $1,200 $24,000
Aluminum Gangways 1 ea $5,000 $5,000 Assume re‐use, re‐furbishment of existing gangways
Floating Docks Construction Sub‐total $ 6,614,000
Permitting 0.5%% of
Construction ‐ $33,070
Engineering 2.0%% of
Construction$132,280
Construction Administration 2.0%% of
Construction$132,280
Floating Dock Replacement Total $ 6,911,630
Salvage Value of Existing Materials 1 LS $350,000 ($350,000) Assume salvage electrical cables, Ipe, and electrical pedestals
Total Cost to HOA $ 6,561,630 15 Assume commit project funds at beginning of year
Fixed Pier & Deck8 Mobilization 1 ls $15,000 $15,000
Contractor Bonding/Insurance 1 ls $15,000 $15,000
Demolition 1 ls $20,000 $20,000
Fixed Pier & Deck 2,775 sf $75 $208,125
Reconnect Utilities 1 ls $10,000 $10,000
Fixed Pier & Deck Construction Sub‐total $ 268,125
Permitting 1.0%% of
Construction ‐ $2,681 Assume permit extension from floating dock project
Engineering 4.0%% of
Construction$10,725
Construction Administration 4.0%% of
Construction$10,725
Fixed Pier and Deck Replacement Total $ 292,256 20 Assume commit project funds at beginning of year
Ashley Marina Homeowner's Association Reserve Fund Analysis ‐ Nov. 2013
Ashley Marina Homeowner's AssociationCapital Project Summary
Nov‐13
Project Number Description Year 2013 Estimated Cost Future Value at Year of Replacement
1 Replace Framing Hardware 0 $7,500 $7,500
2 Repair Damaged Dock at Gangway 1 $25,000 $25,750
3 Repair Pile Guides 1 $1,000 $1,030
4 Repair Dock Listing 1 $7,500 $7,725
5 Brace Handrail on Fixed Dock 1 $1,500 $1,545
6 Replace Cracked Piling 1 $50,000 $51,500
7 Replace Floating Dock System and Utilities 15 $6,561,630 $10,222,806
8 Fixed Pier and Deck Replacement 20 $292,256 $527,847
Assumed CPI Boost 3%
Ashley Marina Homeowner's Association Reserve Fund Analysis ‐ Nov. 2013
Ashley Marina Homeowner's AssociationFunding Requirement Summary
Nov‐13
Project Number Description Year Future Value Annual Sinking Fund Requirement Years Payment Required
1 Replace Framing Hardware 0 $7,500 $7,500 0
2 Repair Damaged Dock at Gangway 1 $25,750 $12,561 0‐1
3 Repair Pile Guides 1 $1,030 $502 0‐1
4 Repair Dock Listing 1 $7,725 $3,768 0‐1
5 Brace Handrail on Fixed Dock 1 $1,545 $754 0‐1
6 Replace Cracked Piling 1 $51,500 $25,122 0‐1
7 Replace Floating Dock System and Utilities 15 $10,222,806 $432,117 0‐15
8 Fixed Pier and Deck Replacement 20 $527,847 $14,778 0‐20
Assumed Interest Rate 5%
Ashley Marina Homeowner's Association Reserve Fund Analysis ‐ Nov. 2013
Ashley Marina Homeowner's AssociationAnnual Sinking Fund Requirement Summary
Nov‐13
Year Required Sinking Fund Contribution
0 $497,102
1 $489,602
2 $446,895
3 $446,895
4 $446,895
5 $446,895
6 $446,895
7 $446,895
8 $446,895
9 $446,895
10 $446,895
11 $446,895
12 $446,895
13 $446,895
14 $446,895
15 $446,895 Sinking Fund for Replacement of New Marina in Yr. 4016 $14,778 $441,097
17 $14,778 $441,097
18 $14,778 $441,097
19 $14,778 $441,097
20 $14,778 $441,097
Ashley Marina Homeowner's Association Reserve Fund Analysis ‐ Nov. 2013
Ashley Marina Homeowner's AssociationAmortization Tables
Nov‐13
Year Interest Rate Contributions/Payments Cash Flow Out for Projects EOY Balance, Incl. Interest
Year 0 Requirements 0 5% $7,500 $7,500 $0
Replace Framing Hardware
Year 1 Requirements 0 5% $42,707 $0 $44,843
Repair Damaged Dock at Gangway 1 $42,707 $87,550 $0
Brace Handrail on Fixed Dock
Replace Cracked Piling
Repair Pile Guides
Repair Listing
Year 15 Requirements 0 5% $432,117 $0 $453,723
Replace Floating Dock System and Utilities 1 $432,117 $0 $930,132
2 $432,117 $0 $1,430,361
3 $432,117 $0 $1,955,602
4 $432,117 $0 $2,507,105
5 $432,117 $0 $3,086,184
6 $432,117 $0 $3,694,216
7 $432,117 $0 $4,332,649
8 $432,117 $0 $5,003,005
9 $432,117 $0 $5,706,878
10 $432,117 $0 $6,445,945
11 $432,117 $0 $7,221,965
12 $432,117 $0 $8,036,786
13 $432,117 $0 $8,892,348
14 $432,117 $0 $9,790,689
15 $432,117 $10,222,806 $0
Year 20 Requirements 0 5% $14,778 $0 $15,517
Fixed Pier and Deck Replacement 1 $14,778 $0 $31,809
2 $14,778 $0 $48,916
3 $14,778 $0 $66,878
4 $14,778 $0 $85,739
5 $14,778 $0 $105,542
6 $14,778 $0 $126,336
7 $14,778 $0 $148,169
8 $14,778 $0 $171,094
9 $14,778 $0 $195,166
10 $14,778 $0 $220,440
11 $14,778 $0 $246,979
12 $14,778 $0 $274,844
13 $14,778 $0 $304,103
14 $14,778 $0 $334,825
15 $14,778 $0 $367,083
16 $14,778 $0 $400,953
17 $14,778 $0 $436,518
18 $14,778 $0 $473,860
19 $14,778 $0 $513,070
20 $14,778 $527,847 $0
Ashley Marina Homeowner's Association Reserve Fund Analysis ‐ Nov. 2013
