There are now a collection of public documents available regarding the proposed development of Waterworks Park. C.O.R.D will be supplying commentary on the many documents leading up to the March 2016 election.
The city is being asked by Harbor Front, LLC, a company incorporated by Mike Rose, to come up with $6,000,000 for the estimated total development cost (public infrastructure cost) of public improvements for the Harbor Front development at Water Works Park. It does not include a traffic impact study, civil and electrical engineering, public street improvements or any specific estimates of off-site improvements to Perry Street that might be required as mitigation. Nor do the documents address environmental clean-up costs that will be required should a shovel break ground.
City spends an additional $40,000 dollars on Water Works Park development plans before new administration takes office. Just 1 week after losing his bid for re-election to Hugh Wheeler, former Mayor Vince Leone spends $4270 for an engineering survey, $20,000 for additional soil testing and $18,000 for the Voluntary Action Plan (VAP) Application.
City of Port Clinton Waterfront Development Project Economic Impact & Assessment for the “Harbor Front at Port Clinton” project. Presented at City Council March 11, 2014. Council and residents listened to the economic impact study that was given by Jamie Beier-Grant, Director of the Ottawa County Improvement Corporation and Hans Rosebrock, Manager, Economic Development and External Affairs of First Energy. According to the IMPLAN software used, there would be 585 new jobs with an average $18,803 income created. Find the federal poverty levels used to determine your eligibility for certain programs and benefits here.
The study claims that there would be $6,135,638 property tax created. C.O.R.D. would like to point out that the economic study did not take into consideration the use of tax abatements. Cities and counties often abate taxes for the first 10, 12, 15 years to entice developers. Mr. Rose stated publicly that the city would offer him these real estate tax abatements in some form, which means he may not have to pay real estate tax on the so-called $60 million dollar development, at least for the first decade.
Page 9 of the study lists 320,671 sq.ft. of non-residential development and lists the total number of Housing Units at 364.
A common misstatement made by the city and the developer is that the proposed development would only cover 15% of Waterworks Park’s 14 acres or 2.25 acres. C.O.R.D. would like to point out that parking for 364 residential units, employee parking, convention center parking, event parking, commercial sales parking and open-access parking have not been addressed in any of the proposed plans. Would required parking exceed 600 spaces? As an example, a 600-space parking lot that is estimated to require 375 square feet per stall will require a paved area of 225,000 square feet, or about 5 acres. A parking lot with required internal and perimeter landscape screening would require 450 square feet per space, or about 6 acres. Access roads from Perry St. and Jefferson St., turn-arounds and delivery truck access will, we assume from the conceptual drawing, require approximately 40,000 square feet or another acre of Waterworks Park to be paved. In summation 2.25 acres buildings, 5 acres of parking and 1 acre of paved road for a total of 8.25 acres of Waterworks Park’s 14 acres. That is 59% of the park and would look more like this photo.
Click here to see the entire document: City of Port Clinton Waterfront Development Project
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Former Waterworks and Waterworks Park – SME Project No. 066708.005.00 March 31, 2014. C.O.R.D. has obtained a copy of the geo-technical engineering report for the proposed Waterworks Park project. This report includes preliminary recommendations for sub-grade preparation and earthwork, slabs-on-grade, foundations, below grade walls, drainage and pavements.
C.O.R.D. believes that a complete cleanup with a thoughtful development for public use should be required and that any construction on the site would have to meet the terms of the EPA or Ohio EPA site review plan. So, is this a clean-up or cover-up? Page 5 of the report states that, “Due to cost vs. risk and environmental considerations, we anticipate mass excavation of existing fill and organics is financially impractical.”
Click here to see the entire document: Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report