Wilmette Harbor Needs $11.7 Million in Repairs, Park District Considers Lease
Before the Wilmette Park District opts to bid on a lease of Wilmette Harbor, it will weigh the cost of the marina’s much-needed repairs.
The results of recently-completed study commissioned by the Wilmette Park District revealed that Wilmette Harbor is in need of nearly $11.7 million worth of repairs over the next 15 years, leaving it to the Park Board to determine whether it is worthwhile and financially wise for the district to manage the marina.
According to the study, the harbor would require $48,750 worth of immediate repairs, more than $2 million within five years, over $4 million more within a decade and an additional $5.55 million within 15 years’ time.
Though the Wilmette Park District Board of Commissioners voted unanimously at its Monday meeting to accept the study’s findings, board members made few indications as to their leanings concerning a potential lease.
Wilmette Harbor, originally constructed in 1910, is owned by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRD). The 6.9-acre harbor is currently in the final boating season of a 50-year lease to the Wilmette Harbor Association, a local nonprofit founded in 1938 expressly for the “maintenance and development of Wilmette Harbor and of the mooring facilities provided therein”.
A Ticking Clock
At the MWRD’s Sept. 6 board meeting, commissioners voted to go out to public bid in late September for a 39-year management lease, with a minimum initial bid of $67,000 per year. In addition to management rights, the winning bidder would also assume all harbor maintenance responsibilities.
Now, with detailed knowledge of the potential associated costs, the Wilmette Park Board must quickly decide how much the harbor is worth to the park district.
Park Board President James L. Brault said that the overriding reason the board is considering managing the property is that the commissioners believe they may have the unique ability to expand the harbor’s functionality by linking it with nearby Gillson Park, which is also maintained by the park district.
“The concept would be to how we could incorporate it into the greater park district mission of providing activities on the lakefront,” Brault said. “We think that we can expand the offerings beyond just what a harbor operator by themselves could do. We could create a synergy that no one else could do.”
A Burden to Taxpayers?
But some Wilmette residents aren’t biting.
On July 6, 2011, Patch ran a letter to the editor, reportedly signed by 100 residents, in which locals decried the potential harbor lease and voiced their opinion that such an agreement would be a waste of taxpayers’ money.
Allen Hinkelman, a Wilmette resident who said he has kept a boat in Wilmette Harbor for nearly 18 years, spoke at Monday’s meeting, questioning why the park district should be on the hook for long-needed repairs.
“Why are we fixing something that belongs to the sanitary district?” said Hinkelman. “We can spend $11 million… and it’s still their property. They built it 100 years ago for a specific purpose… Why don’t we ask them to rebuild it?... I think that we ought to think long and hard before we do this.”
Brault informed Hinkelman that several board members shared a similar sentiment.
Alternative Funding
Yet other commissioners said they thought the park district could cover the cost of the lease and repairs without digging into taxpayer dollars.
According to the board, the harbor already brings in nearly $400,000 in fees annually -- about half of what repairs would cost annually if spread out evenly over a 15-year-period.
Park Board Vice-President Darrell Graham speculated that the marina’s proximity to Gillson Park could provide creative ways to increase harbor revenue.
“We have land to expand,” Graham said. “So there are ways that you can increase the number of boat racks, for instance, to increase revenue at the harbor. To provide more opportunities for boaters to have access to the harbor.”
Other ideas that were tossed around at the meeting included applying for state and private grant funds, and issuing revenue bonds, which would guarantee repayment based solely on money generated from harbor fees.
Additionally, harbor repair fees could be as much as 30 percent lower than projected, because the study’s construction costs were submitted to reflect the high end an estimation range. Low-end calculations for repair costs would be closer to $9 million.
Still Up in the Air
In anticipation of the upcoming public bid, the Park Board has called a Sept. 20 special meeting to discuss whether the park district should submit an offer to manage the harbor.
According to the park board, the MWRD will decide which entity will become leaseholder by sometime in October.
The Wilmette Harbor Association stated in a July 15, 2011 letter to Patch that they want to remain sole leaseholder of the property.
The Wilmette Harbor Condition Assessment Report was completed by a SmithGroupJJR, a national architecture and engineering firm with Chicago offices. Brault said the report was commissioned in February and cost the park district around $40,000. The full report can be found above.
Correction: On Sept. 19, 2012, the title and first paragraph of this article were altered to reflect the fact that the total repair costs are projected to be $11.7 million, instead of $11.5 million as initially reported.
Want to follow similar articles? Sign up for our newsletter and "like" us on Facebook!
GrossPoint
7:00 am on Thursday, September 13, 2012
Just a reminder, the Wilmette Park District is $25 Million in debt, or around $925 for every man, woman, and child in Wilmette. This is not including projected pension liabilities.
Perhaps this is not the right time to be taking on more spending projects.
John Finn
10:30 am on Thursday, September 13, 2012
2 questions:
1, How many residents does this harbor service? 100? 300? Regardless it is fewer than 1% of Wilmette's population.
2, If the Park District can expand the harbor to create revenue with racks or whatever, why not just do those projects, make the money and not take on the additional liability of this aged facility?
John Finn
10:41 am on Thursday, September 13, 2012
Also, is the harbor showing a surplus of $400k a year or is that revenue going to pay for costs they incur running the harbor, like staff, dredging, insurance and equipment? I have to presume that $400K is gross income and not profit.
Wilmette Magilacutty
11:56 pm on Sunday, September 16, 2012
The harbor has about 300 boats in it BUT it isa public harbor which means anyone can have a boat there, the harbor has boat owners from all over the north chicago area. This also means that, unless the PD was planning on kicking out everyone who currently has a boat there, out tax money will be paying for something that other people will be enjoying. Lastly, the 400k is gross income, the harbor is not for profit so other than the wages for the employees all that money goes back into the harbor for maintenance, and operating.
TONI BRAVERMAN
5:58 pm on Thursday, September 13, 2012
WHOOPS! THERE GOES THE TAES, I'M AFRAID.
TONI BRAVERMAN
6:00 pm on Thursday, September 13, 2012
ER.....I MEANT...TAXES.
Jeff
7:34 pm on Thursday, September 13, 2012
Wilmette Residents:
One or two of our park district commissioners have an 11 million dollar pipe dream to assume the Wilmette harbor lease. They are asking for public reaction to a consultant’s report at their next meeting on September 20. No business plan or financial forecast has been produced to detail anticipated revenues and costs of running the harbor. It appears that only 100 Wilmette residents benefit from the harbor at present. Nothing is known about how much could be obtained from other sources, such as grants, to defray costs.
Unless you wish to be saddled with the future liabilities of the harbor, please attend the meeting and demand a detailed plan. No more hand waving.
Thanks.
Gaby Fields
9:11 am on Friday, September 14, 2012
Delusions of grandeur some of our Park District commissioners have!!
The Park District has already trouble managing the lake front and the sailing beach at Gillson Park, and now they want to take on this project? This is insane. I
t would be one thing if they could take over the harbor lease without having to spend a huge sum on capital improvements, but with this financial liability it is nearly impossible in these hard economic times. No way with my tax money! Especially when most of us do not have a boat in the harbor. It would benefit just a few Wilmette residents, and even more out-of-towners who have boats in the harbor.
In addition, the Park District has its sights on the Baha'i Temple's private beach, claiming the rights to it because of dredging/artificial landfill. This is absolutely ridiculous! Even if there was a right to claim this beach, how would you create access and parking for the public? You would have to annex Baha'i property under the eminent domain right, in order to provide parking and access. With the Baha'i being such a beautiful landmark (a major national landmark), I cannot imagine its peace and beauty being disturbed by beach-going masses! Mr. Brault and his Park Board should go back to reality, and manage the assets we have now.
Willie Wilmette
8:47 am on Sunday, September 16, 2012
The Baha'i Temple's private beach looks the same as a picture taken when Benjamin Marshall’s palatial home was there. Just take a look at the breakwater then & now.
http://wilmette.patch.com/articles/architect-marshall-s-home-at-wilmette-harbor-was-like-a-north-shore-xanadu?logout=true
NHL
2:51 am on Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Gaby, actually, i might be in the minority here, but the Baha'i "private" beach should be opened to the public, as should the entire stretch of northshore beaches.... Furthermore, why should a religious organization, which presumably doesn't pay taxes, "own" a stretch of beach?? You "...cannot imagine it's peace and beauty disturbed by the masses..."?? Well, frankly, NOBODY should have exclusive rights to our beaches, whether it's a private, religious or municipal entity.... It's a joke these villages charge exorbitant fees to go to the beach, especially non residents....as if people lucky enough to live on the immediate northshore have the right to have more beach privileges than the common folk living inland... And, to add insult to injury, the private property owners with beachfront access claim the beach and the lake bottom/water as their own.... Then hire security to run people off "their" beaches.....
Sorry folks, but Lake Michigan belongs to everybody and denying citizens the right to FREE beach access to ALL our beaches IS JUST PLAIN **WRONG**!!!
Wilmette Magilacutty
12:05 am on Monday, September 17, 2012
I agree, the biggest issue here is that the PD has NO PLAN! They dont know what they are going to do with the hundreds of people on the waiting list who have been PAYING 25 dollars a year some for almost 20 years to remain on the waiting list. I would like to be on that waiting list but i have refrained because I am afraid of what the PD might do. They have NO PLAN for who will be allowed to keep their mooring and who will be kicked out, some boat owners at the harbor have been so for half a decade. The PD board has some very smart people on it, BUT there a few on the board who believe that this can be their own personal playground. Look at how disastrous the Lakefront Project has been. The board is being pushed be a few individuals who are in this for themselves. I have heard from PD staff that there are board members who dont even realize that the Sheridan Shore Yacht Club building, that is above the harbor, is not actually part of the same land lease. These board members are so blinded by greed that they dont even realize that they wont be gaining the building as well. This is an under-thought plan that has no discernible end and I hope for Wilmette's sake the harbor stay in the hand of the WHA
Narda F
10:27 am on Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Your point is interesting----but what could it be individual board members are gaining from this? I can't see that constructing a 3-story building in Gillson Park (God help us if they will actually go forward on this!) would bring that much extra revenue that is received above and beyond the operating costand capital expenditures of the harbor and the new building. Looks like a losing proposition to me. Unless you make the use of Gillson so expensive that even we Wilmette residents are being priced right out of using it. Many of us can barely handle the property taxes now...
David Keenan
8:04 am on Monday, September 17, 2012
Be heard! Learn more at www.savewilmetteharbor.org and sign the online petition there if you can't make the meeting on Sept 20.
NHL
2:55 am on Tuesday, September 18, 2012
A final thought regarding my above post (couldn't fit it in all in one post)...
You might whine you all pay taxes to maintain the beaches yada, yada, yada....... The fact is, we all own the Lake and beaches... Which, in turn, means our beaches should be under the jurisdiction of the STATE, or at least the county (Cook and Lake).... I, as a resident of Glenview just 75 yards from the border of Wilmette, am more than happy to chip in a few bucks toward my property taxes (or state income taxes) to help maintain OUR beaches...
Narda F
5:53 am on Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Libby, you obviously do not know what you are talking about. In ripiarian and littoral law (when it comes to private beaches), the people of Illinois only own the ground below water in a navigable waterway, and the public is allowed to walk along the beach only up to the "ordinary high watermark". All the land above the high watermark is private and cannot be used by the public. Like it or not, that's the way it is. This law is pretty ancient, and it is pretty much uniformly applied in every state in this country. So, unless a beach is public, you do not "own all the beaches" !!! We are long-time Wilmette residents (living on Sheridan Rd a few blocks from Baha'i), and we love the beautiful temple and its surrounding gardens, and we would hate its beauty and peace intruded upon. Furthermore, it does have landmark status. Not everything can be measured in dollars, or should be commercialized and marketed. We really don't care whether the Baha'i pay property taxes or not---we just love the gardens and the temple! It sure makes up for not paying taxes! We would hate to see our "corporate"-minded WPD board trying to use that stretch of the beach!
NHL
8:21 am on Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Narda,
on the contrary, i've been going to wilmette beaches for nearly 40 years, and i can remember as recently as the 80's and 90's, the hired security would try to kick us out of the WATER. i'm fully aware the people living above don't claim ownership to the water, BUT they do claim ownership to the lake bottom, which i believe is something like 100 feet out from the water mark (hi or low, it DOESN'T MATTER).... An guess what...that's outright WRONG. Illinois' water access laws are archaic, unfair and would be outright ILLEGAL in other states...
"This law is pretty ancient, and it is pretty much uniformly applied in every state in this country."
WRONG, WRONG WRONG!!!!!!!!!!
In Hawaii, NO ENTITY IS ALLOWED TO TAKE "OWNERSHIP" OF BEACHES AND DENY FREE AND UNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC... That goes for homeowners, multi million $$ resorts etc... In Michigan, yes, you are correct---property owners have riparian rights as you describe, BUT, not in illinois.... And it isn't just the Lakefront, it also goes for riverfront property, but that's a whole nuther discussion....
Beachfront property fights are going on throughout this country, and one day we'll win....
So, if you believe keeping the general public off beaches is just, then you are wrong, plain and simple.
Narda F
9:31 am on Tuesday, September 18, 2012
N. Libby, yes, you are entitled as the public to wade in the water in front of private properties. If their security staff or police (as has been the case) throws you out, they were wrong! It has happened to friends of ours when they were wading / swimming in the water in front of private beaches. The riparian owners called Wilmette police, and they were thrown out of the water. We immediately went to the Wilmette chief of police and read him the riot act. The police obviously did not know that the lake in front of private properties is actually the public's property. They have not bothered anyone since. Riparian owners on a navigable waterway have absolutely no right to the water (they may, however have certain privileges in installing a platform or boat launch in certain instances). On the other hand, riparian owners on a non-navigable waterway or lake have the right all the way to the middle of the lake.
However, it is another matter if the public walks inland on a riparian property. It is clearly trespassing on private property.
You are obviously mixing up "public access" to a water's edge / shore (say, via a right-of-way) with actually trespassing on a private beach. I agree, there should be public access to the shore. We have that at Gillson, via Elmwood Beach, Langdon Beach and Gillson Park. People are free to walk all along the shore, also in front of riparian properties, and also use the water in a reasonable manner.
NHL
12:00 am on Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Narda,
i'm not confusing public access to the water's edge with trespassing on a private beach... my point is NO beach should be considered private (as is the case in hawaii and on the coasts, tho the rich folks in malibu regularly break the law by trying to kick out the public), unless the body of water (NOT a river flowing thru/bordering one's property) is entirely within someone property... i don't have a problem if a landowner has a lake within the boundaries of his property and decides to keep out trespassers.... that's his right.
as i stated above, illinois has archaic riparian laws.... what bothers us in the water recreation community, is illinois' definition of "navigable waterways".... please define "navigable waterway"..... it is defined differently in different states... in wisconsin, unless a body of water is COMPLETELY surrounded by a single landowner, there must be some sort of public access to it... same for rivers----if a river flows thru/borders private property, the landowners have no right to block people from floating down the river, as is the case in illinois..... and it has happened here....
http://www.examiner.com/article/the-vermilion-river-opens-after-over-two-years-of-paddler-frustration
to be continued.............
NHL
12:02 am on Wednesday, September 19, 2012
michigan ruled in 2005 the public has the right to walk their great lakes beaches---to the chagrin of the property owners.... this was a just ruling, and when it was challenged, for a 2nd time, it was thrown out---good riddance...
http://www.stripers247.com/phpBB2/showthread.php?t=3221
your claim anything above the high water mark (define this please---is it the dry area above the surf zone, or the point of transition where sand gives way to vegetation??)... if you think anything above the surf zone (the wet area) is private and has been since ancient times, think again: you are wrong.
http://www.stripers247.com/phpBB2/showthread.php?t=3221
read the entire article, you might learn something...
as for having public access at gilson and other public accesses along the northshore, it's a weak argument, at best... first off, the "free" section of gilson is off-limits to swimmers, second, what used to be free up at langdon (and technically off limits to swimmers, but we violated that nonsense regularly) has been taken away from us, and third, do you really feel it's fair and reasonable for a municipality such as wilmette, to charge a family of 4, say from park ridge, $44 ($8.50/person + $10 for parking) to spend the afternoon at wilmette beach?? in essence, charge them an arm and a leg to go swimming in the lake? do you truly believe this is fair and reasonable??
Narda F
12:25 pm on Wednesday, September 19, 2012
sure it is reasonable---we Wilmettians also pay a hefty user fee. Who do you think is taking care of the parks and pays for the hiring of staff?
Narda F
3:39 pm on Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Actually, Wilmette's non-resident fees are higher, but not THAT much higher than resident fees. Try getting into Lake Forest, I think they're REALLY making sure that non-residents can't afford to come in and use their beach (last I looked they charged hundreds of $$ for a season parking ticket, but I'm not sure what it is today). Wilmette can't charge that much because of some federal dollars the village once received eons ago for Gillson Park improvements...
NHL
12:03 am on Wednesday, September 19, 2012
and finally,
The bottom line is, just because it's the law doesn't mean it's right.... just ask jim crow....
Narda F
12:27 pm on Wednesday, September 19, 2012
what'ya gonna do---occupy their land with a tent? Or -better yet- seize it? I don't like it either, but that's what it is in the capitalist country you're livin' in!
NHL
3:26 pm on Wednesday, September 19, 2012
"sure it is reasonable---we Wilmettians also pay a hefty user fee".... 44 bucks to go to the beach for the day.... hmmmmm, sounds to me like it's a money grab and a method to keep out the riff-raff...you know, the non residents....
wilmettians, and residents of the other lakeshore communities shouldn't have to be burdened with hefty user fees and taxes to operate the beaches---the beaches should be owned and operated by the STATE like i said in my first post, this way the burden is spread out like it is for the state parks.....
what am i'm gonna do? i'll just keep going to the beach like i always do.... no need to camp out (tho, in my youth, i did it a coupla times).... where there's a way....
NHL
12:07 am on Thursday, September 20, 2012
surprisingly, lake forest beach is free during the week---problem is, there is no parking for non residents within at least a mile....so, yep, it's their attempt to keep out the non residents....
anyway, my view, along with many in the water recreation community, feel it is unfair and unjust to charge such fees to access what is ours.... other than the city of chicago on the south, and illinois state beach on the north, there aren't many places along lake michigan where one could freely access the water (during the summer season, that is).... langdon used to be a nice, little hidden gem where you could actually get to the water relatively un-harrassed... been going there since the late 70's..... but they took that away... then they extended the fence 100's of feet into the free section of gilson..... next it will be elmwood, no doubt....
i was told they shut down langdon cuz the crowds were getting out of control... i agree (not to mention it was a potential cash cow).... over the past 15 years or so, it was getting very popular with the eastern european crowd, as is the free part of gilson is now.... why? because to the european crowd, there's no such thing as paying for a beach, or banning swimming at a perfectly good beach---it's a given...
Narda F
7:32 am on Thursday, September 20, 2012
That's why the south end of Gillson is commonly called "Gorki Park", LOL
NHL
4:08 pm on Thursday, September 20, 2012
well, we came real close to losing "gorki park", and i wouldn't doubt it if they try it again.... which ain't gonna be a laughing matter......
No Boat
9:15 am on Thursday, September 20, 2012
If you leave the harbor in the hands of the Wilmette Harbor Association, it will continue to service the few privilege individuals who have slip access. This resource should be made available to all Wilmette residents, with equal and fair access. Let the market decide fair value for slip access, and give priority to Wilmette residence.
Narda F
9:28 am on Thursday, September 20, 2012
Leave the operation to the WHA anyway. The WPD does not know how to manage such an asset, they have no experience. It will still only serve the "privileged few"---as the WPD would have to double the mooring fees pretty soon, in order to try to even think to pay for the costs to run this venue, or to service the debt that they would have to take on for capital improvements. If you think even for one second that all Wilmette residents would benefit, please think again. In no time you will have the same long waiting list the WHA currently has.
I'm not sure how a WPD-run harbor could serve all residents? The harbor is small, crammed with boats, with not many amenities a bigger marina (such as Chicago or Racine, for example) could offer. Other than a halfway decent location, it soes not have much to offer...
No Boat
12:31 pm on Thursday, September 20, 2012
Supply and demand is already indicating that the mooring fees do not represent fair market value. If there is a 10-15 year wait for just a small power boat, and if it is “statistically impossible in any person’s lifetime” to get a slip for a power boat greater than 25 feet, that tells you the fees are too low. Charge market rates, and take the excess and improve the surroundings to attract non boat owners to the facilities. WHA will do more of the same, serve the few that it already serves.
Narda F
1:14 pm on Thursday, September 20, 2012
Nevertheless, you can't squeeze any more boats into the harbor than what is in there now. I can't see that the WPD will make enough money on the # of boats (even with increased mooring fees) to operate & maintain the harbor, plus pay the projected capital expenditures. Apparently the WPD seems to have grandiose plans to "develop" the south end of Gillson in order to offer more lakefront services (they don't seem to state exactly what these would be), in order to pay for the harbor. I can just picture Gillson becoming like Navy Pier in Chicago, LOL. It is a stupid plan all around. They might as well just leave Gillson as is. It serves everyone just fine!
Narda F
1:20 pm on Thursday, September 20, 2012
Furthermore, the WPD has proven that they can't even manage and run the resources and assets they have now! To name a few: They can't run a decent concession stand in Gillson (the concession/restaurant at Lakeview Center has been closed forever), manage crowds at the south-end of the beach, or the sailing beach. They let uncounted revenue go by letting in non-paying non-sailors into the sailing beach by never checking their passes. They fire or reprimand good summer employees because they are trying to enforce the rules with patrons. The public also has been complaining bitterly and loudly about the Centennial pool which is largely closed to the public and occupied by special interest groups during peak hours. Oh, the list is endless...
No Boat
2:43 pm on Thursday, September 20, 2012
So your only solution is to allow the WHA to do more of the same, because you claim the WPD cannot do any better ? Your argument is weak. How about just keep doubling the slip rates until there is vacancy ? Then you know you are collecting the right fees. I would love a slip at double the current rate, but I cannot get one at any price. I have been on a waiting list for 7 years with no sign of ever getting in. In the meantime, the same groups/families are enjoying below market rates. Why would anyone ever give up a slip at the current rates ? If you own a slip you can find plenty of other “slip partners” who will buy a brand new boat to park in your slip for the privilege of getting lake access, and let you use it as you please.
Just really tell it how it is. This is not a matter of who can manage the property best, but rather the continuation of a subsidized private club on public property.
Narda F
3:22 pm on Thursday, September 20, 2012
Fine and dandy---but I'm not one to want to subsidize your personal lake access with my tax money, unless the harbor costs are COMPLETELY paid for by harbor users alone! There are just not that many boat slips to benefit the broader Wilmette public, sorry. I can't see that 200 or 300 boat mooring fees will pay for the proposed capital improvements and the operation of the harbor. Can you? What is in it for the rest of the 28,000 Wilmette residents, other than an unknown 39-year liability? Where is the business plan for financing all that??? Sorry, economic times are the worst in decades, and I should worry about your boat waiting list? Wilmette has more pressing problems (like fixing infrastructure, schools, etc.!) right now.
Furthermore, the property will never belong to the WPD.
Jordan Graham
3:42 pm on Thursday, September 20, 2012
We've got a poll up on the site to gauge reader opinion on the the potential lease. http://wilmette.patch.com/articles/poll-should-the-wilmette-park-district-lease-wilmette-harbor
NHL
4:06 pm on Thursday, September 20, 2012
i like the idea of charging market rates (or above, considering the area) and use it to fund operation of the public beaches... ie-get rid of the entrance fees (i'm actually somewhat ok with the parking fees) and open our lakefront as it is supposed to be....