Click here to return to the Home Page



Submitted By:


575 Broad Hollow Road, Melville, New York 11747


Donald A. Sioss, P.E., Vice President, ext. 1300

(516) 756-8000 l Fax: 516-694-4122




Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C. (H2M) has been retained by the Inc. Village of Saltaire to investigate the condition of the Village-owned docks in the Saltaire Marina on Fire Island. As part of this investigation, H2M is to evaluate the structural capacity of components of the existing docks and make recommendations for rehabilitation and repairs.

1.1 Background

The Saltaire Marina is located within the Great South Bay on the northern border of Saltaire on Fire Island, New York as shown in Figure 1. The docks are currently owned and maintained by the Inc. Village of Saltaire and are the only public docks in the Village. A ferry service, water taxis and private boats utilize the docks. Additionally, the main dock is used as a freight dock and for garbage pick-up.

The marina consists of the main dock north of Broadway and the west dock approximately 300 feet to the west. A recent failure of a portion of the dock has prompted this investigation with regard to the structural capabilities and remaining useful life.

There have been recent repairs to the dock including a complete reconstruction of one of the bridged openings at the northeast corner of the main dock following a structural failure. Additional repairs have included re-facing wood sheeting and replacement of deck boards.

The Inc. Village of Saltaire has expressed a concern that portions of the existing wood dock may not be capable of supporting vehicular and pedestrian loads that are required by the Village code. Therefore, a structural evaluation of the decking and supports was completed as part of this report. A detailed inspection of the various components was completed to determine if the structural supports were suitable. An existing condition survey was performed, physical measurements were taken and drawings prepared detailing the general construction of both docks.

1.2 Methodology

Various locations of the main and west docks were accessed and inspected with physical dimensions of structural elements, sizes and locations recorded. A structural analysis was performed on typical individual structural elements to determine if the dock structures could adequately support the live load requirements set forth in the Inc. Village of Saltaire Building Code. The load furnished by the Village for analysis was a vehicle weight of 7,100 pounds with a load capacity of 1,500 pounds, for a total weight at 8,600 pounds.

For the purpose of this analysis, we assumed a two-axle vehicle having a 60 percent/40 percent split load distribution with 60 percent acting on the front axle. In addition, we added the 1,500 pound load to this axle (assuming it might act as a bucket load of a front-end loader) yielding a total weight per tire equal to 2,880 pounds. This point load value was utilized in analyzing the structural components of the dock. We also analyzed the components for a uniformly distributed live load of 100 pounds per square foot (lbs/sf). This is a conservative value for a live load for small to medium sized docks for a mixed use. A copy of our engineering calculations is included in Appendix B.

Alternate construction materials for the required repairs have been evaluated as part of this report in an attempt to maximize the useful life of the docks with respect to cost-effectiveness. There are certainly materials that could last longer than wood, which is currently in place, but they are more costly. A comparison will be made between the initial construction cost and the anticipated useful life of the project in order to determine the material best suited for the Village’s needs. We propose that the final rehabilitation project should have a useful life of at least 15 to 20 years.


2.1 General

The main dock is of variable width and dimensions and extends approximately 350 feet into the Great South Bay. There is also a four-foot wide ancillary dock that extends westerly into the marina from the main dock that is used for access to private boat slips. This ancillary dock is of open pile type construction. The west dock is approximately 10 feet wide and 300 feet long and provides access to private boat slips. Both the main dock and the west dock are of solid fill type construction. A map of the marina is included in Appendix A.

Both the main dock and west dock are constructed almost entirely of treated wood. Some decking appears to be untreated. The condition of the decking varies greatly, as there are numerous deck boards that have been recently replaced. There are also many boards that will need to be replaced in the near future. The Village reportedly replaces deck boards on an as-needed basis.

There are two bridged openings on the main dock. One is located at the southern end of the dock and the other at the northern end. The northern bridged opening was recently required to be rebuilt due to failure. It was this failure that prompted a further evaluation of the dock.

The inspection of the docks was completed with the assistance of Village personnel who removed portions of the decking to allow access to the dock supports and a visible inspection of interior components. General condition of structural members was observed and physical dimensions at support members were recorded.

Appendix A shows typical cross sections at various locations of the existing docks and a site plan of the marina.

At the western end of the main dock, there is a small building set on piles. The piles and support structure for the building operate independent of the piles and support structure for the dock.

2.2 Sheeting, Tie Rods and Walers

With the exception of the small ancillary dock extending from the main dock into the marina and a small portion of the main dock, the entire dock system is enclosed by 3-inch by 10-inch tongue and groove sheeting. A top waler was visible at all locations where we performed inspections of the dock interior. Since the docks are of solid fill type construction, bottom walers were not visible in many cases. The top walers that were exposed during our inspection are in good condition. Some of the sheeting is also in good condition, although these are likely the areas that the Village has recently replaced. There are however numerous sections of the sheeting that are in poor condition and have allowed the sand inside to seep from the dock. Additionally, there are several locations where multiple layers of sheeting have been installed. In such cases, the outermost layer of sheeting is not attached directly to the walers, but rather the underlying sheeting. It is likely that the underlying sheeting is in poor condition itself since it had been resurfaced. This causes some concern as deteriorating underlying layers of sheeting are supporting the outermost layer of sheeting. This is typical in both the main dock and the west dock.

Typical sheeting failures occur between the high and low water elevations. In addition to the evidence of failure on the outermost layers of sheeting, where multiple layers of sheeting exist, it is assumed that the underlying sheets have failed, otherwise it would not have been resheeted. The condition of the underlying sheets is expected to be worse along the interior layers of sheeting as they are the oldest and have been deteriorating longest. The lower waler is also typically installed at the low water elevation. Unfortunately, this is also where the most deterioration of the wood is present. This would indicate that the connection between the sheeting and the waler is likely inadequate based on the condition of the outermost layer of sheeting.

The sheeting is held in place with a series of tie rods. Tie rods visible during our inspection were found to be in good condition.

2.3 Fill Material

The east and west docks of the Saltaire Marina are of solid fill type construction. These docks are filled with sand, which is likely dredged material from within the confines of the marina. This fill material within the docks provides resistance to horizontal forces such as wave action, boat impacts and ice. This fill material is typically placed to approximately the bottom elevation of the stringers used to support the decking. The fill material on these docks was found to be approximately one to three feet below this elevation.

Assuming that the fill was originally installed to the underside of the stringers, as proper construction would dictate, this would indicate loss of fill material since the last rehabilitation of the docks. This loss of material is typically through the openings that develop in the sheeting. Since there are multiple layers of sheeting, it is not known whether this loss of fill material is through current holes in the outermost layer of sheeting or if it was lost through holes in the previous layers of sheeting and never replaced. Regardless, additional fill will need to be placed within the solid fill docks in order for the structural integrity to be maintained.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) will not permit dredging within the Great South Bay. They do however permit dredging within the confines of marinas when it can be considered maintenance dredging. Since fill material from the solid fill docks has likely leaked into the marina through the sheeting, any dredging to be performed could be considered maintenance dredging and would therefore likely be permitted by NYSDEC.

2.4 Piles

The decking on both the main and west docks is supported by a series of piles. There are also perimeter piles used for mooring of boats. The perimeter piles appear to be in good serviceable condition and no rotting was evident. These piles provide the lateral support of the dock and have been driven into the bay bottom providing firm support of the structure. Our inspection revealed that many of the interior piles have settled as much as six (6) inches, leaving a gap between the top of pile and bottom girder. Previous attempts have been made to offset this settlement by using wood blocking as shims between the piles and the girders. Some of these shimmed piles have also settled further. In addition, the types and sizes of the interior piles varied. The piles observed ranged from 3-inch by 10-inch sheathing, 6-inch by 6-inch and 8-inch by 8-inch CCA posts, and round (tree trunk) piles. It is presumed that these piles have been driven into the sand fill of the dock and not driven into the natural sand of the bay. As the sand still erodes out from the dock, the piles move and settle with the changing sand support. Many piles are not supporting anything at all due to the continual settlement and we estimate that the decking is completely unsupported for approximately 30 to 40 percent of the total area. This condition is most evident on the west dock where almost all of the interior piles have settled to the point where they do not support the decking. In the west dock, the exterior sheeting and walers provide almost all the support for the decking. This is insufficient and potentially dangerous. Remediation work should be performed within the next year.

A detailed structural analysis of the existing piles cannot be performed without knowledge of the tip sizes, length and embedment. The piles that are shimmed will likely continue to settle since they will continue to be loaded. The piles that do not support the deck at all will likely not continue to settle since they are not loaded. In either event, the existing piles do not appear to be capable of supporting a level deck or the imposed structural loads. All piles will need to be replaced, especially if the docks are to support vehicular traffic.

2.5 Decking, Joists and Girders

The decking of the main and west docks consists of nominal 2-inch by 4-inch lumber, apparently Douglas Fir. Most of the decking is physically sound, but much of it is well worn from repeated use. There are signs of new pieces of decking installed at various locations along the dock. Reportedly, the Village has been replacing individual deck boards on an as-needed basis and therefore, the age of the decking can not be determined. At several locations there are large openings between the deck boards that may present a hazard to pedestrians.

The deck material is supported on timber joists with spans that ranged from 1’-4" to 2’-6" throughout the entire dock. An analysis was performed using 1’4", 2’-0" and 2’-6" spans. The analysis revealed that the 2-inch thick decking is not adequate to support the 8,600 pound design load for any of these spans using the vehicle weight given. It is however adequate to support the 100 lbs/sf live load for all spans.

Three inch thick decking is commonly used for commercial dock applications and would be recommended for these docks. Therefore, we analyzed 3-inch decking with these same spans, assuming that the existing decking was replaced while utilizing the existing joists and girders. We found that 3-inch decking could adequately support the 8,600 pound design load at a one foot/four inch span but not at larger spans. Therefore, most of the joists and girders would need to be replaced as well.

It appears that the decking on the main dock has been constructed or repaired in several phases utilizing various types of construction. Joist sizes vary as well as the spans, and on center spacing. A few of the joists were analyzed for uniform live load and the required vehicle (point) load conditions.

All the joists analyzed could adequately support a live load of 100 pound per square foot and most could support the vehicle load. However, the 3"x6" joists located at the north end of the main dock and the 2"x10" joists on the north sluiceway could not adequately support the vehicle design load.

The girders observed all appeared to be in sound structural condition at the time of our inspection. The on center spacing and size of the girders varied greatly throughout the dock. Like the joists, the girders were analyzed under two load conditions, a uniform load of 100 lbs/sf on the deck surface, and a 2,880 pound point load situated at the mid-span of the girder. Since the girders run perpendicular to the traffic path at the north driveway these were analyzed with two point loads at 2,880 pounds at seven feet apart.

Our analysis revealed that the girders can support a uniform load of 100 lbs/sf or the point load of the vehicle. However, the girders located at the recently rebuilt sluiceway could not adequately support the vehicle point load.

The joists supporting the decking appear to be in good condition. (Note: our inspection of the joists was limited to the areas immediately adjacent to the locations where decking had been removed by Village personnel.) The solid fill nature of the dock prevented inspection much beyond these areas. Minimal signs of deterioration were evident at any of the locations that were inspected. Very little decay was observed on the joists. However, even though the decking and joists are in good condition, they will need to be removed to facilitate any pile replacement. In addition, joist spacing must be modified to adequately support the code required design loads.


Based on the current Village code requirements, the life expectancy of both docks in their current condition is zero since the piles and decking can not support the 8,600 pound load. If all the settled piles were capped with additional shims, the decking would meet code required design loads for pedestrian use for an additional two to four years for both the main and west dock. Unfortunately, even the shimmed piles would likely settle further when subjected to vehicular loads. Therefore, all piles need to be replaced within the next year since they do not properly support the required loads.

The condition of the sheeting varies considerably. Approximately one-third of the sheeting has failed and needs to be replaced immediately. The remainder has a life expectancy of four to five years. However, it would be more feasible and cost effective to replace all components at once.


Of all the components to be replaced, only the sheeting and the decking have options to use materials other than wood. Decking can be constructed of wood or plastic while the options for sheeting include wood, steel and vinyl. Each material has its own advantages and disadvantages such as cost and added life expectancy. Therefore, each material was examined so that the most cost-effective material, which meets the needs of the Inc. Village of Saltaire can be recommended.

4.1 Sheeting

There are several materials that can be considered for use as sheet piling to replace the existing sheeting, including wood, steel and vinyl. Wood and steel have traditionally been the most common materials used for sheet piling. However, vinyl sheet piling has now become more prevalent.

4.1.1 Wood Sheet Piling

Wood sheet piling is the most widely used material for marine bulkheads and docks since it is readily available and initially the least expensive of the sheeting options. The biggest drawback is life expectancy. Regardless of the pressure treatment used, wood still does not last as long as either steel or vinyl. Since the pressure treatment does not penetrate the heartwood as well as the sapwood, inevitably there are portions of the sheeting that would not be sufficiently treated.

Recently, the Southern Pine Inspection Bureau and the American Wood Preservers Association have established a new grade of southern yellow pine to combat this problem. It is called "Marine Grade," and includes lumber that is free from heartwood. This allows the CCA treatment to penetrate the lumber more thoroughly and provide better protection. A drawback to its use is that it is not kept in stock and there could be some delay in obtaining the material. Additionally, its cost is approximately twice that of normal CCA treated lumber. The cost of using Marine Grade lumber on this project is estimated to be comparable to steel. Coupling this with the fact that the life expectancy would still not equal that of steel, we have not further considered the use of Marine Grade lumber for this project.

New wood sheeting will need to be 3-inch by 10-inch tongue and groove treated Southern Pine. Treatment would be with CCA at a retention of 2.5 pounds per cubic foot (recommended retention by the American Wood Preservers Association for Southern Pine that is to be in contact with salt water). The expected useful service life of normal (not Marine Grade) Southern Pine treated with CCA and a retention of 2.5 pounds per cubic foot is estimated to be 15 to 20 years.

If wood sheet piling is the selected alternative, careful attention needs to be paid to the installation. The wood must be treated properly both during production and in the field. Field cut members will need to be treated with an appropriate wood preservative to prevent damage caused by marine borers.

4.1.2 Steel Sheet Piling

Steel sheeting is also a commonly used material for bulkheads, although not as widely used as wood. Its biggest advantage over wood is that properly designed steel sheet piling can last 45 to 50 years. Initially, however, it is more costly than wood. The steel can be attached to the piles with timber walers, much in the same manner as wood. The steel sheeting members are significantly thicker than wood, but since replacement of the existing sheeting is recommended, the outer face of the steel sheeting could be installed to match the current face of the wood sheeting.

4.1.3 Vinyl Sheet Piling

Although there have been several generations of plastic and vinyl sheeting developed over the years, vinyl sheet piling remains relatively new to the industry. The biggest problem with using vinyl as a sheeting material is that it possesses a low flexural strength. It requires a more substantial support system than steel when used as a retaining wall or bulkhead. In this particular case, the dock needs to support fill and withstand the forces of waves, ice and boats. Therefore, the low flexural strength is somewhat of a disadvantage as a more elaborate support system would be required. The manufacturers of the vinyl sheeting recommend the use of both an interior and an exterior waler system due to the lack of resistance of vinyl to puncture. Without the exterior waler, the sheeting would likely tear at the points of connection and cause the sheeting to separate from the dock. Unfortunately, the need for the exterior walers adds to the cost and causes another concern. Exterior walers will increase the potential for damage to boats that use the dock. Wave action and tidal fluctuations could cause boats to catch under the walers. In order to prevent this, the installation of 2-inch face sheeting is recommended from the deck to the low water elevation. This, of course, also adds additional cost to the project.

The expected useful life of the vinyl sheeting is estimated to be 45 to 50 years. However, there are still some wood components that would likely need to be replaced sooner. The face sheeting and the walers would still have a life expectancy of only 15 to 20 years. Since the face sheeting would not be a structural member, it could be replaced without performing major reconstruction of the entire dock.

4.2 Decking

4.2.1 Wood Decking

Wood decking is the most commonly used material. The standard wood decking materials are pressure treated southern yellow pine, cedar and untreated Douglas Fir. Cedar decking can handle the marine environment in Saltaire. Unfortunately, cedar is too soft of a wood for commercial use and is not recommended for this dock. The untreated Douglas Fir is a good choice for residential decking. However, since it is not treated, it would not last in the marine environment of Saltaire, and is likewise, not recommended. The pressure treated southern yellow pine would last at least 10 years in a marine environment. The decking should not be as heavily treated as piles or other members since the treatment material (CCA) is somewhat toxic if it penetrates the skin. Since there is a strong likelihood that individuals may not be wearing shoes while using this dock, a lower concentration of CCA is recommended. This would typically be 0.40 pounds of CCA per cubic foot.

4.2.2 Plastic Decking

Another decking material option is plastic. There are many types of plastic decking available, but the most common and likely one of the highest qualities available is the plastic lumber manufactured by Trex. The Trex is constructed of a wood and plastic composite. It is available in standard decking sizes and is as easy to work with as wood. It is readily available and has the appearance of wood. The slip resistance is equivalent to wood when dry and higher than wood when wet. The reported life expectancy of the Trex is anticipated to be equivalent to pressure treated lumber (15 to 20 years). In reality, the material has barely been on the market for that period of time and its life expectancy could potentially be longer. History of the use of this material for heavy traffic and commercial use has not been well documented. A drawback to this material is its cost. It is approximately 50 percent more costly than southern yellow pine.

4.3 Reuse of Existing Materials

Several components of the existing docks are in good condition, but are either insufficiently sized or supported. If extreme care is taken during removal, some of the members could be salvaged. However, there is a widespread variation in the condition of individual components. Each component would need to be examined individually as it is removed and a determination made as to its condition and whether or not it would be suitable for use in the new construction. It would be very difficult to bid a project in this manner, and it would also likely cost the Village more than if only new components were used. The contractor would be required to take additional time to separate pieces. Additionally, the condition of some members could be questionable. Pieces of lumber that may appear structurally sound may in fact contain small cracks that would decrease its strength. Some consideration could be made for the Village to salvage some of the material themselves to use for emergency repairs. However, this will require storage space, which may not be available. Therefore, on this particular project, salvaging existing materials is not recommended.


Since the marina is the only link between Saltaire and the mainland, the entire marina can never be completely out of service. During construction, daily access for ferry service and freight must be maintained. Due to the extent of reconstruction that will be required to the docks, it is virtually impossible to undertake the work during the summer. The work will need to be completed during the off season, when the ferry service is reduced, there are no boats in the mooring slips and there is significantly less activity on and around the dock.

Since the entire project consists of two separate docks, it is conceivable to reconstruct each dock at separate times. In fact, the work could be broken down into more phases, but this would only increase the overall project cost. There are fixed mobilization costs for each construction project that would be incurred regardless of the size of the project. Therefore, it is recommended that the reconstruction of the entire marina be completed in the least number of contracts as possible. The most number of contracts that we recommend is two. This would include reconstructing the main dock and west dock separately. This will permit one dock to remain in service at all times. If the Village elects to undertake the reconstruction of both docks in one contract, we recommend that the main dock be reconstructed first. In the event that there are delays in construction, this will reduce the possibility of service disruptions to the ferry, freight and garbage disposal in the early spring when activity on the main dock increases. In the unfortunate event that construction is not completed by the spring, it would be less of a disadvantage to have the west dock under construction rather than the main dock.

During reconstruction of the main dock, it is unlikely that all access to Saltaire could be attained from the west dock. Shallow water depths do not permit the ferry to moor adjacent to the west dock. Therefore, some level of service will need to be maintained from the main dock for the duration of construction. Since the end of the main dock is typically used for ferry service and freight, other portions will need to be utilized when this portion of the dock is reconstructed. During the winter there are no boats moored in the Marina, leaving other portions of the main dock available to the ferry and freight boats. The deeper parts of the marina will need to be used for such service. This includes the inside portion of the marina north of the bridged opening. Once the end of the main dock is reconstructed, normal ferry and freight service could be restored while the southern portion of the main dock is completed.

The southern portion of the main dock is sufficiently sized so that half of the dock could remain in service while the other half is under construction. This will allow vehicles to access the end of the main dock while it is still under construction. Additionally, the existing decking on the main dock utilizes two separate support systems for the decking. The different directions of the deck boards delineate the separate support systems. The decking on the center section of the dock runs parallel to the dock while the sides run perpendicular. Each of these sections are supported independently of each other and could be reconstructed separately.

The ancillary dock should be completed in conjunction with the main dock. It will be more cost effective to complete the ancillary dock when the main dock is reconstructed since the contractors equipment will be mobilized at that location.

In summary the sequence of reconstruction should be completed as follows:

  1. Remove mooring piles and prepare an area on inside portion of main dock for ferry and freight access.
  2. Reconstruct end of main dock in vicinity of building.
  3. Reconstruct eastern half of main dock south of bridged opening while maintaining western half of main dock as access to the newly reconstructed portion of the main dock.
  4. Reconstruct western half of main dock south of bridged opening. At this time, the eastern half will be complete and will permit access to the end of the dock.
  5. Reconstruct the ancillary open pile dock.
  6. Reconstruct the west dock.

A negative aspect to phasing this work is that it increases the duration of construction. It also increases the construction cost. Different types of crews and equipment will need to be mobilized for each phase. There is a cost each time a crew or equipment is mobilized. Much of this mobilization cost could be avoided if all similar construction (i.e. demolition, pile driving, sheeting, decking, etc.) could be completed at once rather than in stages. Even if equipment is mobilized once and left on site for the entire duration of the project, it will be idle at times when it could be working productively for the contractor elsewhere. Unfortunately the need for the Village to keep the docks in service during construction makes this option unavoidable. Phasing shall be re-evaluated during the design phase based on the requirements of the Village.


The following prices include complete project reconstruction costs (inclusive of anticipated engineering services) with the various sheeting materials options:


Wood decking

Plastic decking

Wood sheet piling



Steel sheet piling



Vinyl sheet piling



A breakdown of each of these costs is included in Tables 1, 2 and 3 at the end of this report.

While the wood and steel sheeting have life expectancies of 15 to 20 and 45 to 50 years respectively, the remaining components of the dock do not necessarily have the same life expectancy. The decking and walers are to be constructed of wood and will have a life expectancy of 15 to 20 years, regardless of the sheeting material used. Vinyl sheeting is approximately five percent less costly than steel, but since replacement of face sheeting and exterior walers is expected at least twice over its expected service life, it becomes a more costly option than steel over the 45 to 50 year life span of steel. It has therefore, not been considered further.

In order to examine the cost-effectiveness of wood and steel sheeting, the costs for the sheeting alone should be compared. All other components would need to be replaced as often with either wood or steel sheeting. As indicated in Table 1, the cost for the wood sheeting is $360,000 and the steel sheeting is $650,000. During the life of the steel sheeting, we have estimated that the wood sheeting will need to be replaced twice (after 15 years and 30 years). Assuming an inflation rate of two percent and an interest rate of 4.5 percent, we have determined the present worth of each material. The cost of replacing the sheeting at 15 and 30 years takes into account the cost for removing the existing sheeting. The present worth of each material is summarized below.

Sheeting Material

Sheeting Life Expectancy


Sheeting Cost

Present Worth

of Sheeting


15 years




45 years



* Includes removal and replacement of existing sheeting after 15 and 30 years


Considering the condition of the existing sheeting and the fact that there are numerous layers of sheeting currently in place, the existing sheeting should be replaced. The sheeting can not be refaced, as there is already an excessive number of sheeting layers. An additional layer will not be able to be properly secured to the walers, as it would be detrimental to the integrity of the dock.

The existing decking will need to be removed in order to facilitate the removal and replacement of the support piles. The support piles will need to be removed and replaced with new piles of sufficient length to support the decking and imposed loads.

While the initial cost of installing wood is less than steel, the use of steel sheeting will be more cost-effective over the next 45 years. This however, depends on an inflation rate of only two percent. If the above comparison is made using higher inflation rates, the present worth of wood would obviously be even higher. Therefore, we recommend that the Village consider the use of steel sheeting as the most cost-effective product over the next 45 years. In the event that funding for this project does not permit the use of steel sheeting, the use of wood sheeting will still provide a satisfactory product for 15 to 20 years provided that the wood is properly treated and the sheeting and support members are properly installed.


Because the reconstruction of this dock will be within the Great South Bay, several permits would be required from various agencies. A tidal wetlands permit will be required from the NYSDEC. A Nationwide permit will also be required from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). Additionally, the ACOE will not issue their permit until the New York State Department of State (DOS) takes no exception to the project. Therefore, submission of plans to the DOS is required as well.

We anticipate that all permits can be obtained for this work within three months of submission of plans.

Incorporated Village of Saltaire
Rehabilitation of the Saltaire Marina
    West Dock   Main Dock   Combined
    Wood Decking Plastic Decking   Wood Decking Plastic Decking   Wood Decking Plastic Decking
Demolition   $ 10,000 $ 10,000   $ 40,000 $ 40,000   $ 50,000 $ 50,000
New piles   $ 10,000 $ 10,000   $ 50,000 $ 50,000   $ 60,000 $ 60,000
New wood sheeting   $ 155,000 $ 155,000   $ 205,000 $ 205,000   $ 360,000 $ 360,000
Dredging   $ 5,000 $ 5,000   $ 25,000 $ 25,000   $ 30,000 $ 30,000
New walers   $ 40,000 $ 40,000   $ 50,000 $ 50,000   $ 90,000 $ 90,000
New tie rods   $ 5,000 $ 5,000   $ 25,000 $ 25,000   $ 30,000 $ 30,000
New decking   $ 35,000 $ 50,000   $ 165,000 $ 250,000   $ 200,000 $ 300,000
Contingencies   $ 15,000 $ 15,000   $ 65,000 $ 65,000   $ 80,000 $ 80,000
General conditions,bonds,insurance   $ 15,000 $ 15,000   $ 85,000 $ 85,000   $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Construction Subtotal   $ 290,000 $ 305,000   $ 710,000 $ 795,000   $ 1,000,000 $ 1,100,000
Engineering**               $ 120,000 $ 120,000
Project Total               $ 1,120,000 $ 1,220,000
**Includes design, permitting, bidding, construction administration and construction observation              
Incorporated Village of Saltaire
Rehabilitation of the Saltaire Marina
    West Dock   Main Dock   Combined
    Wood Decking Plastic Decking   Wood Decking Plastic Decking   Wood Decking Plastic Decking
Demolition   $ 10,000 $ 10,000   $ 40,000 $ 40,000   $ 50,000 $ 50,000
New piles   $ 10,000 $ 10,000   $ 50,000 $ 50,000   $ 60,000 $ 60,000
New steel sheeting   $ 280,000 $ 280,000   $ 370,000 $ 370,000   $ 650,000 $ 650,000
Dredging   $ 5,000 $ 5,000   $ 25,000 $ 25,000   $ 30,000 $ 30,000
New walers   $ 40,000 $ 40,000   $ 50,000 $ 50,000   $ 90,000 $ 90,000
New tie rods   $ 5,000 $ 5,000   $ 25,000 $ 25,000   $ 30,000 $ 30,000
New decking   $ 35,000 $ 50,000   $ 165,000 $ 250,000   $ 200,000 $ 300,000
Contingencies   $ 20,000 $ 20,000   $ 70,000 $ 70,000   $ 90,000 $ 90,000
General conditions,bonds,insurance   $ 15,000 $ 15,000   $ 85,000 $ 85,000   $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Construction Subtotal   $ 420,000 $ 435,000   $ 880,000 $ 965,000   $ 1,300,000 $ 1,400,000
Engineering**               $ 120,000 $ 120,000
Project Total               $ 1,420,000 $ 1,520,000
** Includes design, permitting, bidding, construction administration and construction observation              
Incorporated Village of Saltaire
Rehabilitation of the Saltaire Marina
    West Dock   Main Dock   Combined
    Wood Decking Plastic Decking   Wood Decking Plastic Decking   Wood Decking Plastic Decking
Demolition   $ 10,000 $ 10,000   $ 40,000 $ 40,000   $ 50,000 $ 50,000
New piles   $ 10,000 $ 10,000   $ 50,000 $ 50,000   $ 60,000 $ 60,000
New vinyl sheeting   $ 210,000 $ 210,000   $ 280,000 $ 280,000   $ 490,000 $ 490,000
Dredging   $ 5,000 $ 5,000   $ 25,000 $ 25,000   $ 30,000 $ 30,000
New walers   $ 40,000 $ 40,000   $ 50,000 $ 50,000   $ 90,000 $ 90,000
New tie rods   $ 5,000 $ 5,000   $ 25,000 $ 25,000   $ 30,000 $ 30,000
New decking   $ 35,000 $ 50,000   $ 165,000 $ 250,000   $ 200,000 $ 300,000
New face sheeting   $ 20,000 $ 20,000   $ 30,000 $ 30,000   $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Contingencies   $ 20,000 $ 20,000   $ 70,000 $ 70,000   $ 90,000 $ 90,000
General conditions,bonds,insurance   $ 15,000 $ 15,000   $ 85,000 $ 85,000   $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Construction Subtotal   $ 370,000 $ 385,000   $ 820,000 $ 905,000   $ 1,190,000 $ 1,290,000
Engineering**               $ 120,000 $ 120,000
Project Total               $ 1,310,000 $ 1,410,000
** Includes design, permitting, bidding, construction administration and construction observation