Washington Waterfront And Stewart Parkway Redevelopment Plan-1989

a
WASHINGTON WATERFRONT AND STEWART PARKWAY
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
SEPTEMBER, 1989
All reports and maps fr,om this project were assisted in
part by:
A grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management
Program, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Manage—
ment Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
11

If
WASHINGTON WATERFRONT AND STEWART PARKWAY
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
INTRODUCTION:
Over a two-year period the City of Washington has
conducted several studies relative to develop-
ment of its waterfront. Consequently, several plans
have been produced with specific information on the
redevelopment potential and actual redevelopment
proposals. In August, 1988, a report titled: Heritage
and Promise: Washington Returns to the River, was
released containing assessments of the waterfront
development and redevelopment potential. This report
also contained specific goal statements, priorities
for specific actions, and potential financing strategies.
This 1988 report serves as the Washington Waterfront
Master Plan. During the current program year (FY-88-89),
and based on proposals and priorities contained in the
Waterfront Master Plan document, several detailed and
quite specific planning documents were produced. These
included:
A. Cost Estimate and Phasing Plan for the Washington
Waterfront and Stewart Parkway Redevelopment Plan
(narrative and drawings).
B. Specifications and Project Manual for the Washington
Waterfront Redevelopment, Phase I: Bulkhead
Maintenance, Walkway Construction, and Landscaping
Plan for the City of Washington, North Carolina,
May 5, 1989.
C. Construction Drawings of Stewart Parkway Improvements.
From the perspective of long-term development potential,
perhaps the more significant document is the "Cost Estimate
and Phasing Plan...". This report contains specific
development activities proposed through eight (8) phases,
over a 10 year period, along with detailed cost estimatesc
(This report is included with this package of materials).
However, the "Cost Estimate and Phasing Plan..." did not
include implementation orstrategic information.
II. PURPOSE:
The purpose of this brief narrative is to serve as a
supplement to the "Cost Estimate and Phasing Plan for
the Waterfront and Stewart Parkway Redevelopment Plan"
This narrative is intended to provide some directional

indication for the possible financing of the specific
eight (8) development phases over the proposed 10-year
period. (See attached "Cost Estimate and Phasing Plan...")
III. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY;
A. PHASE I: (FY-89-90'): Original Budget: $176,000
1. The City of Washington will utilize surplus
Community Development Block Grant funds (from
its FY '83 Community Revitilization Project),
to finance part of the construction cost, and provide
some park amenities for Stewart Parkway.
(Approximately $200,000 were expended in FY '89
on such improvements, but because of
unanticipated structural problems, actual costs
will exceed the amount budgeted in the Cost
Estimate and Phasing Plan report. Subsequently,
some proposed Phase I activities will be carried
over into FY '90).
B. Phase II: (FY 90-91): Original Budget: $ 66,453
1. Phase II work includes:
demolition and new construction associated with
the alteration of the Gladden, Main Street,
Stewart intersection
installation of a brick plaza at the civic center
installation of concrete walks from the civic
center to the Main Street crossing and to the
west -end plaza
installation of brick cross -walks
alterations in and around the area of the Stewart
Plaque -mast monument
mounding and grading ,
planting of trees, shrubs land lawn
. installation of an angle -parking area
Note: Work in the mini -park at the south-east corner
of the intersection is not included in this
cost estimate since such work is to be completed
with private funds.
W

To initiate the implementation of Phase II, (as well as
help facilitate the other remaining Phases), it is
proposed that the City Manager present proposals for
a General Obligation Bond to the Mayor and City Council.
As stated in Heritage and Promise: Washington Returns to
the River, "Public improvements could be financed with
funds from sale of a Q,eneral Obligation Bond. Improvements
in downtown and the waterfront area will benefit all
residents of the City. Revitalization of those areas
represents the potential to positively impact the real
estate investments of all homeowners, business owners,
and other property owners within the corporate limits." (:37)
The Bond revenue, if approved would be utilized to finance -
Phases II through VIII, (approximately $694,000). Obviously
this is a far-reaching proposal, since the City's annual
budget process would be impacted for several years into
the future, and the City at -large would obligate itself
for projects in an important, but relatively small area
of the City.
A viable alternative to the General Obligation Bond,
and one which would also need to be initiated in FY 90-91,
is the establishment: of a Municipal Service District,
or special tax district solely for the Downtown area.
"A special tax would be levied on all properties within
the district. Revenues from this tax would be held
in a special fund used to finance improvements within
the district. From an equity standpoint, this is a
good method of financing public improvements as the
tax burden is place solely on on those persons who stand
to benefit most directly from use of the funds (Downtown
property owners). The City would appoint a Municipal
Service District Advisory Committee to administer monies
from the fund... It is recommended that :. as a first
step, the Advisory Committee develop: a Municipal Service `
District Plan." (p.37-38 Washington Return to the River).
Although, as reported in the above -referenced report,
annual revenue from such a tax may not yield overwhelming
sums of revenue, with a "phased in" development plan, ,
and in conjunction with other revenues, a number of _
recommended improvements could be addressed.
In add'itiQn to, or in combination with either General
Obligation Bond and/or Municipal Service District,
several State or Federal grant sources may help implement
the improvements stated in the remaining development
phases. This is proposed as follows:
4

C. Phase III: (FY 91-92) Original Budget $68,963
1. Phase III work entails modifications to the Harding
Square and alterations to the Water Street, Stewart
Bonner intersection. Major work items are:
. narrowing and realignment of the parkway
installation of brick cross -walks at the end
of Market Street and at the Water Street/Stewart
intersection
. brick paving of selected walks in Harding Square
concrete paving of the Water Street/Stewart
corner area
. planting of trees and lawn
. installation of lights and benches
In FY 91-92, the City Manager will direct the City
Planning Director to prepare grant applications,
on a timely basis, for CAMA Beach and Estuarine
Access funds, to help finance the pedestrian access
improvements, i.e. brick cross -walks and pavings,
and paving of the water shed/Stewart corner area.
The Planning Director will also seek funding for
tree plantings andinstallation of lighting and benches
through the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
D. Phase IV (FY 92-94: Two years) Original Budget $110,737
1. Phase IV work is the major narrowing of the center
section of Stewart Parkway. Work included is:
a new concrete walk along the south side of
Stewart
additional perpendicular walks to the river walk
six brick cross -walks
. grading and importation of topsoil material
. planting of trees, shrubs and lawn
. installation of lights and benches.
5

As in Phase III, a combination supplemental funding will
be sought from two sources, i.e. CAMA Beach and Estuarine
Access and Land and Water Conservation Funds. Again the
City Manager will direct the Planning Director to prepare
appropriate grant applications, seeking two-year funding,
or to prepare applications two successive years.
E. Phase V (FY 94-95) Original Budget $85,536
Phase V involves primarily the construction of new
parking areas for the waterfront and Stewart Parkway
areas. CAMA Beach and Estuarine Access Funds will
be sought, along with any other source (or sources)
which can be identified by the City Planning Director.
F. Phase VI, (FY 95-96) Original Budget $72,200
1. Phase VI is the construction of two wooden
pavilions, associated paving, walls, lighting, and
benches.
The Planning Director wil prepare grant applications
for funding under the Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF) program.
G. Phase VII (FY 96-97) Original Budget $82,000
1. Phase VII construction includes two twelve -slip
boat docks and installation of associated wooden
pilings.
The costs of this activity may necessarily be
borne entirely by General Obligation Bond
revenue, and/or revenue from the Municipal Service
District. Substantial grant -participation for
private boat slips is unlikely.
H. Phase VIII (FY 97-99, two -years) Original Budget$154,420
Phase VIII is the final work including the construction
of the step-terraces/amphitheater and the brick paving,
of Union and Harris Alleys. It is anticipated that _
concrete work would be done in one year, followed by
brick work in both areas.
Most of this activity will need to be financed with
local revenues as opposed to grants. However, the
Planning Director will explore the eligibility of
the Step -Terraces Amphitheater for Land and Water
Conservation Funding.
0

IV. SUMMARY
The proposed implementation and funding strategies cited
in this brief narrative represents an assessment of
the more feasible funding scenarios from the sources
listed in Heritage and Promise: Washington Returns to the
River. However, from time to time throughout the
implementation of these proposed projects, additional
funding sources and/or grants opportunities should be
continually explored.