Grant for Harbormasters office/visitor center

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

06 Feb 2017, 11:59 #21

I am not at all sure of the legal ramifications of taking over ownership of the site after remediation. I suspect that beneath the building for example is contaminated. That may not matter for use of the building but I am not sure I would want to own the property. There are probably ways to assign any responsibility elsewhere before purchasing the property, but it may be a hassle. I would certainly want knowledgeable advice before getting into it.
Last edited by Damon on 06 Feb 2017, 12:04, edited 1 time in total.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply

Leland33
Joined: 02 Apr 2011, 03:07

06 Feb 2017, 15:25 #22

Thank you Damon for the reference ( pages 60-73)http://gloucester-ma.gov/ArchiveCenter/ ... /Item/6647

Where ever the welcoming center is located a cost analysis with paybacks would help with the decision. With lounge/dining and Laundromat this seems to be more what much higher price marina would offer.

The description of the $80 state grant had two drawing that the text was illegible. The $80K would be determining the feasibility for each of four sites as welcoming center and harbor master HQs

There's a statement of what included in the HLoop center but doesn't mention what looks like a kitchen and dining room - near where the lounge that was described. THIS IS MORE THAN just showers and bathroom but a cozy place to prepare and consume a meal. Thus defeating the purpose attracting boaters to the local eaters.

The welcoming center IMO should include a rack of a hundred or so brochures, several copies of each, a paid or volunteer to assist and a small concession with simple sandwiches, soft drinks, t-shirts available to the boaters and land visitors to Solomon Jacob Park, GMHC and other areas.

The other thing that seems out of balance is the available restrooms in the city. At 5:45PM restrooms are locked at Stage Fort Park. Yet there are hundreds sti on the beach or picnic area.

===============

In addition to the $80K state funding a $25K grant by the Feds and starting at page 69 identified a SOW with two tasks with several subtasks of a Brownfield Assessment. Included in was a brief description and map reference of the four sites. It split out $1600 for subcontractor reconasance. I would guess this would be for the a Ocean Rrporter's underwater camera work or someone like the buoy diver I met years ago and talked with him along side his 1964 Corvette convertible / his rate for diving for buoys was $800/day.
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

06 Feb 2017, 15:56 #23

Some of us found similar problems even with more legible versions of those plans.
As I think I have mentioned before, the gripes about lack of restrooms around the
downtown waterfront is a bit obsolete I think. It used to be that the only one was
a foul mess up by the courtroom. However since the DPA regulations have been
actually enforced, it has become very difficult to start anything down there without
providing public restrooms. Think Brewery, G House, Maritime G (2 of them), FH Lane,
etc. I am not sure all those toilets (12?) are needed at Solomon Jacobs. However I agree that
they are sadly missing over at the Boulevard and at Stage Fort Park (except baseball field).
I tend to agree that it is a shame to have to spend $80,000 on research that our own boards
should be able to handle. However based on what I have seen so far, they need help.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply

Leland33
Joined: 02 Apr 2011, 03:07

06 Feb 2017, 20:16 #24

Walgreens has shut down any use of the 24/7 restrooms. Someone caused a flood or something. Their food bar is gone too.

Jones Beach State Park was where I had a great summer job for seven years starting fifty years ago ... Oh NOOOOO .. HS reunion too.

JB, according to the operations department, has phased out showers at all but one of 8 facilities. The remaining one is at a bathhouse/Olympic pool. Warm water OUTDOOR showers are the way they're going. Lockers also eight had them now just one. After hurricane Sandy the two mile Boardwalk was twisted having just gone through a fifty year maintenance - fixed in six months. Shingles were ripped away damaging the interiors with tons of water - two years to fix.

According to JB Ops. The "family room" bathrooms are being used extensively now. The locker rooms are closed off but wisely still standing. Where I worked had parking that once filled at 6AM and was constantly filled to about 4PM - then theater people liked in because it was closest to the beach and theater.

Anyway a major park has closed off showers. The twenty five slip marina never had showers. When I worked there my first year boaters were happy to have clean restrooms (aka "comfort station" - ever hear that?)

IN SUMMARY:
At Jones Beach -
SHOWERS ARE OUT.
Restrooms hesitantly are mostly lockable "Family Rooms"
LOCKERS OUT.
Reply

Cathy (Admin)
Joined: 13 Aug 2005, 09:30

07 Feb 2017, 23:57 #25

Some background/reference - this was a discussion here from May, 2015.  I remembered writing about the BIG grant and the remediation project, did a search and had a 'holy crap' moment when I saw the date.  I feel like I lost a year, lol.


http://capeannonline.yuku.com/topic/24804#.WJmm_lMrLcc


The BIG (boating infrastructure grant) application is in the packet for the B&F meeting of 2/19/15:


http://www.gloucester-ma.gov/ArchiveCen ... /Item/4247
Reply

Cathy (Admin)
Joined: 13 Aug 2005, 09:30

08 Feb 2017, 15:56 #26

I'm officially confused, but perhaps I'm missing something.

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/news/loc ... c6927.html


The City seems to be moving forward with improvements at Harbor Loop "to expand facilities that it offers transient recreational boaters."


Yet, "Just last week, the city got word it will be receiving $80,000 to help with the site survey for a proposed waterfront facility housing the harbormaster’s office and a new visitor boating center.


The state funds will be combined with $25,000 in EPA Brownfields assessment money from the city to hire a consultant to assist the city inventory potential sites for the proposed complex and perform the site selection study."
Reply

harbordog
Joined: 07 Jun 2008, 11:56

08 Feb 2017, 20:38 #27

There is a lot of political posturing going on with our money. Fund a study for location and make further investment in a location that has not been secured for financing? Doesn't sound good.
Reply

Dun Fudgin
Joined: 21 Jun 2007, 03:54

08 Feb 2017, 20:43 #28

harbordog wrote:
There is a lot of political posturing going on with our money. Fund a study for location and make further investment in a location that has not been secured for financing? Doesn't sound good.
Perhaps it's time for the state to realize the best location would be at the end of the state owned Jodrey Fish Pier extending with a float system to the edge of the mooring field.
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

08 Feb 2017, 21:43 #29

Once again opening legal can of worms. As I understand it the pier is dedicated to commercial fishing use. Government is allowed (Envioro police, MCZM, Coast Guard), so I assume the harbormaster is allowed. However I doubt if facilities for visiting yachts and yachters would pass muster.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply

Leland33
Joined: 02 Apr 2011, 03:07

08 Feb 2017, 23:48 #30

A visitor center for both land and water visitors would fit at the head of the harbor perhap named after Gordon Thomas. It would be tender serviced and parking could be 30 minutes. Although at the harbor's head, and a very narrow channel, it seems possible to put in 20-25 smaller slips.


What percent do boaters spend on dinner, etc compared to travelers by. land?? I would guess 1-5%.

The harbor loop proposal seems luxiorious with a living room, dining area and kitchen. On the first floor a concession four all is better suited. The second floor harbor master area has rooms that don't have labels. These rooms are just off the elevator and I hope are for the GHS Sailing Club.
Reply

Dun Fudgin
Joined: 21 Jun 2007, 03:54

09 Feb 2017, 00:04 #31

Damon wrote:
Once again opening legal can of worms. As I understand it the pier is dedicated to commercial fishing use. Government is allowed (Envioro police, MCZM, Coast Guard), so I assume the harbormaster is allowed. However I doubt if facilities for visiting yachts and yachters would pass muster.
You and I know at the end of the pier is wasted space leading out to the sailing float. It wouldn't displace any commercial interests. The city should convince the state it's a good idea for a city/state partnership.
Reply

Leland33
Joined: 02 Apr 2011, 03:07

09 Feb 2017, 01:18 #32

Envision what Dun is saying is 100% do-able. Past the very end of the JSFP is remants of 5 pound island and nearby floats for SailGHS.

Now envision a mirror image of the L-wharf where Adventure is tied up. With the long end wharf with stringer floats for about 35 boats up to 55' slips. THEN ON THE L LEG would be Sch. Adventures permanent port.

So the welcoming center would be a two story building FACING THE ADVENTURE (when she's in port) and viewed through the facilities yuuuuuge window. On the NW side downstairs restrooms and above showers.

In the SW ground floor a concession. Above that the harbor master HQ and Sch. Adventure's Lecture Room.

There would be a long elongated island with curb where fisherman lay out there nets. Commercial fishermen that work in another port summers might like having a lot more off-season tie ups. Making it easier so sell the state.
Reply

Leland33
Joined: 02 Apr 2011, 03:07

09 Feb 2017, 01:36 #33

...
Last edited by Leland33 on 09 Feb 2017, 02:06, edited 1 time in total.
Reply

Cathy (Admin)
Joined: 13 Aug 2005, 09:30

09 Feb 2017, 01:55 #34

Great ideas but, but, but ...


The opportunity presented itself at Harbor Loop as a good deal for the City.  The BIG grant for the floats required a match, National Grid committed to providing the pilings which (as I understand what I've read) counted as a match.  All that is a done deal and a seemingly win-win for the City.


The Harbor Loop location meets the needs for transient tie-ups - walkability to retail, dining and attractions.


Everything seemed to be in place for Harbor Loop to be the location for a Visiting Boater Support Center and Harbormaster's Office.  I don't know for fact that the glitch was the unavailability of state funds for the building because of the non-municipal ownership, but it seems that way.  Grant grabbing without proper planning?  Who knows.  It is what it is now.
Reply

Cathy (Admin)
Joined: 13 Aug 2005, 09:30

27 Sep 2017, 13:24 #35

CITY OF GLOUCESTER NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF GLOUCESTER NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Gloucester Waterways Board will be conducting a public hearing on Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 7:00 PM in the Kyrouz Auditorium, City Hall. This hearing will be open for comments regarding the Harbormasters Feasibility Complex Study. Thomas Ciarametaro Harbormaster GT - 9/26/17

http://ma.mypublicnotices.com/PublicNot ... Id=4478823

Haven't seen the study posted on the City's site yet.
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

27 Sep 2017, 17:14 #36

I am interested but have seen no preliminary report on what is being proposed or studied or traded off on this contract. If I went to the hearing I would not know what to say since there has been no public outreach that I can detect and I am down there on the waterfront every day. I should think a report to the public on the study would be important to hold before a public hearing where we are supposed to say we like or do not like something we have no idea what is or is not. This is our "transparent" city government?
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply

harbordog
Joined: 07 Jun 2008, 11:56

27 Sep 2017, 19:09 #37

here is a link to the agenda for the Waterways Board meeting on Tuesday Oct 3rd at 6:00 pm.  
the agenda lists a presentation by the consultant then following a public meeting.  this seems a bit contradictory.  
I assume, due to the legal notice stating a start time of 7:00 pm, the consultant will start the presentation at 7:00 pm with public comment to follow.
the proposal as stated includes a harbormaster station and yacht club accommodations for visitors.
it does not include any uses by residents.  this seems short sighted.

http://www.gloucester-ma.gov/ArchiveCen ... /Item/7944
Reply

Dun Fudgin
Joined: 21 Jun 2007, 03:54

27 Sep 2017, 19:50 #38

harbordog wrote: here is a link to the agenda for the Waterways Board meeting on Tuesday Oct 3rd at 6:00 pm.  
the agenda lists a presentation by the consultant then following a public meeting.  this seems a bit contradictory.  
I assume, due to the legal notice stating a start time of 7:00 pm, the consultant will start the presentation at 7:00 pm with public comment to follow.
the proposal as stated includes a harbormaster station and yacht club accommodations for visitors.
it does not include any uses by residents.  this seems short sighted.

http://www.gloucester-ma.gov/ArchiveCen ... /Item/7944
I believe it is to include storage lockers for the youth sailing programs and combination class room/conference space.
Reply

Cathy (Admin)
Joined: 13 Aug 2005, 09:30

27 Sep 2017, 20:18 #39

This is not the study - this is the Plan of Services contract that the City entered into with Harriman Consulting to perform the study.

I'm able to upload a pdf to our tapatalk site, but haven't figured out if or how I can embed it in a post - I'm thinking no.

Anyhow, clicking the link will download it to you computer:

Harriman feasibility study (1).pdf (258.83 KiB)
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

27 Sep 2017, 23:22 #40

I am not aware of any plan to include any facilities for youth sailing programs.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply