WATERFRONT PLACE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY Prepared for Port of Everett TEAM Reid Middleton BST Associates RMC Architects FINANCIAL ANALYSIS This section Prepared by: BST Associates September 2014 This section of the report is part of the Port of Everett Waterfront Place Implementation Strategy. It is important to bear in mind that it is but one part of a larger document.
CHAPTER 5 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT OF MARINA IMPROVEMENTS... 2 HISTORICAL TRENDS... 2 REVENUES... 2 EXPENSES... 4 FINANCIAL RETURN... 6 FINANCIAL COMPARISONS PER LINEAL FOOT... 7 ASSUMING 100 PERCENT OCCUPANCY... 7 ASSUMING ACTUAL OCCUPANCY... 8 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF REDEVELOPMENT OPTIONS... 8 FINANCIAL RETURN BY TYPE OF MOORAGE... 8 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION... 10 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF REDEVELOPMENT OPTIONS... 11 PHASE 1... 11 ALL PHASES... 12 RECOMMENDATIONS & POLICY IMPLICATIONS... 13 FIGURES FIGURE 5-1. MARINA GROSS REVENUES ($MILLIONS).... 2 FIGURE 5-2. MARINA EXPENSES BY MAJOR CATEGORY ($MILLIONS).... 5 FIGURE 5-3. MARINA NET INCOME BEFORE AND AFTER DEPRECIATION ($MILLIONS).... 7 TABLES TABLE 5-1. PER LINEAL FOOT REVENUES AND EXPENSES FOR PERMANENT MOORAGE (2012)... 8 TABLE 5-2. FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENTS OF OPTIONS BY SLIP.... 9 TABLE 5-3. DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION (2013 $MILLIONS).... 10 TABLE 5-4. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF PHASE ONE ($MILLIONS).... 12 TABLE 5-5. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF ALL PHASES ($MILLIONS)... 13 TABLE 5-6. PORT OF EVERETT MARINA FINANCIAL TRENDS ($1,000S)... 15 Chapter 5 1
Chapter 5 Financial Analysis Financial Assessment of Marina Improvements A financial assessment of marina improvements is provided in the following section, including a summary of historical trends and the potential return on investment from proposed capital improvements. Historical Trends The Port of Everett Marina has three lines of business, consisting of moorage (north, central and south marina areas), Travelift operations and fuel sales. Revenues As can be seen in Figure 5-1 and Table 5-6, total revenues from the three lines of business grew rapidly (at 6.2 percent per year) from 2001 to 2008. Revenues then fell sharply in 2009 (by 4.7 percent) and in 2010 (by 7.2 percent) in response to the recession. Revenues increased 5.8 percent in 2011 but have remained relatively flat through 2013 (down 0.2 percent in 2012 and up 3.3 percent in 2013). $Millions $9.0 $8.0 $7.0 $6.0 $5.0 $4.0 $3.0 $2.0 $1.0 $0.0 100% 88% 75% 63% 50% 38% 25% 13% 0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Permanent Moorage Share of Marina Revenues 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Moorage - Permanent Travelift Permanent Moorage % All Revenues Moorage - Other Revenues Fuel Dock Figure 0-1. Marina Gross Revenues ($millions). Chapter 5 2
Permanent Moorage The majority of revenue comes from permanent moorage, which has accounted for approximately 80 percent of total revenues during the past ten years. Permanent moorage performed very well during the period from 2001 to 2008, when revenues increased by 8.9% per year. During these high years, occupancy was nearly 100 percent and there was a significant waitlist for most slip lengths and types. Moorage rates increased by approximately 6.6% per year between 2001 and 2008. In addition, the 12 th Street Marina came on line in late 2007. However, the impact of the recession hit the Port of Everett Marina particularly hard and revenues have declined at approximately - 1.5% per year from 2009 to 2013. The main reason for the decline in revenues was a sustained decline in occupancy and the near elimination of the waitlists. Tenants in the Port of Everett chose to relocate to less expensive marinas, place their boat on trailers and in storage (particularly Bayside Marine and Dagmar s Landing), or decided to leave boating entirely. In response to these conditions (low occupancy rates and competitive pressure from other marinas), the Port decided to keep marina rates constant. Other Moorage Revenues The next largest source of revenues is comprised of other moorage revenues, which includes guest moorage, electricity sales, fees for using facilities (laundry, showers and telescope), environmental services fee, and a variety of other fees (collection fees, concessionaire sales, rent for net sheds and gillnet lockers, parking enforcement fees and late charges, among other revenues. These revenue streams accounted for slightly more than 10 percent of total revenues on average during the past ten years. Other moorage revenues increased by 3.2 percent per year from 2001 to 2013. Increases occurred in most categories, including electrical fees, environmental service fees, guest moorage, late charges and other miscellaneous revenues. Travelift Revenues from Travelift operations accounted for approximately 7 percent of total revenues during the past 10 years. As noted in the section on demand, Travelift operations have increased significantly, and have represented around 9 percent of total revenues during the past five years. The Craftsman District (previously called Travelift operations) experienced annual growth of 10.3 percent between 2001 and 2013. It was particularly strong in the period from 2009 to 2013 with annual growth of 14.9 percent per year. Chapter 5 3
Fuel Sales Revenues from fuel sales (after the cost of goods sold) accounted for slightly more than 3 percent of total revenues. Fuel sales experienced annual growth of 1.4 percent per year from 2001 to 2013. However, fuel sales were relatively flat during the past 4 years, growing only 0.3 percent from 2009 to 2013. Expenses As can be seen in Figure 5-2 and Table 5-6, total marina expenses have increased rather consistently at 4.5 percent per year from 2001 to 2013. Salaries and Benefits Salaries and benefits are the largest components of O&M expenses, accounting for an average of 59.3 percent of total O&M costs over the past ten years (salaries accounted for 42.5 percent and benefits accounted for 16.8 percent during this period). From 2001 to 2013, salaries experienced an average annual growth of 2.7 percent, while benefits grew at an average of 6.2 percent per year. Combined, salaries and benefits grew at 3.6 percent per year. Utilities Utilities, which are the next largest individual expense category, accounted for approximately 15.3 percent of expenses during the past ten years. Utility costs grew at 2.6 percent per year from 2001 to 2013. However, during the recent past (2009 to 2013), utility costs have grown at 6.1 percent per year. Chapter 5 4
$5.0 $4.5 $4.0 $3.5 $3.0 $2.5 $2.0 $1.5 $1.0 $0.5 $0.0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 $Millions 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Salaries Benefits Utilities Security Allocation Supplies General & Administrative Outside Services Other Figure 0-2. Marina Expenses by Major Category ($millions). Security Allocation The Port of Everett began to allocate security costs to lines of business in 2008. The allocation process takes total expenses less revenues (which derive from the marine terminals in the form of payments for security by Port tenants) to estimate net expenses borne by the Port. The net security costs are allocated to line of businesses based upon gross revenues (PORT PLEASE CONFIRM RULES FOR SECURITY ALLOCATION). For the marina line of business, security costs have ranged from a low of $378,000 in 2013 to a high of $520,000 in 2010, depending on repayment for services by Port tenants. Looking forward, security costs are expected to average between $300,000 and $500,000 per year in 2013 dollars. Supplies Supplies required for operations and maintenance of the marina account for 7 percent of expenses. Supply expenses have grown at an average annual rate of 4.3 percent from 2001 to 2013. General and Administrative General and administrative expenses accounted for around 5 percent of total expenses during the past ten year. These expenses consist of charges for insurance, advertising, travel, Chapter 5 5
membership, training and other such expenses that are paid by the Port general fund and then charged back to the marina line of business. These general administrative expenses have increased 13.0 percent per year. The largest components of this category are insurance and advertising, which have grown significantly during this period. Outside Services Outside services, which include hiring outside contractors for security, construction and other projects, accounted for 3 percent of total expenses during the past ten years. These expenses have grown annually at 8.0 percent from 2001 to 2013. Other Expenses All other expenses accounted for 4 percent of total expenses during the past ten years and have grown at 1.5 percent per year from 2001 to 2013. Financial Return As shown in Figure 5-3 and Table 5-6, the Marina line of business experienced a peak net income before depreciation of $4.0 million in 2008. However, net income before depreciation has ranged between $2.8 million and $3.0 million from 2010 through 2013. As capital projects were completed (North Marina, construction of P and Q docks in the South Marina, and development of the Craftsman District), depreciation increased from around $700 million per year (from 2001 to 2007) to $2.7 million in 2013., which is based upon the cost of the improvement over the life of the asset, represents a proxy for the cost to replace the assets when they reach the end of their useful life. As result of declining net income before depreciation and an increase in depreciation has caused a substantial decline in net income after depreciation, which declined from $3.1 million in 2008 to around $0.2 million in 2013. Chapter 5 6
$5.0 $4.5 $4.0 $3.5 $3.0 $2.5 $2.0 $1.5 $1.0 $0.5 $0.0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 $Millions 2010 2011 2012 2013 Income Income Figure 0-3. Marina Net Income and ($millions). Financial Comparisons per Lineal Foot The Port of Everett Marina is compared below with comparable marinas (Shilshole Bay, Edmonds, La Conner and Cap Sante marinas). The methodology for these comparisons included: Review of 2012 financial records for revenues associated with permanent moorage, Estimate of revenues from permanent revenue as a percent of total revenues, Application of the percent of permanent revenues to total revenues to salaries and benefits and to operating and maintenance costs, Estimation of expenses on a per lineal foot basis on both an inventory basis (which assumes 100 percent occupancy) as well as on actual occupancy. Assuming 100 Percent Occupancy Based upon the full inventory of moorage (ignoring vacancies), the Port of Everett Marina s average revenue per lineal foot was $88, which was $25 per lineal foot less than the other marinas. Operating costs were $49 per lineal foot, which was $1 per lineal foot (3 percent) higher than at comparable marinas (salaries and benefits at the Everett Marina were 26 percent higher but other expenses were 36 percent lower than at the other marinas). Net revenue per lineal foot at the Port of Everett Marina was estimated at $40 per lineal feet as compared with $65 per lineal foot at comparable marinas. Chapter 5 7
Assuming Actual Occupancy Taking into account actual slip occupancy, the Port of Everett Marina s average revenue per lineal foot was $111, which was $9 per lineal foot less than the other marinas. Operating costs were $61 per lineal foot, which was $11 per lineal foot (17 percent) higher than at comparable marinas (salaries and benefits at the Everett Marina were 37 percent higher and other expenses were 15 percent lower than at other marinas). Net revenue per lineal foot at the Port of Everett Marina was estimated at $50 per lineal feet as compared with $70 per lineal foot at comparable marinas. Table 0-1. Per Lineal Foot Revenues and Expenses for Permanent Moorage (2012). Estimates per lineal foot per Year Salary & Benefits Expenses Other O&M Total O&M Net Revenue Marina Revenue Based upon Inventory Everett $88 $30 $18 $49 $40 Others $113 $22 $25 $48 $65 Comparison Per Lineal Foot ($25) $8 ($7) $1 ($26) Percent - 28% 26% - 36% 3% - 65% Based upon Occupancy Everett $111 $38 $23 $61 $50 Others $120 $24 $27 $51 $70 Comparison Per Lineal Foot - $9 $14 - $4 $11 - $20 Percent - 8% 37% - 15% 17% - 40% Note: operating and maintenance costs exclude security allocations and capitalized maintenance. Source: BST Associates, using data from marinas The Port of Everett is a higher cost marina than comparable marinas at current occupancy rates. Financial Performance of Redevelopment Options This section presents a financial assessment of alternatives being considered for the Port of Everett Marina. Financial Return by Type of Moorage Table 5-2 presents a summary assessment of the costs and return on investment for various moorage slips by type (open, covered, boat house, floating home) and length. Chapter 5 8
Key assumptions in the analysis include: Asset lifetime is assumed to be 40 years. 95 percent occupancy throughout the 40 year period. Discount rate of 5 percent. Port of Everett operating costs grow at: o Salary and benefits grow at 2 percent (low) and 4 percent (high). o Other costs (including other O&M costs, allocated security and capitalized maintenance) grow at 1 percent (low) and 2 percent (high). Port of Everett moorage rates grow at between 1.0 percent (low) and 2 percent (high) per year: o Moorage rates are based the current unloaded rates (excludes environmental fees, leasehold taxes etc). o Floating homes based upon a Ladner Reach offering (an initial payment of $20,000 for a ten year lease and monthly payments of $500 for moorage and $300 for expenses or approximately $12,200 per year). Table 0-2. Feasibility Assessments of Options by Slip. Case 1 - Low Growth in Revenues & Expenses Net Present Value Return on Investment Slip Type Cost per Slip Occupancy Open<30' $40,500 ($3,771) ($23,461) - 109% - 158% 95% Open 31'- 40' $43,200 $6,979 ($15,027) - 84% - 135% 95% Open 40'- 50' $45,900 $31,966 $5,905-30% - 87% 95% Open>50' $51,300 $55,961 $24,109 9% - 53% 95% Boathouse $60,750 $64,128 $29,381 6% - 52% 95% Covered <40' $74,250 $28,124 ($15,309) - 62% - 121% 95% Covered >40' $81,000 $71,771 $22,545-11% - 72% 95% Port owned 40' boathouse $101,250 $50,405 ($7,507) - 50% - 107% 95% Floating Home $114,750 $155,406 $83,016 35% - 28% 95% Case 2 - High Growth in Revenues & Expenses Net Present Value Return on Investment Slip Type Cost per Slip Occupancy Open<30' $40,500 ($8,953) ($28,643) - 122% - 171% 95% Open 31'- 40' $43,200 $2,348 ($19,659) - 95% - 146% 95% Open 40'- 50' $45,900 $30,040 $3,979-35% - 91% 95% Open>50' $51,300 $52,936 $21,085 3% - 59% 95% Boathouse $60,750 $65,816 $31,069 8% - 49% 95% Covered <40' $74,250 $25,778 ($17,656) - 65% - 124% 95% Covered >40' $81,000 $74,717 $25,492-8% - 69% 95% Port owned 40' boathouse $101,250 $51,636 ($6,276) - 49% - 106% 95% Floating Home $114,750 $171,784 $99,394 50% - 13% 95% Source: BST Associates, based upon data provided by RMI and the Port of Everett Chapter 5 9
For example, an open moorage slip that is less than 30 feet in length has a construction cost of approximately $40,500, including soft costs. Assuming that the slip is rented at current Port of Everett moorage rates (growing at 1 percent per year over 40 years) with costs growing at 2% for salary and benefits and 1% for other operations and maintenance costs, the net present value of the moorage is minus ($3,771) before depreciation and minus ($23,461 ) after depreciation. 1 This slip would present a negative return on investment of (109%) before depreciation and (158%) after depreciation. In other words, at present given current rates and costs, this slip size does not result in a positive return on investment before or after depreciation. This is the case for other open and covered slips, as well, in that none of these slip types have a positive return on investment before or after depreciation. Only private boathouses and floating homes present a positive return on investment before depreciation. Development Options under Consideration The options under consideration, presented in Table 5-3, are designed to meet the replacement needs of the Port of Marina as existing facilities reach the end of their useful lives. These estimates are based upon the designs and cost estimates prepared by Reid Middleton Engineers (RMI) and include construction cost estimates plus an estimate of soft costs (i.e., sales tax, permit costs, design and construction administration costs) of 35 percent. Including all projects, full implementation of the development options would cost $75.6 million in 2013 dollars. Table 0-3. Development Options under Consideration (2013 $millions). Option Description Cost Estimate ($millions) Timing Phase 1 New docks east section of Central Marina $10.8 2015 South Marina Covered, Extend docks & Renovate Roofs, South Marina Covered Moorage Utility Upgrades, Demolish Seine Pier Dock included in Marina Recap cost for South Marina docks J to N (to be $14.0 2020 Phase 2 verified); Two new gatehouses and 80' gangways New North Breakwater, New South Breakwater, Fuel Pier, Guest Dock near Existing Conference Center, Replace wing walls on sides of $12.5 2025 Phase 3 conference center, For breakwaters and new fuel pier Phase 4 New open slips Central Marina Docks C through G $15.8 2030 Phase 5 New Open Slips South Marina Docks G & H $3.2 2035 New Open Slips South Marina, Two new gatehouses and 80' Phase 6 gangways $19.3 2040 Total Cost Estimate $75.6 1 This describes the low growth scenario for revenues and expenses. Chapter 5 10
Source: RMI Financial Performance of Redevelopment Options This section presents a financial assessment of alternatives being considered for the Port of Everett Marina. Phase 1 As described above, the Phase 1 project replaces the slips that will be eliminated next to the Everett Shipyard area. This phase is being permitted in 2014 and is scheduled for construction in 2015. The full cost estimate is $10.8 million but the analysis assumes that half of the cost of the transient moorage ($1 million) will come via state and federal grants (BIG Program and/or RCO programs), with the remainder funded by the Port of Everett. The net cost to the Port of Everett would be $9.8 million. Most of the slips that will be eliminated are currently used by boathouses as well as a limited number of recreational boats. The Phase 1 project is designed to provide slips for all of the affected boathouses as well as construction of 22 70- foot long open slips and 24 50- foot open slips. Table 5-4 presents a summary of the financial feasibility of Phase 1. This option provides a positive net present value (revenues less expenses) both before and after accounting for depreciation. However, the NPV of net income never exceeds the cost estimate, and as a result, the return on investment is negative under all but one of the detailed scenarios (the project breaks even before depreciation if costs increase at the low rate of growth, rates increase at the high growth and the forecast is at high growth assumptions). Chapter 5 11
Table 0-4. Financial Feasibility of Phase One ($millions). Low Cost Growth Scenario Net Present Value Return on Investment Rates Forecast Cost Estimate Low Low $9.8 $6.7 $2.9-32% - 70% Low Medium $9.8 $7.2 $3.4-26% - 65% Low High $9.8 $7.7 $3.9-21% - 60% High Low $9.8 $8.5 $4.7-13% - 52% High Medium $9.8 $9.2 $5.4-6% - 45% High High $9.8 $9.8 $6.0 0% - 39% High Cost Growth Scenario Net Present Value Return on Investment Rates Forecast Cost Estimate Low Low $9.8 $5.6 $1.8-43% - 81% Low Medium $9.8 $6.2 $2.4-37% - 76% Low High $9.8 $6.6 $2.8-32% - 71% High Low $9.8 $7.5 $3.7-24% - 62% High Medium $9.8 $8.1 $4.3-17% - 56% High High $9.8 $8.7 $4.9-11% - 50% Source: BST Associates using inputs from RMI and Port of Everett The financial feasibility of this project would be improved if the 22 70- foot slips were eliminated from the project. All Phases Table5-5 presents a summary of the financial performance of all of the options under consideration for the Port of Everett Marina (Phase 1 through 6). None of the options generate enough net income to cover the port funding requirements after depreciation. Under the low cost growth assumptions, the NPV of estimated cash flows is positive under all sub- options; under the high cost assumptions, NPV is positive under the certain assumptions (high growth increase for rates and medium and high boat forecasts). None of the scenarios generates sufficient cash flow to cover cost estimates. As a result, the return on investment for all scenarios is negative. Chapter 5 12
Table 0-5. Financial Feasibility of All Phases ($millions). Low Cost Growth Scenario Net Present Value Return on Investment Rates Forecast Cost Estimate Low Low $74.6 $12.1 ($35.8) - 84% - 148% Low Medium $74.6 $20.7 ($27.2) - 72% - 136% Low High $74.6 $23.3 ($24.5) - 69% - 133% High Low $74.6 $30.2 ($17.7) - 60% - 124% High Medium $74.6 $40.7 ($7.2) - 45% - 110% High High $74.6 $43.9 ($3.9) - 41% - 105% High Cost Growth Scenario Net Present Value Return on Investment Rates Forecast Cost Estimate Low Low $74.6 ($18.3) ($66.3) - 124% - 189% Low Medium $74.6 ($9.7) ($57.7) - 113% - 177% Low High $74.6 ($7.1) ($55.1) - 109% - 174% High Low $74.6 ($0.2) ($48.2) - 100% - 165% High Medium $74.6 $10.3 ($37.7) - 86% - 151% High High $74.6 $13.5 ($34.5) - 82% - 146% Source: BST Associates using inputs from RMI and Port of Everett Recommendations & Policy Implications The bottom- line indicates that the Marina is not generating sufficient net revenue to pay for significant major capital projects. This is due to the following factors. Revenue Demand is soft at present and through the foreseeable future (i.e., participation by GenXers and Millennials is uncertain). The Port has a limited ability to raise rates because there are a large number of vacant slips at Everett and other competing marinas. Revenues are likely to be soft due to these two factors. Costs The Port of Everett Marina is not performing as well as peer marinas. It is slightly more expensive than most of its peers on an inventory basis (assumes 100 percent occupancy) but is significantly higher on an actual basis (based on occupied slips). Operating and maintenance Chapter 5 13
cost are growing more rapidly than revenues, which further reduces net income for capital projects. Reducing operating and maintenance costs appears to be the best means to improving the Marina s cash flow. Financial Considerations Construction costs for redevelopment phases are relatively high and cannot be covered by expected cash flow. Efforts should be undertaken to evaluate lower cost construction options. The Port should closely review the financial return of its proposed redevelopment options because the margins are very thin. The Port may choose to re- evaluate whether a positive return on investment is required on marina assets after depreciation. Strategic Policy Considerations Under these conditions, the Port of Everett should re- evaluate plans to redevelop the marina, focusing on several key objectives: The Port should consider elimination of redundant slips, removal of covered moorage (where appropriate) and reductions of costs (where possible). Focus on maximizing the use of existing facilities by eliminating higher cost facilities and improving occupancy at the best facilities, Seek new markets, if they meet financial objectives such as floating homes and house barges, Expand market share without price competition (if possible), Weed out inferior products but meet the needs of existing tenants, o o Eliminate small slips but provide for power boat tenants in upland storage. Given the Port s higher operating costs, these facilities may be better suited for private operation. Sailboat tenants represent approximately half of the current tenants of small slips and will continue to require wet moorage slips. Increase the requirements for justification of capital expenditures, and Maximize use of grants and partnerships. Chapter 5 14
CAGR Expenses 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2001-13 2001-08 2009-13 Revenues Moorage Permanent Moorage $3,558 $3,728 $4,135 $4,578 $4,947 $5,190 $5,951 $6,444 $6,079 $5,515 $5,789 $5,712 $5,721 4.0% 8.9% - 1.5% Other $600 $596 $628 $599 $631 $625 $665 $755 $736 $730 $799 $824 $878 3.2% 3.3% 4.5% Total $4,157 $4,324 $4,764 $5,177 $5,578 $5,815 $6,616 $7,199 $6,815 $6,244 $6,589 $6,536 $6,599 3.9% 8.2% - 0.8% Travelift $262 $251 $305 $306 $295 $329 $313 $496 $489 $554 $637 $695 $852 10.3% 9.6% 14.9% Fuel Dock $194 $207 $210 $202 $199 $203 $188 $268 $284 $244 $221 $203 $228 1.4% 4.7% - 5.3% Total $4,613 $4,781 $5,279 $5,686 $6,073 $6,347 $7,116 $7,963 $7,588 $7,042 $7,447 $7,433 $7,679 4.3% 8.1% 0.3% Operating & Maintenance Expenses Salaries $1,374 $1,442 $1,429 $1,478 $1,566 $1,581 $1,697 $1,483 $1,506 $1,605 $1,669 $1,774 $1,881 2.7% 1.1% 5.7% Benefits $408 $528 $443 $510 $556 $577 $644 $589 $607 $645 $749 $774 $843 6.2% 5.4% 8.6% Utilities $564 $466 $495 $521 $449 $491 $525 $554 $604 $546 $747 $729 $764 2.6% - 0.2% 6.1% Security Allocation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $509 $508 $498 $520 $338 $371 NM NM - 7.6% Supplies $199 $164 $167 $214 $237 $262 $238 $299 $206 $275 $332 $298 $330 4.3% 6.0% 12.5% General & Administrative $64 $86 $110 $120 $123 $114 $137 $157 $195 $195 $264 $254 $275 13.0% 13.7% 9.0% Outside Services $63 $51 $81 $58 $102 $89 $154 $133 $142 $134 $137 $95 $157 8.0% 11.4% 2.5% Other $129 $85 $97 $84 $80 $391 $102 $143 $195 $135 $175 $178 $154 1.5% 1.4% - 5.8% Total $2,801 $2,821 $2,822 $2,985 $3,112 $3,504 $3,498 $3,868 $3,963 $4,032 $4,594 $4,441 $4,776 4.5% 4.7% 4.8% Income $1,812 $1,960 $2,457 $2,700 $2,961 $2,844 $3,619 $4,096 $3,625 $3,010 $2,853 $2,992 $2,903 4.0% 12.4% - 5.4% $702 $707 $718 $736 $727 $709 $714 $923 $995 $1,974 $2,520 $2,535 $2,731 12.0% 4.0% 28.7% Income $1,110 $1,253 $1,739 $1,964 $2,234 $2,135 $2,905 $3,173 $2,630 $1,036 $332 $457 $172-14.4% 16.2% - 49.5% vlf\h:\doc\24wf\2013\012 port of everett master plan phase ii\reports\poe marina master plan draft (4-18- 14)\chapter 5 financial analysis.docx\smk Chapter 5 15 Table 0-6. Port of Everett Marina Financial Trends ($1,000s). Note: CAGR refers to compound annual growth rate, which is reported in current year values (unadjusted for inflation) Source: Port of Everett