Pre-feasibility Study of the Guimaras-Iloilo Ferry Terminals System Project

PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDYGuimaras‐Iloilo Ferry Terminals System Project

AUGUST 2008

Table of Contents

Introduction

Background 4

Objectives & Scope 5

The Existing Situation 6

Technical Description of the Project

The Development Approach 7

The Projects

The Parola Station Project 8

The Buenavista Station Project 19

The Jordan Station Project 22

Design & General Specifications 25

Market Analysis 26

Institutional Proposal 27

Financial Viability 29

Next Steps 32

Annexes 33

CITIES DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE FOR ASIA (CDIA)

SUPPORT MIG, PHILIPPINES

Project No. 07.2029.2‐001.00

Guimaras‐Iloilo Ferry Terminals System Project

Pre‐Feasibility Study

(DRAFT)

Prepared by:

CONSULTANTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, INC.

August 2008

1856 Asuncion St., Santiago Village, Makati City

Tel : 895‐1812 ; Fax : 890‐2480

E‐mail : [email protected]

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD

YGuimaras‐Iloilo Ferry Terminals System

Project

4

Introduction

Background

This Pre‐Feasibility Study report focuses on the proposed improvement ofthe three wharfs comprising the Guimaras‐Iloilo Ferry Terminal System(GIFTS), one of the major components of the Cities Development Initiativefor Asia (CDIA) Support to Metro Iloilo‐Guimaras, Philippines (Project No.07.2029.2‐001.00) – or CDIA‐MIG for short. Based upon a request from theMetro Iloilo‐Guimaras Economic Development Council (MIGEDC), thesubject project is supported by the CDIA, which is a regional initiative of theAsian Development Bank (ADB), the German Development Cooperation(GTZ) system, and the Swedish International Development CooperationAgency (SIDA). The CDIA is designed to support cities in ADB’s developingmember countries in strengthening the links between their urban planningand infrastructure investment programs, and to facilitate that identifiedprojects will be subjected to pre‐feasibility studies, full‐blown feasibilitystudies, and will be financed and implemented accordingly. It is within thisframework that the pre‐feasibility study of the GIFTS project is beingundertaken.

This project was originally referred to as the Parola Eco Port Project, whichwas aimed at developing the former Rotary Park in Iloilo City at the mouthof the Iloilo River popularly called “Parola” into a modern ferry terminal.However, midway in the preparation of the pre‐feasibility study for thiscomponent, it was decided to expand its scope to include the Buenavistaand Jordan wharfs on Guimaras Island which are Parola’s “counterpart”wharfs on the Guimaras side. Thus, the pre‐feasibility study has expandedits coverage to cover the ferry terminals in all the three sites.

The pre‐feasibility study (PFS) aims to establish the prima facie case to takethe project to feasibility level under standard agreement with a financinginstitution. The PFS report tries to adhere to a standard acceptable tonational and international financing institutions, with particular referenceto requirements for possible ADB financing under the GoP/ADB PhilippinesBasic Urban Services Sector (PBUSS) project, including flagging potentialissues requiring in‐depth review in accordance with the various ADBsafeguards guidelines at the subsequent feasibility study stage.

Figure 1. Jordan port ticketing station

Figure 2. Jordan Port Ferry Terminal

Figure 3 Parola Eco Port Ferry Terminal.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

5

Introduction

Objectives & Scope

The project aims to improve and modernize the Parola, Buenavista, andJordan wharfs to cater to the needs of an expanding number of dailycommuters between Guimaras and Iloilo, and to enhance the tourismindustry which is a vital element of the Metro Iloilo‐Guimaras (MIG)region’s economy. In line with this basic objective, the Project’s scopecovers the physical improvements of the three wharfs, particularly itspassenger terminals, the boat docking facilities, and related servicefacilities. The Project necessarily also covers the financing of theseimprovements as well as its implementation strategy and managementsystem. The Project also looks at the modernization of the existing ferryboats which can be undertaken at a future phase.

The Project’s implementation, financing, and management strategyspecifically takes into account the fact that there are several majorstakeholders involved, including the association of ferry boat owners andoperators, possible private investors, and the local governments namelythe province of Guimaras, the municipalities of Buenavista and Jordan, andthe City of Iloilo. It recognizes the financial constraints of these LGUs andconsiders the role and possible contribution of the private business sectoras well as the ferry boat owners and operators.

An important concern of the Project is the presence of informal settlerhouseholds in and immediately adjacent to the Parola site, as well assidewalk vendors in the vicinity of all the three wharfs. While thesehouseholds and vendors presently contribute to the sanitation andenvironmental problems of the wharfs, they are also seen as potentialservice providers. The Project, therefore, considers appropriate measuresfor the relocation and resettlement of the informal settler families, and theaccommodation of the sidewalk vendors in viable commercial facilities thatare integral to the ferry terminals.

Figure 4. Hawkers at the Jordan Port.

Figure 5. Buenavista Port Ferry Terminal.

Figure 6 . Guimaras‐Iloilo Ferry Boat.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

6

The Existing SituationThe present ferry system essentially consists of local boatservice between ‘ports’ in Iloilo City and the ports in themunicipalities of Buenavista and Jordan in Guimaras Province.While Parola on the Iloilo City side is the receiving anddispatching counterpart of Buenavista commuters, Ortiz ‘Port’handles the Jordan traffic.

On the Guimaras side, the two facilities operate out of themunicipal ports and have been marginally developed to providea minimum level of comfort to the commuters with queuingsheds for ticketing and waiting areas. On the Iloilo City side, twoinformal “ports” evolved from need for landing points to unloadand load the commuting public. These are located at Ortiz, adistrict of the City located on the strait directly facing to Jordanand at Parola which is the lighthouse at the mouth of the IloiloRiver. These loading and unloading areas consist of nothingmore than the breakwater, where the passengers board and exitthe boats from the stern (Ortiz) or by crossing via the middleoutrigger plank (Parola). The boats are traditional long woodenboats with a low roof and outriggers.

While most passengers have no difficulty boarding during hightide, at low tide, the top of the breakwater can have anelevation difference of over 2‐meters. There are no gangplanksto facilitate the boarding or discharge of passengers. Accordingto the Philippine Ports Authority and Coast Guard officials, themethod of loading and unloading is a function of thecharacteristics of the two sites. At Ortiz, where the breakwaterjuts out seaward, the tidal current is minimal and the boats candock perpendicular to the rock‐pile. The strong river current atParola pulls the boats side‐ways and forces them alongside therock‐pile. Both landing points have the minimum amenities forticketing. However, the walkways are congested with vendorsand informal settlers. In Ortiz, the settlement structures arebuilt‐up at the edge of the breakwater line on the land side.There is no room for expansion at Ortiz except by reclaimingland by way of extending the rock pile and breakwater.

During the north‐easterly season the operations are suspendedat Ortiz due to the large waves which batter the shoreline. Thesea becomes turbulent and large waves lash the breakwater.This makes the loading and unloading operations dangerous tothe commuters. There have been a number of accidentsinvolving passenger falling into the water while exiting the boatduring turbulent seas. As a precaution, when this season sets in,the Coast Guard and Marina allow the outriggers to continueoperations at Parola. During this period Parola handles allcommuter traffic to and from Guimaras and has traditionallydone so. Normally, Parola only handles the movement to andfrom Buenavista while Ortiz caters to the Jordan traffic. Theboat licences to operate specifies the route and the Buenavistaand Jordan routes are separate and distinct.

The daily commuters moving into Iloilo and out to Guimarasdaily is reported at 5,870 for Jordan and 4,800 for Buenavista.Commuters between the two points in Guimaras and Iloilo Citynumber over 4.2 million annually.

The growth of commuter traffic indicates a trend towardGuimaras as ‘bedroom’ of Iloilo City. A large number of thepopulation which moves between these points, actually resideon the Guimaras side and work in Iloilo city. This observation isborne out by the peak movement hours. The first three hours inthe morning are heavy outgoing from Jordan and Buenavista.Parola and Ortiz experience the peak outgoing traffic betweenthe hours of 4:00 in the afternoon to 7 in the evening. It isexpected that the growth trend will continue as more and moreresidential areas are opened on Guimaras.

Another evolving market is also expected to grow in theimmediate future, tourism. Local tourists or weekend visitors tothe beach resorts on Guimaras also account for an increasednumber of riders during weekends. It is also expected that theinternational visitor market will grow at a much higher rate inthe immediate term.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

7


The Projects

The Development Approach

The present ferry system essentially consists of local boatservice between ports in Iloilo City and the ports inBuenavista and Jordan in Guimaras Province (see Figure 7).The boats are traditional long wooden boats with a low roofand outriggers. On the Iloilo City side, while they have theminimum amenities for ticketing and boarding, the piersappear as a makeshift docking facility which is congestedwith vendors and informal settlers. On the Guimaras side, thetwo facilities provide a minimum level of comfort to thecommuters with queuing sheds for ticketing and waitingareas. The number of commuters between the points inGuimaras and Iloilo City now stands at almost 5‐million ayear.

Addressing the needs of the commuting public and in linewith MIGEDCs thrust to promote tourism, a suitable Pier andSea Transport facility that address the needs of the marketfor access to the emerging residential areas, beach and idyllicrural places in nearby Guimaras are proposed. More thanbeing just a utilitarian pier for loading and unloading, the piersites shall be converted into modern Ferry Stations completewith comfortable terminal lobby with ticketing and waitingspaces, shaded and safe loading arcades, public toilets, shopsand parking areas.

The Architecture and Engineering design idea for the projectsare presented in the Figure exhibits. The land use and thebuilding areas therein are deemed as a reasonable guide forthe activity flow within the respective sites and the basis ofthe budget for their construction. The perspective drawingsmeanwhile are images of how the development could looklike in the light of the global objectives of the project.

Specifically, the new Ferry Station projects are located in: 1)the Iloilo City’s Parola Port along Fort San Pedro Drive bythe mouth of the Iloilo River; and 2) in the activeBuenavista and Jordan Ports both in Guimaras Province justacross the Strait. The old ports shall be redeveloped to theextent that they meet the requirement of the growingmarket and the tourism objectives of MIGEDC. Theadvantageous technical features inherent within theexisting ports shall be adopted and developed while theundesirable facilities and operational practices shall bereconsidered and upgraded to the extent that they becomefirst class facilities providing optimal benefits for the portsites. The individual projects are further described in theforthcoming pages.

Figure 7. Location of Parola, Buenavista & Jordan Ports.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

8


The Projects (cont’d)

The Parola Station Project

Site Analysis

The Parola site is a 1.3 hectare property comprising of the oldRotary Park and the Coast Guard compound, located at themouth of the Iloilo River beside the port operated by thePhilippine Ports Authority. Aside from housing the CoastGuard offices, the site is also occupied by some 25 informalsettler families. Immediately outside the fence of the CoastGuard compound is the ticket booth and pier of the ferryboats servicing commuters between Iloilo City andBuenavista in Guimaras. The side of the site fronting the mainaccess road is lined with make‐shift stalls of vendors.

The Rotary Park has been turned over to the Iloilo CityGovernment, while the Coast Guard compound is, accordingto the Coast Guard, under their authority by virtue of aPresidential Proclamation. The Iloilo City Governmenthowever, maintains that the property is in the name of theGovernment of the Philippines and under the jurisdiction ofthe Department of Environmental and Natural Resources(DENR). Per the Office of the Mayor, the city government hasrequested the Office of the President to issue a PresidentialOrder giving Iloilo City jurisdiction over the entire property,and that this Order is expected to be released within theyear.

The site is situated behind the new PPA wharf. The side ofthe property facing this wharf is water‐logged even duringlow tide and will require substantial filling if it is to be builtupon. The site lacks proper drainage and utilities. Theexisting pier for the ferry boats is narrow. Entrance to thepier is congested with a mix of vendors, taxis, jeepneys andtricycles. The area is also lacking in proper solid wastemanagement.

The Iloilo City Urban Poor Affairs Office has identified the 25informal settler families occupying the site, and is preparinga relocation area for them. However, the site inspectionrevealed that outside but adjacent to the site, are informalsettlers who will also need to be relocated.

PAROLA ECO‐PORT SITE

Figure 8. Parola Eco Port Site.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

9


The Parola Station Project (cont’d)

Rotary Park Area: 9,913 sqmPhil. Coast Guard Area: 3,627 sqm

Total Area of Titled Lots: 13,540 sqm

Figure 9. Delineation of lot parcels in Parola.

a) The berthing of larger boats at the river mouthpresents a hazard to the channel. The regulatoryagencies tolerate the presence of the outrigger boatsfor lack of other viable alternatives , and

b) Limitation to its development area boundaries due tothe existing PPA industrial wharves established andoperating around it.

c) Fort San Pedro Drive to Parola is a cu‐de‐sac of sorts.Public transport is not allowed through the PPA riverport area while private transport is only allowedthrough until the gates are closed at around 7:00 in theevening. Some arrangements will have to be agreedupon with PPA relative to this situation.

Currently, the facility services only the Buenavistacommuters under normal conditions. However, betweenJuly to September, and at the height of the typhoon season,the operations of Ortiz from Jordan are moved to Parola.From the average 4,800 daily commuters, the facility has tohandle the additional volume of 6,900 passengers fromJordan as well. So traditionally, Parola has the capacity tohandle all commuter movement from the two points inGuimaras.

Technical Considerations

Among other things, the technical problems facing thedevelopment of the Parola port are

Site Capacity

This lone station that is expected to service all commutersbetween Iloilo City and Guimaras will obviously contain themost number of ferry traffic. Short of perhaps anotherstation in another location in the future, the Parola Stationwill be counted on to accommodate all commuter boatscoming from, and heading to, both the Buenavista andJordan ports. While the Parola Port compound is collectivelymore than a hectare in size, its pier for docking is not thatconvenient and ideal according to the Coast Guard and PPA,and which situation needs to be rationalized.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

10



Because of its original land uses, the Parola land complexearmarked for development under this project is also notfree vacant land that can be readily developed. Some 30informal settlers on the site and along the sidewalk need tobe relocated or dismantled prior to development. Theinterests of the hawkers who crowd the walkway to theloading and unloading as well as some settler families whoactually reside on the breakwater need to be addressed.

To effectively implement the terminal plan, the existing CoastGuard headquarters would need to be relocated to anotherarea within the site. In line with the City’s objectives, restorethe Rotary Park amenities and relocate the informal settlersthat have erected shanties there. Additionally, theDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources has alsorequested that they be allocated a parcel for the location oftheir regional office. Any development proposal must takeinto account these factors.

The Iloilo River has historically been the main port. On eitherside of the river, the Port of Iloilo is operated by thePhilippine Ports Authority. The Parola site is the only stretchwhich does not fall under the supervision of the agency.Parola is a property of the Philippine Government titledunder the Department of Environment and NaturalResources. The plot is covered by three (3) titles with a totalarea of 14,600 square meters. The Coast Guard was allowedthe use of over 3,000 square meters under an officialissuance.

The need for more port space has forced the PPA to developthe land strip along the strait and as recently extended thewharf up to the edge of the river entrance. However, thestructure was set‐off roughly 30 meters from the land side,respecting the sea frontage of Parola. This wharf handlesboth passenger and cargo from large international and inter‐island vessels. Meanwhile the river facilities continue tooperate including the fast craft ferries to other points ofVisayas.

Risk Factors

A description of the tidal pattern of the river and the straitwas given by a representative of the Coast Guard with theconcurrence of the Philippine Ports Authority. The deepchannel of the river is mainly at the center and is very tight.The channel has to be continuously dredged to maintain thedepth as siltation is a major problem.

The tides and current have a distinct effect on the rivertraffic. The larger cargo boats and the fast crafts need to go athigher speed at the junction of the river and the strait. It isdocumented that the river flow is at 18 knots depending onthe season while the strait current is at lower rate. Where thetwo currents meet, there is constant turbulence.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

11


Risk Factors (cont’d)

When the flow is toward high or low tide, ships entering orleaving the harbor must do so a high speeds or risk runningaground on the shallower sides of the river mouth. This highspeed maneuver in turn makes large waves which lash themoored boats at Parola. The turbulence also results in damageto the outriggers and complaints from the boat owners. Therehave been recorded instances where commuter have fall offthe outrigger planks as a result of the turbulence.

There have also been reports of the commuter outrigger boatsnot respecting the rules of sea traffic and actually moving intothe lane of the fast crafts forcing the larger boat to slow downand risk running aground. As a result of these violations, theoutriggers are no longer allowed to moor on the other bank ofthe river mouth while waiting for passengers.

TheDevelopment Options

In consideration of the existing situation, a range ofdevelopment options were deemed suitable options in the lightof the project requirement and the deemed optimal approachto the development. These development options for the ParolaStation Project are described and illustrated in the followingpages.

Option 1

This will pose the least disturbance on the non‐port handlingactivities in the site. This Option will consider the basicprovision of the Station requirement independent of thebigger site area that will be called the “Ecopark” of the site.If only to minimize the investment further, the Option willalso assume that the Coast facilities will be retained for themost part. Technically, only the commuter transaction,waiting lounge, dining areas and necessary shops could beprioritized for construction. The cost of breakwaterrehabilitation (facing the new PPA wharf), the filling of thedepressed area by the breakwater, and the Ecopark arealandscaping could be an optional investment, or a futureactivity, in so far as Option 1 is concerned. For purposes ofthis study though, the development estimate will includethe development of the whole site but excluding the largerpart of the Coast Guard area with its retained agencyoperations. See Figures 10 to 14 for details.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

12


Option 3

This option is is essentially a variation of Option 2. Option 3however seeks to frontally address the requirement of theprospective tourist trade by providing a convenient man‐made ‘docking bay’ primarily for them. This feature requirescutting away a substantial portion of the Parola grounds ifonly to create the special dock for the large boats of thefuture. This plan tends to ‘bring’ the terminal with itsrestaurant facilities and transaction center closer to theEcopark area. As a result, the whole development becomesmore integrative and synergistic overall while availing ofmore impressive area esthetics and vista. A downside is thatthe land site will be substantially smaller due to the creationof the dock. This new dock shall be designed to mainlyaccommodate the proposed large safer boats suitable fortourists and some of the commuters. See Figures 20 to 23 fordetails.

The Development Options (cont’d)

Option 2

The land use of the site maximizes the land use of the siteand will require the immediate relocation of the Coast Guardheadquarters and the illegal settlers and vendors. Since thedocking system under Option 2 essentially retains the oldway however, further technical studies will be necessary todetermine the viability of introducing larger boats in thefuture for the comfort of tourists. Regarding the depressedwater‐logged area inside the old Rotary Park, this will beconverted into a recreational pond within the park proper.This is deemed more suitable to do for this naturally low areainstead of filling it to acquire more land area which is notneeded at the moment. A given in this option is theagreement for the project to relocate the Coast Guardbuilding and to provide a site/lot for the use of DENR as well.See Figures 15 to 19 for details.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

13



Figure 10a . Arial Perspective.

Figure 11. Land Use Plan.

Parola Eco Port Option 1

Figure 10a . Terminal and Eco Park.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

14



Figure 12 . Ferry Terminal & Plaza.

Figure 13 . Pier & Waiting Area. Figure 14 . Commercial & Restaurant Building.


PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

15



Figure 16 . Land Use Plan.

Figure 15a . Aerial Perspective.


Figure 15b . Terminal and Eco Park.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

16



Figure 17. Ferry Terminal & Parking.

Figure 18. Commercial Area Figure 19. Restaurant Building & Pier.


PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

17



Figure 20. Aerial Perspective.



Figure 21. Pier & Waiting Area.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

18



Figure 23. Ferry Terminal & Restaurant.


PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

19



The two commuter points on Guimaras operate from theirindividual municipal ports. Although originally built andoperated by the Philippine Ports Authority, the ownership,operations and management of the facilities have beenturned over to the respective LGU’s.

The Buenavista Station Project

Located along the provincial road off the coast of Buenavistatown in Guimaras (directly across the sea from the ParolaPort), the Buenavista site is an active commuter port muchlike the Parola Port. The site has an existing industrial T‐wharf that is partially roofed. This wharf protrudes out intothe ocean and services not only commuters to and from IloiloCity but also industrial and commercial cargo.

The town has implemented reclamation work for the portarea in the past which includes the site where the PNPoutpost is now located. Today, the plan for the Station underthis project takes stock of the existing situation and proposesthat the best approach is the redevelopment of the existingPNP reclaimed area and the T‐wharf. It is suggested that theland use of the reclaimed area which contains the small PNPoutpost be better rationalized by overbuilding on it. The newconstruction would be a two level building structure that canhouse the relocated PNP outpost; the Terminaladministrative facilities; the public toilets; and shops andrestaurants.

Regarding the existing T‐wharf, it is understood that theindustrial and commercial activities will be in the traversedock (the “T”) at the end of it, while the commuter activitieswill be alongside the long stretch leading to the said traversedock. Considering that the width of the wharf is nominaland trucks pass it to access the industrial zone, expansion ofthe wharf width to create a safe and spacious commuterpier with is envisioned. This new strip shall be roofed,equipped with the loading ramps and provided completewith dock furniture and necessary signages. Both sides ofthe wharf shall be expanded since tidal influences suggest toboat operators which side of the wharf is safer for loading

and unloading for that time.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

20


The Buenavista Station Project (cont’d)

Figure 24. Land Use Plan. Figure 25. Aerial Perspective.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

21


The Buenavista Station Project (cont’d)

Figure 26a. Pier & Waiting Area.

Figure 27. Ferry Terminal & Parking.

Figure 26b. Another view of the waiting area.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

22



The Jordan Station Project

The existing Jordan port facility is a limited area found at theend of the road by the coast. This port faces a protruding partof the land just across the mouth of the Jordan River. Thetown had actually diverted the route of the meanderingJordan River by creating a diversion channel outlet of the rivermore directly to the sea at the other side. This Jordan Riverbypass will minimize the siltation on the original river path tothe open sea beside the dock. It is understood that the townhopes to convert this protruding land (that has now becomean ‘island’ of sorts due to the diversion channel outlet to thesea) across the port to become a tourism ecopark area.

Jordan is the seat of the Provincial Government. It also servesas the gateway to the adjacent municipalities and resort areasof the province. Jordan operates a municipal port. On eitherside of the port are a private facility with a port within aprotected lagoon and the Philippine Ports Authority Roll On –Roll Off (RORO) facility. The larger ships and the FF Cruz ferrywhich can carry vehicles and passengers use this RORO astheir port of call. There are a limited number of trips madedaily by the RORO ferry between Iloilo City and Jordan.Outrigger boats plying between Jordan and Iloilo City use themunicipal port.

Jordan commuter terminal also has a covered and fencedwalkway for the ticket line but has no roof cover at theloading and unloading area. Entry and egress is through thestern of the boats again mirroring the method at Ortiz onthe Iloilo City side. Without passenger handling rampscommuters have difficulty at low tide with the boat restinglower than the top of the breakwater.

The presence of existing private commercial establishmentsand roadways in the dock area allows for very limitedexpansion land for the port. It is for this reason that theJordan port officials adopted a reclamation project parallelto the road. Together, the lands of the existing port facilitiesand the proposed area for reclamation shall be the site forthe new Jordan Station. Considering the many technicalstudies and initiatives by the town already in making thereclamation area a reality, the pier and part of the Terminalis proposed to be built on this proposed reclaimed area.Meanwhile, the tightly grouped existing port facilities shallbe cleared and redeveloped as the location for therestaurant and parking facilities of the project. The newrestaurant and shop shall have a scenic view of the Straitand which service is expected to be complemented by theother private commercial stores already in the area.

The details of the project are shown in the succeedingfigures.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

23


The Jordan Station Project (cont’d)

Figure 28a. Aerial Perspective.


Figure 28b. Another Aerial Perspective.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

24


The Jordan Station Project (cont’d)

Figure 30b. Another View of the Ferry Terminal & Restaurant.

Figure 31. Pier & Waiting Area.

Figure 30a. Ferry Terminal & Restaurant.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

25


Design & General Specifications

For the said new Ferry Stations in the various locations underthe proposed GIFTS system, the efficiency and quality ofdevelopment shall be the same.

In general, the Stations shall contain

1) a pier area with loading ramps; 2) a terminal area for ticketing and ferry administration; 3) public toilets; 4) restaurants and shops; 5) a commercial area with stalls for the vendors as required; 6) a boat queue area out on the pier side.

The sizes and amenities of the stations will however varydepending on the given land for development, the availablelength and configuration of the pier dock, and the passengercapacities to be sustained by the market.

The architecture of the structures shall be basic modern. Thisapproach will not only bring the image of the stations up tocurrent global design trends that is attractive to the public,but it should also tend to lower construction cost due to thetrends’ minimalist approach to the configuration of structures.The building material finishes shall be low maintenance (high‐quality) finishes. The sites’ open areas shall be either pavedas concrete roads and walks or landscaped with bothhardscaping (boardwalks, pavers, etc.) and softscaping(native plant variety) features as required.

The Stations shall be provided with all necessary modernequipment such as area airconditioning, electric generatorand water pumps as required especially in enclosed publiccongregation areas and transaction places. The loadingramps shall be light mechanical devices that drop downfrom their upright position pier side onto boat decks duringloading time. The mechanical ramps shall be standardequipment import unless locally fabricated alternatives thatare just as effective are sourced.

The project construction and development budgets aresummarized as follows:

Table 1. Summary of project construction and development budgets.

The details of the above budgets are detailed in Annexes 39to 43. The costs for A&E and allied services, preparatoryactivities such as relocation of existing features on the landand necessary demolition and clearing within the site arenot part of the estimate. The costing looked took intoconsideration industry standard unit costs for like worksbased on today’s prices of labor and materials, importedequipment and current building systems.

No. Station Total Amount Remarks 1 Parola 1a Option 1 P125,519,500 Excludes the development

of the Coast Guard and DENR sites.

1b Option 2 153,668,000 Commercial and park areas are maximized.

1c Option 3 202,720,000 Includes land cut process to effect the new dock.

2 Buenavista 83,000,000 Include expansion of existing pier.

3 Jordan 56,989,000 Includes reclamation work.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

26

Market AnalysisNotwithstanding tourist arrivals, efficient, safe and convenientterminal facilities for the commuting public, between Guimarasand Iloilo City has long been identified as a need which has notbeen realized. Over the years the volume of commuter traffichas grown steadily and now tops 4 million passengers eachyear. The ridership figures were submitted to the project teamby the boat operators association. They are based on actualdaily ticket sales for the two ports on Guimaras and the twopoints in Iloilo City. As more and more Iloilo City based workers,employees and population in general consider Guimaras aspossible place of residence while conducting their employmentor business on the Iloilo City side, the figure will further rise.For purposes of this study, a series of annual increases wereprojected averaging 2.5%. The resulting figure shows a a veryconservative 75% increase over current ridership in 20 years.

The recent floods which ravaged the residential neighborhoodsacross the river from the old central business district of IloiloCity bring home the distinct possibilities of Guimaras asalternative place of residence.

The major thrust of national government in the area of tourismis also expected to impact on the sub‐region. Guimaras offerspristine beaches and pastoral agricultural landscape with easyaccess, a friendly and hospitable people. Coupled with theheritage and cultural assets on the Iloilo side, it is easy to see acoming boom in tourism.

For purposes of this study, a low figure for tourist movementbetween Iloilo City and Guimaras was set at 50,000 visitors.This will normally happen during the Dinagyang Fesitival, themango festival and other major tourist related activities. It isprojected that the volume of visitor arrival will increasedramatically over the next five years to 130,000 arrivals, twoand a‐half times its present level. A tapering to a normal 2% ‐7% annual growth beyond is further projected.

The fly in the ointment for the growth in tourism is the modeof transportation. While the outriggers present a quaint andunique experience for the visitor, organized tours may not beable to take‐off over the issue of insurance. The small, woodenhull outriggers are not covered by the formal insuranceindustry. This poses a major threat to the development of thetourism sector especially for Guimaras. Unless alternatives areexplored, prospects of a tourism boom may not materialize.

To address this issue, an alternative development option ispresented which allows the use of larger, wood or steel hullcraft which conform to international maritime standards. It isalso expected that the boats now plying the strait will evolveover time. As costs to operate become more prohibitive, fuelprices soar, the need to find more cost effective vessels willdrive the market. Better boats would mean higher fares whichin turn will impact on the individual boat operator finances.

A wide disparity in commuter fares and tourist fares will spurthe improvement of the boat service. In the future, theimproved versions of the vessels will allow higher efficiency atthe loading and unloading points.

The experience is proven in Boracay . From the smalloutriggers with less than a dozen load in the early 1980’s tothe 30‐50 seaters in the early 2000’s they now have non‐outrigger, more luxurious vessels plying the route. As theregulatory framework there takes effect (no loading andunloading on the beach) the vessels will be forced to evolvefurther.

One method to influence this evolution process is to chargedocking and berthing fees on a per square meter areaoccupied. The smaller the space the lower will be the feescharged. The outriggers take up large space versus the limitedpassenger load.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

27

Institutional Proposal

The operation of the GIFT must be viewed as one seamlesssystem. Its sphere of influence transcends individualgovernment units, economic benefits impact on the sub‐region. It is the premise therefore, that the sustainability ofthe system must be established and assured.

Local government units are subject to change, as new leadersare elected. Priorities are modified. Commitments aresidelined. Personalities and personal differences may play ahand in the situation. Cooperation can be lost in the future.

Project borrowings and project revenues have to beequitably set among the co‐operators. What happens in theevent of default by one party? How will the revenues beshared? What happens in case the operation of one point isfinancially poor and requires subsidy? These must besquarely addressed.

An innovative approach is proposed for the implementationof GIFT. This will be done through the creation of a specialpurpose corporation to be jointly owned by the four localgovernment units directly impacted by the project. These areGuimaras Province, Iloilo City, Jordan and Buenavista. Pleasesee flowchart in Annex X.

Guimaras Province shall contribute cash for one‐half therelocation of the coast guard building at Parola and possiblydefray some facilities already committed for the twomunicipalities (ex. Expansion of Buenavista roofed area, roadwidening, street lighting etc.)

Iloilo City shall contribute the right to use its vested rightsover Parola, undertake the relocation of illegal settlerfamilies on the site and contribute the other one‐half of thecoast guard building. It shall provide the area with runningwater, improve the road and street lighting to the area andimplement a traffic plan for the public and privatetransportation to and from the area.

Jordan and Buenavista shall in turn contribute the use ofportions of their ports together with the currentimprovements found there.

For simplicity, it is proposed that the sharing be on equalbasis for all four LGUs. However, an appraisal of the land andimprovements may have to be undertaken to establish thebasis for the debt to equity ratio which the financialinstitution may require. To achieve an equal sharing, thedifferences may be contributed in the form of cash to thecorporation. However, the individual LGU may be contentwith the uneven set‐up then the additional cashcontribution will be unnecessary.

The financial projections should not show net deficits for theoperations. Instead, the terminal fee should be sufficient tocover all operating expenses including debt service. It is notadvisable to start with a low terminal fee since the publicmust be made aware that there is a cost attendant to safety,convenience and reliability.

There have been several instances where inter‐localcooperation has been achieved, in Cotabato and Bicol.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

28

Institutional Proposal

There is no prohibition regarding inviting theprivate sector to participate in the ownershipof the corporation. In fact, it may be advisableto invite the boat owners and operatorsassociation and potential developer / locatorsto join the corporation. Management of thecompany may be through the private sectorgroup /s. Where private ownership is morethan 50% it ceases to be a public corporationand moves out of the regulatory requirementsfor such corporations. (Ex. Fort BonifacioDevelopment Corporation, Camp John HayDevelopment Corporation)

The stability of the system, its falling outsideof the purview of political change, thepossibility of a highly professionalmanagement led by private enterprise is agoal which can be achieved.

The possible corporate setup for implementingthe projects are shown in figure 32.

Revenue Flows less Operating Expenses

CORPORATIONCORPORATION

EQUITY (Land or Land Lease, Port Improvement, Buildings or Cash)

JORDAN, ILOILO CITY, GUIMARAS, BUENAVISTA

May include Boat Assn., Others

EQUITYPRIVATE INVESTOR

Asian Development BankSpecial purpose vehicle loan window can be explored as

financing source

LOAN LENDING AGENCY

Revenue sources from land leases, building leases and terminal fees. Expenses for

operations and maintenance, debt service.

• Solely for passenger ferry terminals between Iloilo City and Guimaras• Raises equity, contracts a loan to undertake the project• Repays from revenue stream

COMMUTER FERRY TERMINALSPAROLA – JORDAN – BUENAVISTA

FERRY TERMINALS PROJECT METRO ILOILO‐GUIMARAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (MIGEDC)

Und

ertakes

Project

Repays Loan

Revenue Flows less Operating ExpensesRevenue Flows less Operating Expenses

CORPORATIONCORPORATION



JORDAN, ILOILO CITY, GUIMARAS, BUENAVISTA



EQUITYPRIVATE INVESTOR

EQUITYPRIVATE INVESTORPRIVATE INVESTOR


financing source


financing source

LOAN LENDING AGENCY

LOAN LENDING AGENCYLENDING AGENCY







COMMUTER FERRY TERMINALSPAROLA – JORDAN – BUENAVISTA

FERRY TERMINALS PROJECT METRO ILOILO‐GUIMARAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (MIGEDC)

Und

ertakes

Project

Repays Loan

Figure 32. Ferry Terminals Project Implementation Plan.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

29

Schedule of Terminal Fees

Passenger Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Commuter P 7.50 P 9.00 P10.00

Tourist P20.00 P20.00 P20.00

Financial Viability

1. Income Projections. Based on the alternativedevelopment schemes, three sets of income projectionswere prepared. Annexes 1 to 6 present the three incomescenarios. The following were the relevant assumptions tothe projections.

a) Starting base for ridership for the commuter passengersis 4.2 million projected to increase to 7.5 million by the 20th

year. See Annexes 17 to 22 on fees and ridership projections.

b) Assumes that the Parola facility shall be used for bothBuenavista and Jordan commuter points.

c) The tourist ridership is projected at a base of 50,000annually and does not differentiate between domestic andinternational visitors. With the improved facilities formovement and the development of higher quality beachresorts on Guimaras, the traffic volume is expected toincrease dramatically by 150% over the next 5‐years.Succeeding years will show a more modest 2% ‐ 5% annualgrowth.

d) Fares were expected to increase at the rate of 5%annually against the average P12.60 per person per trip ofyear 2008. Should a higher quality boat go into operation,P20.00 was assumed as starting base fare.

e) The improved services and facilities would require aterminal fee to be charged above the fare rate. The faresaccrue entirely to the boat operators while the terminal feewould be the revenue for the operations, maintenance anddebt service of the project.

Table 2. Schedule of Terminal Fees

2. Other Revenue Sources. Commercial spaces weredesigned into all the facilities. These will allow restaurants,retail space and convenience stores to operate in theterminal compounds. The spaces will be leased out incommercial rates to chosen locators. Lease rates will rangefrom P500 – P750 per square meter. These specialtystructures may be postponed for implementation at a laterdate or entirely privatized to effectively reduce loan levelsand in turn drop the terminal fee rates.

3. Loan. It is assumed that 9%, 20 year money will beavailable with grace period of 5‐years on principalrepayment. The table on Annexes 13 to 14 presents thethree options with the corresponding Amortization Tablefor each option. It is assumed that the loan shall cover thetotal project cost following each design. Costs are based onthe current estimated cost to construct equivalentstructure in Metro Manila as of July 2008.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

30

Financial Viability

4. Equity. Each station has an existing project site withimprovements. For simplification purposes, eachparticipating local government unit will be expected tocontribute P50 million in value of land and improvements;relocation expenses or cash. In the actual practice, the sameshall have to be identified and valued by average of anumber of appraisals for land and improvements. Should itbe decided that it be equal sharing, the difference should becontributed in cash. The cash would effectively lower theloan component when taken up against the developmentcost.

5. A simplified tabulation of Areas and Costs is presented asAnnexes 7 to 11.

6. Annex 23 shows the carrying capacity of the improvedterminals. Loading and unloading cycles for the three pointswere projected to occur during a 6‐hour peak period. Thesewould be 3‐hours in the early morning for originating fromGuimaras points, a corresponding 3‐hour peak arrivals atParola and a reverse 3‐ hour peak in late afternoon. Giventhe volume of commuters, the boats would have between11‐15 minutes to load or unload. When taken in the contextof a 12‐hour operating day, the cycle increases the allowableloading and unloading per boat.

7. Annex 24 is an attempt to relate ridership to potentialsales capture rate from the point of view of a retailer. Over4‐million commuters will pass through the terminals.Assuming a catchment potential of 15% of this volume, at anaverage purchase of P50, the resulting potential sales wouldbe P32 million annually. Given a 40% gross operating profiton sales (higher for fast‐food outlets), the locators wouldgenerate a potential P13 million. If 20% of the amount isused for amortizing a 10 year loan at an interest rate of 12%and Debt/Equity of 60%/40% then a P25 million project canbe set up by the private proponent.

8. Annexes 25 to 26 tries to show the revenue stream ofthe boat operators from the fares generated for thecommuting public. Assuming that a larger boat is operatedfor the tourist trade with a P20 fare and limited trips per day,how would the revenue picture look. This is does not evenconsider the possibility of charters. The idea is to try toshow to the boat owners/operators the logic of upgradingtheir vessels.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

31

SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

(in P1,000,000) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Total Project Loan P 271.5 P 305.2 P 353.3

Total Project Equity P 200.0 P 200.0 P 200.0

Total Project Cost P 471.5 P 505.2 P 553.3

Gross Revenue 20 years P 1,609.9 P 1,849.7 P 2,056.1

Value Added Tax P 193.1 P 222.0 P 246.7

Net Revenue P 1,416.7 P 1,627.7 P 1,809.4

Depreciation P 198.2 P 219.2 P 254.3

Interest P 290.3 P 333.3 P 406.2

Total Operating Expense P 806.5 P 935.7 P 1,008.4

Net Profit before Tax P 610.3 P 692.0 P 801.0

Amortization P 412.0 P 473.2 P 576.6

Financial Viability

Note in Table 3 that the interest and depreciation expensesare more than sufficient to cover the loan amortization total.The same is true on an annual basis which means that thecash flow for the project shall be positive. Considering alsothat the terminal fees will be collected on a daily basis, theproject may be interesting to the private sector to take up asa completely private venture. A sweetener would be thecapture rate income discussed in the previous section.

Table 3.Summary of Financial Highlights

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

32

Next Steps

The next steps will involve the conduct of a FeasibilityStudy of the project. This will necessarily entail a numberof specific actions to provide the basis for the decision toproceed with the project. These actions include:

• Validation of the physical design concepts for each of thethree ports in consultation with MIGEDC, the LGUs andnational agencies concerned as to whether suchconcepts are consistent with objectives andcircumstances which may arise after the submission ofthis PFS report;

• A more detailed market analysis to reconfirm if thedesign concepts, particularly in terms of the capacity andfeatures of the port facilities, will meet the expecteddemand;

• Based on the two actions above, finalization of thearchitectural and engineering designs as well as relatedconstruction documents, phasing, timeframe, andbudgets;

• Firm up the revenue projections, project costs, cashflows, and repayment terms;

• Firm up funding source(s) and/or investors;

• Firm up inter‐local arrangements among LGUs concernedand establish the project institutional structure andmanagement systems.

The interesting feature about the ferry terminal system isthat there is the distinct possibility that the financialreturns may be sufficient to pursue the venture. Given thatthe land on the Iloilo City side will be available, that thesettler families and the hawkers can be organized to putorder into the site, there are enough features which makethe project feasible.

1. There is a distinct need to upgrade the terminal facilitieson the Iloilo City side as well as the Guimaras ports.

2. There is a growing demand for the services.

3. Tourism will play a major development role in the sub‐region in the immediate future.

4. Guimaras can offer a viable alternative for thedevelopment of residential communities which are lessprone to flooding, easy access at a relatively lower cost.

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

33

Annexes

Projected Income Statement1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018GROSS REVENUEBuilding Leases 2.5% 16,965,000 16,965,000 17,389,125 17,389,125 17,389,125 17,813,250 17,813,250 17,813,250 18,237,375 18,237,375Terminal Fees 33,604,270 34,872,807 36,155,605 37,447,620 38,761,155 49,582,191 50,677,658 51,727,550 52,799,529 53,894,071

Sub‐Total 50,569,270 51,837,807 53,544,730 54,836,745 56,150,280 67,395,441 68,490,908 69,540,800 71,036,904 72,131,446Value Added Taxes 12% 6,068,312 6,220,537 6,425,368 6,580,409 6,738,034 8,087,453 8,218,909 8,344,896 8,524,428 8,655,773

NET REVENUE 44,500,958 45,617,270 47,119,363 48,256,336 49,412,246 59,307,988 60,271,999 61,195,904 62,512,475 63,475,672

EXPENSESMOOE 2.5% 12,451,000 12,762,275 13,081,332 13,408,365 13,743,574 14,087,164 14,439,343 14,800,326 15,170,334 15,549,593 Depreciation 9,909,183 9,909,183 9,909,183 9,909,183 9,909,183 9,909,183 9,909,183 9,909,183 9,909,183 9,909,183 Interest Expense 19,926,765 19,926,765 19,926,765 19,926,765 19,926,765 19,926,765 19,248,082 18,508,317 17,701,973 16,823,058

Sub‐Total Expenses 42,286,948 42,598,223 42,917,280 43,244,314 43,579,523 43,923,112 43,596,608 43,217,826 42,781,491 42,281,835

GROSS OPERATING PROFIT 2,214,009 3,019,047 4,202,082 5,012,022 5,832,723 15,384,876 16,675,391 17,978,077 19,730,984 21,193,837

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

GROSS REVENUEBuilding Leases 2.5% 18,237,375 18,661,500 18,661,500 18,661,500 19,085,625 19,085,625 19,085,625 19,509,750 19,509,750 19,509,750Terminal Fees 60,236,572 61,565,891 67,417,239 74,383,533 82,080,142 96,829,666 98,988,708 101,046,339 103,147,459 105,293,006


NET REVENUE 69,057,073 70,600,104 75,749,291 81,879,629 89,025,875 102,005,456 103,905,413 106,089,358 107,938,343 109,826,425




METRO ILOILO ‐ GUIMARAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCILMIG Commuter Ferry TerminalsMIGEDC ‐ Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)

Income for Parola Option 1

Annex 1. Income Option 1

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

34

Annexes

Terminal Operations Parola Jordan Buenavista TOTAL YearlyLight & Power 19,000 19,000 19,000 57,000 684,000 Manpower 9,295,000 Water 10,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 240,000 Cleaning Supplies 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 360,000 Garbage Collection Charges 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 360,000 Repairs and Maintenance 42,000 42,000 42,000 126,000 1,512,000

Total 91,000 86,000 86,000 263,000 12,451,000

Schedule of Light & Power Parola Jordan Buenavista TOTAL RATE TOTALPower Cost 15,000 15,000 15,000 45,000 540,000Bulb Replacements 2,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 72,000Fixtures Replacement 2,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 72,000

Total 19,000 19,000 19,000 57,000 684,000

Manpower Schedule Parola Jordan Buenavista TOTAL RATE TOTALTicketing 3 2 2 7 20,000 1,820,000Building Security 4 3 3 10 15,000 1,950,000Grounds Security 5 5 5 15 15,000 2,925,000Administrative Cost 4 3 3 10 20,000 2,600,000

Total Manpower 42 9,295,000

Other Expenses Parola Jordan Buenavista TOTAL RATE TOTALWater Consumption 10,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 240,000Cleaning Supplies 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 360,000Garbage Collection Schedule 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 360,000

Repairs and Maintenance Parola Jordan Buenavista TOTAL RATE TOTALToilets 2,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 72,000Airconditioning 0 0Loading Ramps 20,000 20,000 20,000 60,000 720,000Building 20,000 20,000 20,000 60,000 720,000

Total 42,000 42,000 42,000 126,000 1,512,000

Depreciation Schedule Parola Op‐1 Jordan Buenavista TOTAL PERIOD ANNUALBuildings 68,635,000 10,200,000 26,500,000 105,335,000 25 4,213,400 Infrastructure 54,784,500 45,889,000 60,600,000 161,273,500 30 5,375,783 Equipment 2,100,000 1,500,000 1,200,000 4,800,000 15 320,000 Total Annual Depreciation 9,909,183

MIGEDC ‐ Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)Schedule of Operating Expenses

MIG Commuter Ferry TerminalsMETRO ILOILO ‐ GUIMARAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Income for Parola Option 1 (cont’d)

Annex 2.Income Option 1

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

35

Annexes


Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018GROSS REVENUE

Building Leases 2.5% 16,965,000 16,965,000 17,389,125 17,389,125 17,389,125 17,813,250 17,813,250 17,813,250 18,237,375 18,237,375Terminal Fees 40,095,124 41,571,368 43,041,726 44,505,894 45,995,886 58,806,473 60,086,426 61,324,492 62,588,411 63,878,730


NET REVENUE 50,212,909 51,512,004 53,179,149 54,467,617 55,778,809 67,425,356 68,551,715 69,641,213 71,126,691 72,262,172




11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028



NET REVENUE 78,927,793 80,668,238 86,824,238 94,062,072 102,426,562 117,742,446 119,957,143 122,462,123 124,638,563 126,860,650







PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

36

Annexes

Terminal Operations Parola Jordan Buenavista TOTAL YearlyLight & Power 54,000 44,000 44,000 142,000 1,704,000 Manpower 10,465,000 Water 10,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 240,000 Cleaning Supplies 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 360,000 Garbage Collection Charges 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 360,000 Repairs and Maintenance 52,000 52,000 52,000 156,000 1,872,000

Total 136,000 121,000 121,000 378,000 15,001,000

Schedule of Light & Power Parola Jordan Buenavista TOTAL RATE TOTALPower Cost 50,000 40,000 40,000 130,000 1,560,000Bulb Replacements 2,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 72,000Fixtures Replacement 2,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 72,000

Total 54,000 44,000 44,000 142,000 1,704,000


Total Manpower 48 10,465,000


Repairs and Maintenance Parola Jordan Buenavista TOTAL RATE TOTALToilets 2,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 72,000Airconditioning 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 360,000Loading Ramps 20,000 20,000 20,000 60,000 720,000Building 20,000 20,000 20,000 60,000 720,000

Total 52,000 52,000 52,000 156,000 1,872,000


Schedule of Operating Expenses




PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

37

Annexes



Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018GROSS REVENUE

Building Leases 2.5% 16,965,000 16,965,000 17,389,125 17,389,125 17,389,125 17,813,250 17,813,250 17,813,250 18,237,375 18,237,375Terminal Fees 44,422,360 46,037,076 47,632,474 49,211,410 50,819,039 64,955,994 66,358,937 67,722,454 69,114,332 70,535,170


NET REVENUE 54,020,877 55,441,826 57,219,007 58,608,471 60,023,185 72,836,935 74,071,525 75,271,420 76,869,502 78,119,839



GROSS OPERATING PROFIT (201,417) 879,008 2,307,150 3,338,851 4,386,856 16,824,730 18,623,904 20,464,238 22,786,068 24,851,600

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028



NET REVENUE 85,508,272 87,380,328 94,207,536 102,183,700 111,360,353 128,233,773 130,658,296 133,377,299 135,772,043 138,216,799





Annex 5. Income Option 3

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

38

Annexes


Terminal Operations Parola Jordan Buenavista TOTAL YearlyLight & Power 19,000 19,000 19,000 57,000 684,000 Manpower 10,465,000 Water 10,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 240,000 Cleaning Supplies 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 360,000 Garbage Collection Charges 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 360,000 Repairs and Maintenance 42,000 42,000 42,000 126,000 1,512,000

Total 91,000 86,000 86,000 263,000 13,621,000

Schedule of Light & Power Parola Jordan Buenavista TOTAL RATE TOTALPower Cost 15,000 15,000 15,000 45,000 540,000Bulb Replacements 2,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 72,000Fixtures Replacement 2,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 72,000

Total 19,000 19,000 19,000 57,000 684,000


Total Manpower 10,465,000


Repairs and Maintenance Parola Jordan Buenavista TOTAL RATE TOTALToilets 2,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 72,000Airconditioning 0 0Loading Ramps 20,000 20,000 20,000 60,000 720,000Building 20,000 20,000 20,000 60,000 720,000

Total 42,000 42,000 42,000 126,000 1,512,000


Schedule of Operating Expenses



PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

39

Annexes

Areas & Costs

PAROLA OPTION 1

Details

Total

a 400 sqm 10,600,000b 1,590 sqm 27,825,000

38,425,000

a 570 sqm 15,105,000b 570 sqm 15,105,000

30,210,000

a Ecopark lawn area including boardwalks 5,329 sqm 10,658,000b 1,047 sqm 2,617,500c 811 sqm 2,433,000d 452 sqm 1,356,000

17,064,500

1,400 sqm 6,300,000

a 260 lm 20,800,000b 114 lm 9,120,000

29,920,000

a 7 units 2,100,000

a 1 lot 1,500,000

125,519,500

Sub‐Total

4 Roads and Parking

1 Specialty Building Structure

Sub‐Total

Sub‐Total

Ground Floor (Shops/Flea Market)Second Floor (Restaurant)

Sub‐TotalPPA wharf side

6 Equipment Number of imported boarding ramps

7 Miscellaneous

Commercial Site (Restaurant and Shops)

Total

Clearing, Grubbing, Demolition

Pier side

Terminal AreaPier Arcade

Ecopark LagoonTerminal Site

5 Repair/Enhancement of Shore Protection

3 Landscaping and Related Site Works

2 Commercial Building Structure

Annex 7. Areas & Costs

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

40

Annexes

Areas & Costs (cont’d)

PAROLA OPTION 2

Details

Total

a 488 sqm 12,932,000b 1,460 sqm 25,550,000c 200 sqm 4,700,000

43,182,0002 Commercial Building Structurea 552 sqm 9,660,000b 1,416 sqm 37,524,000

47,184,000

a 4,300 sqm 8,600,000b 1,000 sqm 2,500,000c 202 sqm 606,000d 354 sqm 1,062,000e Commercial Area (Flea Market site) 138 sqm 414,000

13,182,000

a 1,220 sqm 5,490,000b 1,300 sqm 5,850,000

11,340,000

a 370 lm 29,600,000b 116 lm 9,280,000

38,880,000

a 7 units 2,100,000

a 1 lot 2,500,000

158,368,000

Terminal Site

Parking

Pier side

Driveway4 Roads and Parking

5 Repair/Enhancement of Shore Protection

1 Specialty Building StructureTerminal AreaPier ArcadeCoast Guard (Office)

Shops/Flea MarketRestaurant

Ecopark lawn area including boardwalksEcopark Lagoon

Sub‐Total

Sub‐Total

Sub‐Total

Sub‐Total

Sub‐Total

Restaurant

PPA wharf side

Total

Clearing, grubbing, demolition

3 Landscaping and Related Site Works


7 Miscellaneous


PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

41

Annexes


PAROLA OPTION 3

Details

Total1 Specialty Building Structurea 1,300 sqm 34,450,000b 1,600 sqm 28,000,000c 200 sqm 4,700,000

67,150,000450 sqm 7,875,000

a 3,800 sqm 7,600,000b 200 sqm 600,000c Driveway and Parking Landscape 100 sqm 300,000d 240 sqm 720,000

9,220,000

a 800 sqm 3,600,000b 600 sqm 2,700,000

6,300,000

a 160 lm 12,800,000b 164 lm 13,120,000

25,920,000

a 62,400 cum 49,920,000b 130 lm 45,500,000

95,420,000

a 7 units 2,100,000

213,985,000

Earthworks (20m depth, for big vessels)Retaining structure and Shore Protection


Sub‐Total

DrivewayParking

5 Repair/Enhancement of Shore ProtectionPier side

Sub‐Total

PPA wharf side

6 Land cut for additional harbor

3 Landscaping and Related Site WorksEcopark lawn area including boardwalksTerminal and Restaurant Site Landscape

Commercial Site Landscape

4 Roads and ParkingSub‐Total

Terminal Area

Sub‐Total

Pier Arcade (Piers 1 and 2)Coast Guard (Office)

2 Commercial Building Structure (Flea Market)

Sub‐Total

Total


PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

42

Annexes


JORDAN

Details

Total

a 75 sqm 1,987,500b 280 sqm 4,900,000

6,887,500

a 125 sqm 3,312,500

a 115 sqm 345,000b 270 sqm 810,000c 55 sqm 110,000d 50 sqm 100,000

1,365,000

730 sqm 3,285,000

a 2,989 cum 2,989,000b 95 lm 33,250,000

36,239,000

6 Repair of existing shore protection 30 lm 3,000,000

1 lot 2,000,000a b c Chairs, fans, etc. for waiting area

57,589,000

Dredging, sand piling

Pier AreaRestaurant AreaParking

4 Roads and Parking

Retaining structure and shore protection

Terminal Area

Total

Sub‐Total

Signages

5 Reclamation (dredging, sand piling)

units

8 MiscellaneousRailings

a 5

Pier Arcade

2 Commercial Building Structure Restaurant

3 Landscaping and Related Site Works (inclusive of fencing)

Sub‐Total

1,500,000

7 Equipment Number of boarding ramps (cable assisted reaction systems)

Terminal Area1 Specialty Building Structure

Sub‐Total


PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

43

Annexes


BUENAVISTA

Details

Total

a 120 sqm 3,180,000b 30 sqm 795,000c 40 sqm 1,060,000d 190 sqm 5,035,000e 200 sqm 5,300,000f 420 sqm 11,130,000

26,500,000

430 sqm 27,950,000

a 500 sqm 2,250,000

a 80 lm 6,400,000b 105 lm 21,000,000

27,400,000

a 4 units 1,200,000

1 lot 3,000,000abc

88,300,000Total

Repair/enhancement of ExistingNew

Number of imported boarding ramps

Chairs, fans, etc.

5 Equipment

1 Specialty Building StructureTerminal AreaStairwayToilets

RailingsSignages

3 Roads and Parking

6 Miscellaneous

4 Shore Protection

Sub‐Total

Sub‐Total

2 Pier Widening (including waiting sheds)

2/F Restaurant

Parking

PNP Outpost1/F shops


PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

44

Annexes

Loan

PROJECT COST ESTIMATES LAND, ETC. OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3GUIMARAS PROVINCE (CASH) 50,000,000

50,000,000 125,519,500 158,368,000 213,985,00050,000,000 57,589,000 57,589,000 57,589,00050,000,000 88,300,000 88,300,000 88,300,000

200,000,000 271,408,500 304,257,000 359,874,000

FINANCIAL PLAN OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3Equity 47% 200,000,000 44% 200,000,000 39% 200,000,000 Debt 53% 221,408,500 56% 254,257,000 61% 309,874,000

TOTAL PROJECT COST 100% 421,408,500 100% 454,257,000 100% 509,874,000

LOAN TERMSPeriod (Years) 20Grace Period (Years) 5Principal Repayment (Years) 15Interest (per Year) 9%Annual Amortization at year end

TOTAL TERMINAL SYSTEM

METRO ILOILO ‐ GUIMARAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCILMIG Commuter Ferry TerminalsSchedule of Loans & Interest24 July, 2008

PAROLA (inclusive of Relocation Action Plan)

JORDANBUENAVISTA

Annex 12. Loan

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

45

Annexes

Loan (cont’d)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 102009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

BEGINNING LOAN BALANCE 221,408,500 221,408,500 221,408,500 221,408,500 221,408,500 221,408,500 213,867,574 205,647,964 196,688,590 186,922,872 INTEREST EXPENSE 19,926,765 19,926,765 19,926,765 19,926,765 19,926,765 19,926,765 19,248,082 18,508,317 17,701,973 16,823,058 AMORTIZATION 0 0 0 0 0 27,467,691 27,467,691 27,467,691 27,467,691 27,467,691 PRINCIPAL REPAYMENT 0 0 0 0 0 7,540,926 8,219,609 8,959,374 9,765,718 10,644,633 ENDING BALANCE 221,408,500 221,408,500 221,408,500 221,408,500 221,408,500 213,867,574 205,647,964 196,688,590 186,922,872 176,278,239

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 202019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

BEGINNING LOAN BALANCE 176,278,239 164,675,590 152,028,702 138,243,594 123,217,826 106,839,739 88,987,625 69,528,820 48,318,723 25,199,717 INTEREST EXPENSE 15,865,042 14,820,803 13,682,583 12,441,923 11,089,604 9,615,577 8,008,886 6,257,594 4,348,685 2,267,974 AMORTIZATION 27,467,691 27,467,691 27,467,691 27,467,691 27,467,691 27,467,691 27,467,691 27,467,691 27,467,691 27,467,691 PRINCIPAL REPAYMENT 11,602,650 12,646,888 13,785,108 15,025,768 16,378,087 17,852,115 19,458,805 21,210,097 23,119,006 25,199,717 ENDING BALANCE 164,675,590 152,028,702 138,243,594 123,217,826 106,839,739 88,987,625 69,528,820 48,318,723 25,199,717 0

Schedule of Loans & Interest24 July, 2008

LOAN SCHEDULE OPTION 1

METRO ILOILO ‐ GUIMARAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCILMIG Commuter Ferry Terminals


Annex 13. Loan

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

46

Annexes

Loan (cont’d)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 102009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018


11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 202019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 102009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018


11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 202019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028




METRO ILOILO ‐ GUIMARAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCILMIG Commuter Ferry TerminalsSchedule of Loans & Interest24 July, 2008



Annex 14. Loan

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

47

Annexes

Revenue Sources

ASSUMPTIONSLand Appraisal 6,000COA Floor 4%

COMMUTER TRAFFIC* Daily Yearly Daily YearlyBuenavista 4,800 1,728,000Jordan 6,870 2,473,200

TOTAL 11,670 4,201,200 139 50,000

PAROLA OPTION 1 Land Area Bldg Area Lease Rate Month Year PAROLA OPTION 2 Land Area Bldg Area Lease Rate Month YearRestaurants 1,022 570 750 427,500 5,130,000 Restaurants 1,770 1,416 750 1,062,000 12,744,000Flea Market 570 570 500 285,000 3,420,000 Flea Market 690 552 500 276,000 3,312,000

Total on Lease 712,500 8,550,000 Total on Lease 1,338,000 16,056,000

PAROLA OPTION 3 Land Area Bldg Area Lease Rate Month YearRestaurants 1,110 1,040 750 780,000 9,360,000Flea Market 690 450 500 225,000 2,700,000

Total on Lease 1,005,000 12,060,000

JORDAN Land Area Bldg Area Lease Rate Month YearRestaurants 180 125 750 93,750 1,125,000Flea Market 0 0 500 0 0

Total on Lease 93,750 1,125,000

BUENAVISTA Land Area Bldg Area Lease Rate Month YearRestaurants 420 420 750 315,000 3,780,000Flea Market 200 200 500 100,000 1,200,000

Total on Lease 415,000 4,980,000


* Source: Buenavista/Jordan Boat Operators Association

Domestic Tourist

Annex 15. Revenue Sources

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

48

Annexes

Revenue Sources (cont’d)

TOTAL AREA LEASED Parola Op‐1 Jordan BuenavRestaurants 570 125 420Flea Market 570 0 200

BUILDING LEASE INCOME Parola Op‐1 Jordan BuenavRestaurants, etc. 427,500 93,750 315,000Flea Market 285,000 0 0Gross Monthly Income 712,500 93,750 315,000Gross Annual Lease Income 8,550,000 1,125,000 3,780,000

TOTAL AREA LEASED Parola Op‐2 Jordan BuenavRestaurants 1,416 125 420Flea Market 552 0 200

BUILDING LEASE INCOME Parola Op‐2 Jordan BuenavRestaurants, etc. 1,062,000 93,750 315,000Flea Market 276,000 0 100,000Gross Monthly Income 1,338,000 93,750 415,000Gross Annual Lease Income 16,056,000 1,125,000 3,780,000

TOTAL AREA LEASED Parola Op‐3 Jordan BuenavRestaurants 1,040 125 420Flea Market 450 0 200

BUILDING LEASE INCOME Parola Op‐3 Jordan Buenav Total SystemRestaurants, etc. 780,000 93,750 315,000 1,188,750 Flea Market 225,000 0 0 225,000 Gross Monthly Income 1,005,000 93,750 315,000 1,413,750 Gross Annual Lease Income 12,060,000 1,125,000 3,780,000 16,965,000


Annex 16.Revenue Sources

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

49

Annexes

Parola Option 1 Terminal Fees

Projected Commuter & Tourist Traffic, 5‐Year Periods

BASE YEAR COMPUTATIONCOMMUTER TRAFFIC* Daily Yearly

Buenavista 4,800 1,728,000Jordan 6,870 2,473,200

TOTAL 11,670 4,201,200

YearPassenger Type Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism

Base Year Data 4,201,200 50,000 Assumed Annual % Growth Rate 3.0% 15.0% 3.2% 20.0% 2.8% 25.0% 2.5% 25.0% 2.5% 20.0%Annual Commuter Traffic 4,327,236 57,500 4,465,708 69,000 4,590,747 86,250 4,705,516 107,813 4,823,154 129,375 Daily Commuter Traffic 12,020 160 12,405 192 12,752 240 13,071 299 13,398 359

Average Fares 12.59 20.00Annual Fare Increase vs Base Year 5% 100% 5% 0% 5% 10% 5% 0% 5% 10%One Way Fare 13.22 40.00 13.88 40.00 14.57 44.00 15.30 44.00 16.07 48.40Total Fares Generation 57,197,939 2,300,000 61,979,687 2,760,000 66,900,874 3,795,000 72,002,066 4,743,750 77,492,223 6,261,750

Terminal Fee (Passenger Cost) 7.50 20.00 32,454,270 1,150,000 33,492,807 1,380,000 34,430,605 1,725,000 35,291,370 2,156,250 36,173,655 2,587,500 Total Terminal Fee

YearPassenger Type Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism

Base Year DataAssumed Annual % Growth Rate 2.0% 7.0% 2.0% 5.0% 2.0% 3.0% 2.0% 3.0% 2.0% 3.0%Annual Commuter Traffic 4,919,617 138,431 5,018,009 145,353 5,118,370 149,713 5,220,737 154,205 5,325,152 158,831 Daily Commuter Traffic 13,666 385 13,939 404 14,218 416 14,502 428 14,792 441

Average FaresAnnual Fare Increase vs Base Year 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%One Way Fare 20.08 60.50 25.10 75.63 31.38 94.53 39.23 118.16 49.03 147.71Total Fares Generation 98,802,585 8,375,091 125,973,296 10,992,306 160,615,952 14,152,595 204,785,339 18,221,465 261,101,307 23,460,137

Terminal Fee (Passenger Cost) 46,121,410 3,460,781 47,043,838 3,633,820 47,984,715 3,742,835 48,944,409 3,855,120 49,923,297 3,970,774 Total Terminal Fee 49,582,191 50,677,658 51,727,550

34,872,807

2013

2018

53,894,071

2011

38,761,155

2012

52,799,529

2017

36,155,605 37,447,620



33,604,270

2014

2008 2009 2010

2015 2016

Annex 17.Option 1 Terminal Fees

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

50

Annexes

Parola Option 1 Terminal Fees (cont’d)





Terminal Fee (Passenger Cost) 56,083,634 4,152,938 57,205,307 4,360,584 62,925,837 4,491,402 69,218,421 5,165,112 76,140,263 5,939,879 Total Terminal Fee



Average FaresAnnual Fare Increase vs Base Year 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%One Way Fare 187.04 563.45 233.80 704.31 292.25 880.39 365.31 1,100.49 456.64 1,375.61Total Fares Generation 1,274,227,097 119,370,119 1,624,639,548 156,673,281 2,071,415,424 201,716,850 2,641,054,665 259,710,444 3,367,344,698 334,377,197



67,417,239

2027

103,147,459

2028

74,383,533 82,080,142

105,293,006

2024

96,829,666 98,988,708

2026

101,046,339

2025

2019 2020

60,236,572 61,565,891

2022 20232021

Annex 18. Option 1 Terminal Fees

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

51

Annexes





TOTAL 11,670 4,201,200









2013



2008 2009

43,041,726 44,505,894

2010 2011 2012

61,324,492 62,588,411

45,995,886

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

40,095,124 41,571,368

63,878,730 58,806,473 60,086,426


PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

52

Annexes












80,002,407 88,227,218

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

119,651,753 122,124,981

97,308,195

2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

71,453,298 73,006,953

124,650,079 114,712,610 117,229,310


PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

53

Annexes





TOTAL 11,670 4,201,200









2013



2008 2009

47,632,474 49,211,410

2010 2011 2012

67,722,454 69,114,332

50,819,039

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

44,422,360 46,037,076

70,535,170 64,955,994 66,358,937


PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

54

Annexes












88,392,519 97,456,340

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

132,055,363 134,776,663

107,460,230

2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

78,931,116 80,634,327

137,554,795 126,634,572 129,389,712


PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

55

Annexes

Carrying Capacity

ASSUMPTIONSCOMMUTER TRAFFIC* Daily Yearly


TOTAL 11,670 4,201,200* Source: Buenavista/Jordan Boat Operators Association

Commuter Tourist Commuter Tourist Commuter Tourist Commuter Tourist Commuter Tourist Commuter Tourist ARRIVAL DEPARTUREPAROLA

Jordan 1,236,600 25,000 1,236,600 25,000 2,473,200 50,000 6,870 139 50 80 137 2 23 23Buenavista 864,000 ‐ 864,000 ‐ 1,728,000 ‐ 4,800 0 50 80 96 0 16 16

TOTAL 2,100,600 25,000 2,100,600 25,000 4,201,200 50,000 11,670 139 160 233 2 39 39Minutes per Boat 2 2Docking Bays 7 11 11

JORDAN 1,236,600 25,000 1,236,600 25,000 2,473,200 50,000 6,870 139 50 80 137 2 23 23Minutes per Boat 3 3Docking Bays 5 13 13

BUENAVISTA 864,000 ‐ 864,000 ‐ 1,728,000 ‐ 4,800 0 50 80 96 0 16 16Minutes per Boat 4 4Docking Bays 4 15 15

ARRIVAL DEPARTURE SUB‐TOTAL PER DAY(360 days) LOAD DOCKING BAYS

BOAT TRIPS / DAY PEAK HOURS


ANNUAL ‐ TOTAL COMMUTERS DAILY ‐ TOTAL COMMUTERS DAILY ‐ NUMBER OF BOATS CARRYING CAPACITY

CARRYING CAPACITY

Annex 23. Carrying Capacity

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

56

Annexes

Private Sector

PAROLA ECO‐PORT PROJECTProjected Commuter & Tourist Traffic, 5‐Year PeriodsPrivate Sector



Catchment Potential 15% 20% 649,085 11,500 669,856 13,800 688,612 17,250 705,827 21,563 723,473 25,875 Average purchase 100.00 100.00 64,908,540 1,150,000 66,985,613 1,380,000 68,861,210 1,725,000 70,582,741 2,156,250 72,347,309 2,587,500

Total Annual SalesGross Operating Profit %

Gross Operating ProfitLoan Retirement

Amount Available for AmortizationInterest Years Pay

Match Amortization to Available GOP Loan Terms 12% 10Equity of Project Cost 40%Total Project Cost Potential

YearPassenger Type Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism

Base Year DataAssumed Annual % Growth Rate 2.0% 7.0% 2.0% 5.0% 2.0% 3.0% 2.0% 3.0%Annual Commuter Traffic 5,305,469 174,656 5,836,016 218,320 6,419,618 251,068 7,061,580 288,729 Daily Commuter Traffic 14,737 485 16,211 606 17,832 697 19,615 802

Catchment Potential 795,820 34,931 875,402 43,664 962,943 50,214 1,059,237 57,746 Average purchase 79,582,040 3,493,125 87,540,244 4,366,406 96,294,269 5,021,367 105,923,695 5,774,572

Total Annual SalesGross Operating Profit %

Gross Operating ProfitLoan Retirement

Amount Available for Amortization

Match Amortization to Available GOP Loan TermsEquity of Project CostTotal Project Cost Potential

20122011

40%

METRO ILOILO ‐ GUIMARAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

20102008 2009

5,994,785

66,058,540 68,365,61340% 40%

29,973,924

70,586,210

29,095,59620% 20%

30,000,000

2014‐2018

15,000,000 17,000,000

2019‐2023 2024‐2028

18,000,00012,000,00011,000,000

72,738,991 74,934,809

2013

20% 20% 20%

40%26,423,416 27,346,245 28,234,484

40%

5,819,119

40% 40%

10,000,000 10,666,667

83,075,165 91,906,650

28,333,33326,666,667 27,500,000

5,646,897

20% 20%44,679,30733,230,066

20%

101,315,636

36,762,660

5,284,683 5,469,249

2029‐2033

20%40,526,254

111,698,26840% 40%

16,000,000 16,500,000

(3,982,144) (4,424,604) (4,867,065)

6,646,013 7,352,532 8,105,251 8,935,861

(3,185,715)(2,920,239)

11,333,333

(2,654,762) (2,831,747) (3,008,731)

25,000,000

33,333,333 37,500,000 41,666,667 45,833,333

(3,539,683)

18,333,33327,500,000

13,333,33320,000,000 22,500,000 25,000,000

15,000,000 16,666,667

Annex 24. Private Sector

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

57

Annexes

Boat Operators

Boat Operators

YearPassenger Type Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism

Base Year Data 4,201,200 50,000 Assumed Annual % Growth Rate 3.0% 15.0% 3.2% 20.0% 2.8% 25.0% 2.5% 25.0% 2.5% 20.0% 2.5% 20.0%

Annual Commuter Traffic 4,327,236 50,000 4,465,708 60,000 4,590,747 75,000 4,705,516 93,750 4,823,154 112,500 4,943,733 135,000 Daily Commuter Traffic 12,020 139 12,405 167 12,752 208 13,071 260 13,398 313 13,733 375 Total Number of Boats 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 2 100 2 100 2Passengers per Boat per Day 120 139 124 167 128 208 131 130 134 156 137 188 Load per Trip 50 80 50 80 50 80 50 80 50 80 50 80Trips per Boat Daily 2.4 1.7 2.5 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.6 1.6 2.7 2.0 2.7 2.3 Total Boat Trips per Day 240 2 248 2 255 3 261 3 268 4 275 5 Average Fares 12.59 20.00Annual Fare Increase vs Base Year 5% 100% 5% 0% 5% 10% 5% 0% 5% 10% 5% 10%One Way Fare 13.22 40.00 13.88 40.00 14.57 44.00 15.30 44.00 16.07 48.40 16.87 53.24Total Fares Generation 57,197,939 2,000,000 61,979,687 2,400,000 66,900,874 3,300,000 72,002,066 4,125,000 77,492,223 5,445,000 83,401,006 7,187,400

Annual Gross Revenue per Boat 571,979 2,000,000 619,797 2,400,000 669,009 3,300,000 720,021 2,062,500 774,922 2,722,500 834,010 3,593,700Daily Gross Revenue per Boat (360 days) 1,589 5,556 1,722 6,667 1,858 9,167 2,000 5,729 2,153 7,563 2,317 9,983

Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Passenger Type Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism

Base Year DataAssumed Annual % Growth Rate 2.5% 20.0% 2.5% 20.0% 2.5% 20.0% 2.5% 20.0% 2.5% 20.0% 2.5% 20.0% 2.5% 20.0%

Annual Commuter Traffic 5,067,326 162,000 5,194,009 194,400 5,323,860 233,280 5,456,956 279,936 5,593,380 335,923 5,733,214 403,108 5,876,545 483,729 Daily Commuter Traffic 14,076 450 14,428 540 14,788 648 15,158 778 15,537 933 15,926 1,120 16,324 1,344 Total Number of Boats 100 2 100 2 100 2 100 2 100 2 100 2 100 2Passengers per Boat per Day 141 225 144 270 148 324 152 389 155 467 159 560 163 672 Load per Trip 50 80 50 80 50 80 50 80 50 80 50 80 50 80Trips per Boat Daily 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.4 3.0 4.1 3.0 4.9 3.1 5.8 3.2 7.0 3.3 8.4 Total Boat Trips per Day 282 6 289 7 296 8 303 10 311 12 319 14 326 17 Average FaresAnnual Fare Increase vs Base Year 5% 10% 5% 10% 5% 10% 5% 10% 5% 10% 5% 10% 5% 10%One Way Fare 17.71 58.56 18.60 64.42 19.53 70.86 20.51 77.95 21.53 85.74 22.61 94.32 23.74 103.75Total Fares Generation 89,760,332 9,487,368 96,604,558 ######## ######### ######### 111,898,417 21,820,643 120,430,672 28,803,249 129,613,511 38,020,288 139,496,541 50,186,780

Terminal Fee (Passenger Cost) 38,004,946 3,240,000 38,955,070 3,888,000 39,928,946 4,665,600 40,927,170 5,598,720 41,950,349 6,718,464 42,999,108 8,062,157 44,074,086 9,674,588 Total Terminal Fee ########## ########## ########## ########## # ########## # ########## #

Annual Gross Revenue per Boat 897,603 4,743,684 966,046 6,261,663 1,039,707 8,265,395 1,118,984 10,910,321 1,204,307 14,401,624 1,296,135 19,010,144 1,394,965 25,093,390Daily Gross Revenue per Boat (360 days) 2,493 13,177 2,683 17,394 2,888 22,959 3,108 30,306 3,345 40,005 3,600 52,806 3,875 69,704

20132011 2012

2021

53,748,674


2014


2008 Base Year 2009 2010

Annex 25. Boat Operators

PRE-

FEA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TUD


Project

58

Annexes

Boat Operators (cont’d)

Annex 26. Boat Operators

Boat Operators

Year 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026Passenger Type Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism Commuter Tourism Commuter TourismBase Year DataAssumed Annual % 2.5% 20.0% 2.5% 20.0% 2.5% 20.0% 2.5% 20.0% 2.5% 20.0% 2.5% 20.0% 2.5% 20.0%

Annual Commuter Tr 6,023,458 580,475 6,174,045 696,570 6,328,396 835,884 6,486,606 1,003,061 6,648,771 1,203,674 6,814,990 1,444,408 6,985,365 1,733,290 Daily Commuter Traf 16,732 1,612 17,150 1,935 17,579 2,322 18,018 2,786 18,469 3,344 18,931 4,012 19,404 4,815 Total Number of Boa 100 2 100 2 100 2 100 2 100 2 100 2 100 2Passengers per Boat 167 806 172 967 176 1,161 180 1,393 185 1,672 189 2,006 194 2,407 Load per Trip 50 80 50 80 50 80 50 80 50 80 50 80 50 80Trips per Boat Daily 3.3 10.1 3.4 12.1 3.5 14.5 3.6 17.4 3.7 20.9 3.8 25.1 3.9 30.1 Total Boat Trips per D 335 20 343 24 352 29 360 35 369 42 379 50 388 60 Average FaresAnnual Fare Increase 5% 10% 5% 10% 5% 10% 5% 10% 5% 10% 5% 10% 5% 10%One Way Fare 24.92 114.12 26.17 125.54 27.48 138.09 28.85 151.90 30.30 167.09 31.81 183.80 33.40 202.18Total Fares Generatio 150,133,152 66,246,550 161,580,805 87,445,446 173,901,341 115,427,988 187,161,318 152,364,945 201,432,369 201,121,727 216,791,587 265,480,680 233,321,946 350,434,497

Terminal Fee (Passen 45,175,938 11,609,506 46,305,336 13,931,407 47,462,970 16,717,688 48,649,544 20,061,226 49,865,782 24,073,471 51,112,427 28,888,165 52,390,238 34,665,799 Total Terminal Fee 56,785,444 60,236,743 64,180,658 68,710,770 73,939,254

Annual Gross Revenu 1,501,332 33,123,275 1,615,808 43,722,723 1,739,013 57,713,994 1,871,613 76,182,472 2,014,324 100,560,864 2,167,916 132,740,340 2,333,219 175,217,249Daily Gross Revenue 4,170 92,009 4,488 121,452 4,831 160,317 5,199 211,618 5,595 279,336 6,022 368,723 6,481 486,715

2028

87,056,036

2027

80,000,592

METRO ILOILO ‐ GUIMARAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCILMIG Commuter Ferry TerminalsProjected Commuter & Tourist Traffic, 5‐Y

CDIA-MIG Team

Team Leader: DR. NATHANIEL VON EINSIEDEL

PRE‐FEASIBILITYSub‐Team Leader:

MR. LEON MAYO

Investment Planning Specialist: MR. ELPIDIO DAMASO Costing Engineer: MS. MIRIAM TAMAYO

Architectural Designer: MS. DEANNA SANTOSMR. NICASIO ESPINA MR. JULIUS GARRIDO MS. JAYCEE GOPEZ MR. WILFREDO SY

INVESTMENT PLANNINGSub‐Team Leader:

MR. JOSE ANTONIO LEAGUE

Business Development Specialist:

MS. ELIRINE SIWA

CAPACITY BUILDINGSub‐Team Leader: MS. VICTORIA DE VILLA

Local Development Specialist: MS. RASHEL PARDO

LOCAL COUNTERPARTBusiness Development Advisor:

MR. ANGEL DE LEON

Documents

Pre-feasibility Study of the Guimaras-Iloilo Ferry Terminals System Project