Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Port Commission reviews revised 10‑year capital plan, flags seawall and America’s Cup costs
Summary
Port staff presented a revised 2012–2021 capital plan that shifts to a two‑year planning cycle, emphasizes scored project prioritization and new funding mixes including PUC assistance and federal grants; commissioners heard seawall repair could require roughly $40 million from the city/port if a $120 million estimate holds.
Daley Dunham, of the Port’s Special Projects Group, on Tuesday presented the Port Commission with an updated 10‑year capital plan covering 2012–2021 and explained why the schedule and funding assumptions changed this year.
Dunham said the department moved to a two‑year planning process and a formal scoring system that brings representatives from each division together to assign weights and rank projects. That method, he said, aims to create a more implementable plan rather than an inventory of unmet needs.
The presentation described several large projects and funding sources. Dunham told commissioners the Port is discussing a $34 million contribution from the Public Utilities Commission toward infrastructure tied to the America’s Cup and that the Port expects to rely on a mix of revenue bonds and federal support, including Army Corps and Department of Defense grants for dredging and dry dock work.
On the Seawall, Dunham said initial repair estimates could reach $120 million and noted the Port and city could be expected to provide roughly one‑third of that cost (about $40 million) if the estimate holds. He warned that authorization and appropriation vehicles for such projects are infrequent and missing a legislative window could delay work for years.
Commissioners asked about the loss of congressionally directed funding (earmarks). Dunham said the Port had about $8 million in committee markups before restrictions on earmarks and described ongoing hope that earmark definitions could be refined; he cautioned, however, that federal project funding remains uncertain and that the Port is pursuing alternative state, local and private financing.
Dunham described how emergency and mandated projects are prioritized first, then scored projects are advanced based on agreed criteria, including increased emphasis this cycle on financial payback. He highlighted changes at Pier 70 (reduced hazardous materials placeholder) and an “aggressive under‑pier utility” inspection program that raised near‑term cost estimates.
The presentation was delivered as informational; no action was taken beyond questions and staff noted next steps for review by the Capital Planning Committee and return to the Port Commission for further direction.
