Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Capital Plan topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Port staff present $6.1 billion 10‑year capital plan with $2.6 billion funding gap

San Francisco Port Commission · February 11, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Port staff presented a $6.1 billion 10‑year capital plan (FY2026–2035) that includes $2.6 billion in state‑of‑good‑repair needs and a $2.6 billion overall shortfall; commissioners pressed for framing that links capital needs to city economic risk and asked for follow‑up briefings.

Interim Deputy Director of Finance Megan Wallace presented the Port’s 10‑year capital plan to the Commission on Feb. 11, showing an overall program of about $6.1 billion for FY2026–2035 and outlining a substantial funding gap.

Wallace said the plan divides needs into roughly $2.6 billion for state‑of‑good‑repair work and $3.5 billion for enhancements, and that the plan represents roughly a $2 billion increase from the prior plan in part because it includes two additional years of projects and the Piers 30–32 development. "This current plan comes to a total of $6,100,000,000," Wallace said during the presentation. She identified funding sources including $354 million from internal tenant/leasing obligations and approximately $3.2 billion in external funding (grants, regional measures and project financing) but said the port faces a projected $2.6 billion shortfall overall.

Why it matters: the shortfall highlights long‑term maintenance and resilience challenges for waterfront infrastructure, including seawall and pier repairs, and frames potential priorities for city and regional funding. Wallace also noted the waterfront resilience program with the Army Corps is larger than what is reflected in the current plan and would add additional costs when formalized.

Commissioner questions emphasized better framing to communicate the risk to the city’s tourism and economic base, prioritization of the most critical repairs, and integrating resilience needs earlier in tenure planning. Commissioners requested follow‑up briefings to present context and options before subsequent meetings.

Outcome: This was an informational presentation; commissioners asked staff to provide additional context and layered framing that ties the capital needs to economic risk and resilience priorities. No formal action was taken.