Advertisement
Politics

Anacortes' ferry terminal: case study for how NOT to do a public-private partnership

Such partnerships are all the rage in times of lean budgets, but they can run into roadblocks, as this project illustrates. For one thing, the state is a partner with no money.

Anacortes' ferry terminal: case study for how NOT to do a public-private partnership

by

C.B. Hall

Such partnerships are all the rage in times of lean budgets, but they can run into roadblocks, as this project illustrates. For one thing, the state is a partner with no money.

The Washington State Ferries (WSF) terminal  in Anacortes leads a life of quiet uncertainty. Since its construction  in 1959, the unassuming, low-slung building alongside the dock has fulfilled  its task of moving millions to and from the San Juan Islands and Vancouver  Island effectively. But the structure is aging, and plans to replace  it have bubbled up from time to time.

The most recent scheme depends  on a public-private partnership (PPP) — and appears to be going nowhere.

“Dead in the water,” says Jeff Doyle,  director of PPPs at the Washington State Department of Transportation  (WSDOT). “We’re finding [that private developers] seem interested,  [but] the state doesn’t have any cash to contribute to the construction.”  For the prospective private investors, the construction costs are “just  too heavy of a lift.”

In addition to the lack of state funds,  he cites two other factors working against the Anacortes PPP.

“It’s not a good time for development,  commercial or retail. And our [ferry] terminals are by and large not  in highly populated areas, to help carry all those construction costs”  through the promise of return on adjacent, private commercial investment.

The case serves as an example of why public-private partnerships often have trouble getting off the ground.

In the Anacortes case, WSDOT recently sought  letters of interest from prospective developers. By last winter's submission  deadline, three respondents had demonstrated to the state's satisfaction  that they'd be equal to the project's challenge, but the state has not  issued a request for actual proposals in view of “prevailing market  conditions,” Doyle says.

A 2009 “project pre-design study” for the Anacortes terminal building and its site found the preferred  development alternative to be a 17,000-square-foot building costing  $23 million. The accounting, whose bottom line is in fact $38 million,  also includes $15 million for “construction documents” — which,  according to Tim Smith, WSDOT's director of terminal engineering, refers  to all the planning documents that past proposals for the terminal's  improvement or replacement have generated. Of course, at least some  of those documents — architect's designs, for example — are completely  useless at this juncture.

Although it did set up a fund to finance  at least one new 144-car ferry, this year’s legislative session appropriated  nothing to prime the Anacortes project's pump. Crews at the terminal  recently completed rehabilitative work on the facility's boarding walkway,  and roof repair on the terminal awaits. But beyond that, it's going to  be the same old terminal for some time.

The 2009 study carried a big price tag  for the 17,000-square-foot replacement building, which would more than  triple the current structure's size. The document contains  at least a couple of dubious statements that leave one wondering about  the plan's dimensions. It states that “in the off-season about  200 passengers currently access the terminal building. Thus the current  number of passengers waiting at the terminal can range from 200 in the  off-season to upward of 700 in the summer months.”

I have used the terminal frequently year-round  and have witnessed far smaller numbers in and around the building. The  study also claims that “long lines are a common occurrence throughout  the year” at the women’s restroom, a phenomenon I  likewise have never witnessed. Smith says that the statements are based on  the facility's “operational history.”

Why do public-private partnerships seem to run into frequent problems?

One reason could be that they start off with over-dimensioned plans and price tags that scare off  the businesspeople once they've done their arithmetic. WSDOT's Doyle responds that in a place like  Anacortes, “I don't know if that price tag is inflated. Projects of that magnitude in towns of that size — it's very difficult to expect the local retail community  to contribute to a project of that magnitude.”

He remains convinced that PPPs have a  future, even if the first P in the partnership didn’t ride to the  rescue with any green stuff this spring in Olympia. “There's plenty to be done in this  state. We still keep kicking over stones, trying to find some spare  change.”

PPPs seem all the rage, and have yet  to suffer the fate of urban renewal, fallout shelters, the MX missile,  and many another public initiatives now relegated to history. Earlier  this month, in the other Washington, Republican leaders, with considerable  eclat, recently rolled out a plan aimed at applying PPPs to far-ranging  improvements in rail service along the entire 457 miles of Amtrak's  Boston-Washington corridor.

In Washington state, as a bright spot in  the PPP picture, Doyle points to a partnership aimed at development  of electric-vehicle charging stations. According to Tonia Buell, project  development manager in Doyle's office, that project is thriving on the strength of federal stimulus  funding aimed at developing infrastructure for electric motoring. The  office expects to award a $1 million contract later this month for the  installation, operation and maintenance of chargers along I-5 and U.S.  2. Asked what will happen when the stimulus fund dries up, she said, “As more people start driving electric vehicles, businesses will be  installing their own charging stations  — so we're really just jump-starting this new industry.”

Bruce Agnew, director of the Seattle-based Cascadia Center for Regional Development, ticks off a number of initiatives  outside Washington state, where so-called tax-increment financing (TIF)  has facilitated PPPs. One example of how it might work: The TIF concept could allow a local jurisdiction to devote  its portion of receipts from increased property taxes on commercial development  to retiring bonds on adjacent transit infrastructure. However, the formula for the just-enacted TIF legislation  in Washington applies only to cities of more than 22,000 within the  central Puget Sound region — leaving out the more remote Anacortes,  with its population of 17,000.

Applauding the concept, Agnew feels it could be expanded in next year's  legislative session to include the Skagit County city. A consulting  firm working under a legislatively mandated contract is just beginning  what the Legislature intends to be “a long thoughtful look” at the  potential of PPPs, he reports.

Like Doyle, he terms transit-oriented  development an ideal target for PPPs, at least in theory.

Asked if the word tax might scare people away from the concept, Agnew notes that TIF has “gone more elegantly by the term community development  financing,” and that the mechanism in any case affects only the increase  in the value of commercial real estate.

In Anacortes, and on the San Juan ferries,  the political discussion seems far away, however. Veteran travelers  have heard all this before. One encounters a bit of skepticism, but  few complaints, about the facility. The ferries keep running and, for  now, the terminal continues its yeoman service.

Donation CTA