Budget . Thank you, megan. Thank you so much. 11b. Informational presentation on the fiscal year 20182019 and 2019 through 2020 Capital Budget. Good afternoon, commissioners, director for bees. I apon another i am on the finance and administration team. I am here to lay out where we are and what is achievable in coming years in regards to maintaining and enhancing port property. The two year budget represents what we are able to fund in the immediate timeframe from that larger 10 year need. This year to facilitate strategic analysis and bridge the gap between the broader 10 year time other ey horizon. It is the First CapitalImprovement Program to allow a five year look at the project for going to deliver and think about them on a timeframe it can take to conceive of time, design and deliver a Capital Project. We will bring you the full five years in april. The Capital Budget now represents the first two years of that program of projects. As you are well aware it add vances many Strategic Plan goals, most notably strategic to increase revenue. In that 10 year plan we identified a 1. 5 billion need for investment in state of good repair to port. That includes both 1 billion backlog as well as the need to invest 54 million a year annually in renews if they were on the optimal cycle. We identify funding to cover 40 of the state of good repair need. If you look at the table on the right, it shows how we are doing relative to the annual renewal need in the budget with the existing resources. True to the plan, there is a shortfall which drives us to be as strategic as we can to make sure we achieve as much as possible with resources for the port. Our capital policy is a big piece of that. That encourages us to keep investing in capital as much as we can without jeopardizing the operating budget. This five year cip helps ottawa Capital Improvement program. It gives us the look to help us think about what the program of projects looks like, and we continue to us use the approacho priorities ties the project this is the proposal. This year as we have since 2010, we convened an inter Divisional Group the technical review committee. They reviewed more than 60 proposals and scored them to evaluate for possible earn conclusion in inclusion in the budget. In addition to those we overlaid several funding principals in finalizing the recommendation. First was to honor prior commitments. There were requests for funds for existing projects because of the bid environment and current costs additional dollars were needed to complete projects committed to. We wanted to make sure we got to those. Addressing health and safety a priority as well as completing Capital Improvements where necessary to get into an implement lease where a lease is pending. I will talk more about improving project delivery when i get to the slide on the proposed project Management Office. This means projects for outside funding for the work as well as looking at Strategic Investments for returns in capital. To the budget itself, this two year budget is 13 over the previous biannual budget. That is possible really because of the port capital policy both investing meeting the target of 25 as operating revenue invested in capital and putting onetime sources to capital and including a general fund request for two projectses which i will highlight at the end of my presentation. On the sources side as you will note most of the sources are internal port sources with internal fund balances. On the use side 5 of the over 55 is toward good repair. We emphasize the desire to make sure the internal port sources are dedicated to state of good repair. If we look at that chart and focus solely on the internal sources, we would see 70 of the port revenue is dedicated toward state of good repair in this budget. I wanted to note on the sources side in the port fund balance that including several reappropriations of funds. In the left hand column this is cleanup. Closed projects we are sweeping unused fulleds out to use for other projects. On the right side these are where staff has reconsidered how the work might be delivered and current priorities and identified some places where the funds are no longer needs as they were originally budgeted. Mosquitobly is the Ferry Building improvements where staff identified we dont need the full amount programmed to get that project ready and keyed up for possible inclusion in a later general Obligation Bond for parks and open space. I will not step you through every funded project. I am going through a highlight or two on each of the slides. In the state of good repair side, the leading investment here advancing the maritime objectives is dredging 14 of the overall Capital Budget, that maintenance is essential for continued use of the ports deep water birds. Further down the list of state of good repair investments, here we see routine maintenance such as dry docking of the fluteses to improve floats to improve the assets. On enhancement the first two projects listed are projects which we are requested general fund dollars. One highlight is the peer 90 project for planning and design. We will see construction when we come back with a full five year Capital Improvement program for safety as well as for making more real estate saint for achieving the vision of the 8096 industrial strategy. Further on the enhancements and safety we see fire investments including continuing funding of the Fire Protection engineer at the port as well as one of the projects identified through the work of Fire Protection engineer pier 31 new fire system. Most of the project thing on the project delivery i will touch on in highlights. I want to note on this slide the Contingency Fund to set aside dollars to cover unforeseen site investment. That is for projects over budget more often than we like. Highlights of investments. As we heard about from maygan we have had years of sustain revenues and investment in capital. That made staff want to step back and take a moment to think how we might seek efficiencies and improve delivery. We reached out to parsons who helped our city departments. Out of their review and recommendations we are putting forward a proposal for a new project Management Office with five staff to comment the skill sets of existing staff to increase capacity, speed project delivery and enhance ability to gather and use data to improve our performance. Finally, getting to the general fund requests. We asked 11 million for Mission BasedFerry Landing. That represents the amount required in a match for a pending grant request the port submitted in january to the state for the project. On the sea wall side we requested 6. 5 million that is the funding needed to keep that project going through a potential bond sale which we hope to bring to voters in november of 2018. If that bond passed the money from the general funned worry imbursed by bond reimbursed by bond proceeds. You will hear later this month. Final highlight you will hear about later today shortly. That would be this month. You will hear more about the pier 70 today. Right now is the opportunity for the port to consider an upfront Capital Investment in forest city to earn a return as part of that development project. This would put forward and considered by the review committee and scored highly. Finance recommends 6. 5 million investment. That is 1. 2 million in the new budget and existing project balances to bring in 5. 7 million discounted to present value net return over 10 years to the port. We recognize a larger contribution would generate greater revenue for the port. This level of investment balanced against or our removal and safety needs. Doing more would force us to for go time sinc sensitive investmes propose with the rest of the Capital Budget. Meghan has gone through the budget. We are bringing this to the Capital Planning commi committen february 26th before we come back to you for final approval. They will review and hole fully give hundre hopefully give ul approval. I am happy to answer questions. Any Public Comments on the Capital Budget. No Public Comment. Commissioner woo ho. Thank you for giving us what your presentation will be on the budget this year. We hear the 1. 5 billion every year. What i didnt see this year is some of the things we did eliminate last year and how much we were able to find new financing or in some of the larger projects that got absorbed. Since we are going through with mission rock and the four rest city pro forest city project which is mentioned. I understand the movement. It is 1. 5 million or in that neighborhood. We have changes going on but it is always. I think this would have helped us as well when we were looking at the operating budget to give context what we are doing every other year. One year is our planning year where we do the five year financial forecast and capital plan where you really see the ins and out and how big the total need is. The next year is budget only. This year you are dealing with budget only. You are asking context questions a five year financial forecast would answer or capital plan would answer. This year is the year for budget only. Next year is plan only development of the five year financial forecast and the 10 year budget. We wont be able to answer that question. We are going to calder financial updates relative to opportunities and challenges to continue to have strategic opportunities off planning cycle. I think we should be able to see what has been completed, what is partially funds, what remains, and what to put on for the next two years. That would be helpful. I understand. From my standpoint, i am not in a position to say this project over that project. You guys know what you are doing. From that standpoint this is fine because i am not going to add any value in terms of you know, you described the process of the questions asked, how you decide which ones come in. I am fine with that. We are here to look at the bigger picture, how is this pipeline moving over time . Iit is a big challenge. Then the sea wall and other issues to address as well. From our level we are worried about the bigger picture. We cant help on is this project better than that project . You know what is more important and what is priority. I appreciate you balanced out the investment in forest city. This is as much as we could afford. We couldnt ignore the other issues in that regard. That would be my comment. I think you have a good process how you have selected what you need in the budget process. We are looking at the bigger picture. Commissioner katz. It is a very cogent presentation. I appreciate that. I am not sure where to address this question, but as we look at the Capital Budgeting process im not sure i would want to add points to the issue. We have projects that there may be other sources of revenue that should come in, for example, the mission bay Ferry Landing. Given the benefits to some of the ad jay sent businesses, it seems there might be opportunities to reduce, you know, our costs on that given the benefits to ad to adjacent buildings and look for ways to look for projects with other Revenue Sources to have more projects by getting some allocation of funds from other sources. I think that is something, not necessarily with what we are looking at today, but as we go forward. If we could start looking at, i think, being more creative in looking at our expenditures. When it is Public Safety and those issues, absolutely, it falls on us to make sure we are completing the projects. There are a number of others that provide significant benefits to add jay sent businesses if we reach out to them and share, frankly, the benefits to them and the significant cost to us that is really insignificant to some of the businesses, i think we might figure outweighs to be creative to get others to share in the costs to the improvements, the Ferry Landing being one we can explore help to free up revenue for other projects. Thank you for spreading this out. Again, as you go through each project, i appreciate the way the point system is set out and how projects were evaluated. That is something that reflects some of the issues that we would raise previously. One other thing to look are are these projects to help us in terms of our longer term revenue. Did you receive points for that, that is part of scoring. Thank you very much. Just a lot of questions behind the numbers. I mean it is a great summary but not a lot of detail behind the numbers. Commissioner adams. I personally would just like to i would like to see what wasnt funded. I would like to see what requests there were that werent funded. And the rationale and are all these new projects or carryover from five years ago . There is a lot of questions here. Thank you for all the time and energy that has gone into this report. I know we have a lot of needs, and i know we have to come up with a scoring system, but, you know, are these all new . Have some been on the list for five years, 10 years . Do they keep getting ignored because we have such a laundry list of needs in our 1. 5 billion needs, and just trying to understand what else needs to happen versus what is here and how, you know, the rationale for what we are doing. Commissioner adams. I agree with my fellow commissioners. I think we would like to get more detail. I think the commissioners asked good questions. This is good but there is a lot more we want to get into. I dont know how to go about doing that. We want to peel the onion down to understand it. The port staff understand it, but i think the commissioners have to get our head around it, and i think we want to understand it. President brandon said it, too, thinks not funds. We know. We have to understand in case somebody asks us. I think the commissioners we dont know and we would like if somebody comes up i would like to say this and that and whatever, and the public, we all can use this education. It helps everybody. I believe in transparency and clarity. We have nothing to hide at the port. We should put out whatever we can put out unless eileen says we cant. That transparent is good. Thank you. Any other questions . Okay. I did want to note a lot of these are things i was hoping to present when i come back with the five year cip. I will talk about the timing. I am excited you want to see more detail, i would be happy to share. Thank you. I team 12a informational overview of load restricted facilities. Good afternoon, president brandon, commissioners, executive director forbes. I am the chief harbor engineer. We are here to update the rapid Structural Assessment program. We manage about 200 buildings and 150 marine structures, which includes piers and whatevers and sea walls. We regularly in for structural damage and deterioration. We communicate the findings to other port divisions, port tenants and the public. Matt bell has been managing the Program Since joining the port in 2016, and he will go into details of the program and current status of our facilities. Thank you, rod. Hello, commissioners. I am matt bell, civil year with the port. The goal of the Structural Assessment program is to ensure safety by identifying and assessing damages. Load restrictive facilities are yellow tagged and will typically have load limits posted to prevent excessive weight on the areas. Fully restricted facilities are red tagged and barricaded to prevent access. We make recommendations for structural repairs which can be the starting point for future repair projectses. Ensuring safety is the mandate. Information on the Structural Condition is used to make decisions about asset management, potential changes in use and longterm Capital Planning. We work with finance on the update to the 10 year capital plan and with planning on the update process to help demonstrate the capital needed to maintain our aging facilities. Since engineerings last update two years ago our inspections revealed new yellow and red tagged areas. Over the same time period we made a significant number every pairs to previously restricted facilities. Here is the scent structural rating current rating map with each structure color coded with the rating. You can see a lot of green showing most of the facilities do not have any load restrictions. However, i want to emphasize that many of the green tagged facilities, especially historic piers have repair needs and green does not mean it is in like new condition. A green rating means that the structure can support the loads it was designed for. These ratings do not say anything about the facilitys vulnerabilities to earthquakes or Sea Level Rise as you will hear more about that as the sea wall program progresses. We have recently taken a number of facilities rated red or yellow two years ago and performed repairs to bring them closer to like new conditions. I would like to highlight that to show how we accomplished these improvements. This is the pier 9 south apron. Funding and construction of this project were all done entirely in house by port staff. Port maintenance is working on a similar larger project to repair the timber apron at pier 92. Port and development partnered with the port for the pier pier 70 and completed construction on most of the buildings. As you know, this is more than restoreing once major buildings. This are unstates to fire safety, Energy Efficiency and square footage. Port engineering performed design and Construction Management for the pier 31 roof and structural repair project. This building as you can see from the shoring installed was on the verge of collapse, a