i think pasha, they're still out, trying to get customers. i think we got good news with hanson and others, so i think it's going to take a little time, and i think we have to be kind of patient. i think we have to have a very, very really, like, coming to jesus meeting about the shipyard. the way we know the shipyard as it was in the past is going to be different, let's just face that. when we sent out the last rfp, we had one bidder put in, okay? we know that. there may be a change the way we do things around here. that is okay, but we've got to figure out what will work. but you know what? we regrouped. the port staff, they thought about it, they put their heads together, and they'll try again. i don't know what it's going to look like. i agree with you, commissioner woo ho, but we've got to find something that works. the ship repair is to competitive with all the other places that are doing it that

are in the same business, and it's -- if you really think about it, portland took 60, 70% of our work. so what did we do -- and i don't believe in living in the past. i believe sometime you cut your losses, you look to the future, and we find out what may have to go there. it may be ship repair, it may be something else, but i think we can get some revenue. i think this is a good plan, laying it out there. i think we got some work to do, but i truly believe that a port runs so different than a corporation, and as i say, the shareholders of the port is the public, and none of these commissioners up here, we don't get shares like a corporation do, so it's totally run totally different, and this is what i do every day, dealing with all the west coast ports for the last 40 years of my life, so i clearly understand how that runs, but i do understand commissioner woo ho's concern.

i think we'll continue talking about maritime, i think we'll keep going at it, but also, i think there's a lot of facets to this. i think this is a good report. i think as we move along on it, and we make some adjustments, i think one of the hardest things that i see is seem to be getting staff hired. bureaucracy is tough. i mean, i can't even imagine that, and the commissioners, we come to a commission meeting maybe twice a month, but we're not down in the trenches every day like the port staff and the executive director, so i think there's some great work. i'm speaking just how i see it, and keep on doing what you're doing and take all the commissioners' feedback, what they think, and keep moving forward, but i appreciate the report. >> thank you. >> yeah, i have to say something in response. >> okay. that's fine, but commissioner katz has to speak first. >> commissioner katz: i forgot one issue. you sort of touched on it with

commissioner woo ho's questions, but i'd just like to ask executive director forbes to put something on our future calendar to further address what's happening with some of the dip in revenue from the cruise ships, and if we could take a look at how we might increase that revenue. i'm not sure if it's necessarinecessary tied to economic issues or we can subsequently increase more calls to the port but i think we need to definitely take a look at it. >> commissioner woo ho: i think commissioner adams took my remarks in the wrong context. i have no problems with this budget, and i think you should be submitting this with a lot of quality work. i think from my perspective as a commissioner, i do take, and i do understand our shareholders is the public, and our job as a commissioner is to

obviously do the best job for the shareholder and the city, so the things that i say are not meant to be critical of the port staff or the port. they're meant to be constructive, to say here are some things we should be looking at, and i think sometimes we are not mired in the day-to-day. we helicopter in twice a month, which has its advantages and disadvantages. my comments are not to put you on the defense at all. if anything, it's to make the port go on the offense, on the opportunities. i want -- i think elaine understanding that, but i have to go on the record and say that's how my comments -- i feel very strongly about my

responsibility to the public, and i am not looking through the typical shareholder response. that's one of the things i've learned as being a commissioner on a public service board is how you do have to take your community and your constituents which are so diverse and different into consideration, and all the things we do for the community which is very different in a corporate environment, so i appreciate that, and i've learned a lot about it over time. so i want to say that just for the record, because it was not criticism. i do think your budget is fine, but i do think there's opportunities to look at it, and i think we would be remiss not to take a look at those opportunities and to figure out what we could be doing going forward and to understand them better. >> commissioner woo ho, i didn't take it in that tone. what i was saying was understanding the port -- you use the word corporation sometimes, and what i was just saying is a port runs so different than a corporation, and i understand your expertise in that, and i don't come from

the corporate world, so i was just making a reference -- that the public is our shareholders and our community, and the commission here, we're shareholders. we don't get paid, and we have a responsibility to make sure all this is upheld, so i appreciate your comments. >> we're aligned, so it's okay. >> yea. >> president boston marathon don was happy. >> democracy in action. >> megan, thank you so much for this report. i think it's phenomenal that we have a record with a budget of 192,000. i think all of us should be extremely happy of this accomplishment. i do have to say that the way

it's presented, and i think that in the past, i've always beencau been accustomed to seeing a details report. hopefully we can get that prior to the next time you bring the budget to us. but the way it's laid out, it does look like we have issues with maritime, and that, you know, across the board, we're losing money. and it is -- should be a point of consideration, and i do think that we do need to come -- even though i know all the work that's being put into it, and what's being done, and i know we can't -- we don't know -- know in advance what our port calls are going to be, but still, we need a strategy. we need a maritime strategy, and we have to look at all

those revenues and at all our departments to see which ones we're subsidizing and where we need to focus our efforts. also, it was hard to understand 67 position changes without the details, so i'm really looking

>> what each of the positions are. >> you know what the salaries are. >> we have a new -- what do you call it? >> real estate development and planning and environment division. >> to understand how it all works together. >> we will work on what documents to prepare for next time. the city shifted to a new financial system. it is harder than in prior years to produce this detail. we will look at what we produced

in last year and get more detail. i will say the position changes are all taking that operations division that executive director moyer created before she left and i chose not to execute. creating the chief operating position merging planning with the environment and you will see how that looks and we can produce an organization chart as well to explain. many of these changes have been in place since you appointed me executive director, but the budget is catching up to what i implemented some time ago. >> the changes within every division? >> there are cleanup changes within every division. we will show you what those are. some of them are clarifications of positions individuals have sat on for some time based on the hr recommended

classification and more technical matters. we will get the details. >> any other question on the budget? >> thank you, megan. >> thank you so much. >> 11b. informational presentation on the fiscal year 2018-2019 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 capital improvement 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 one-time 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 don't 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 port's 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 based ferry 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 didn't 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 won't 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 can't 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 couldn't 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 i'm 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 wasn't funded. i would like to see what requests there were that weren't 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 don't 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 don't 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 can't. 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 long-term 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 engineering's 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 facility's 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, and after a major effort by the project team the structure is repaired and the new roofing

will preserve the work completed. again, this is a sample of some of the structural repair projects that resulted in upgrade to the facility rating. i will review the typical damage in the red and yellow tagged facilities focusing on the marine structures. as you can imagine structures over the water experience more rapid deterioration that isn't apparent unless you go and actually inspect it. these images show examples of some of the re-enforces concrete piers in areas currently yellow tagged. saltwater induce -- salt water corrosion causes the concrete cover to fall off. because the piers were originally designed for heavy cargo they can support lighter uses after damage like this occurs.

once rebar is exposed additional corrosion will occur so we need conservative load limits to monitor these conditions closely. timber structures are subject to accelerated deteriorate in sea water due to woodboring organisms in the bay. woodpile are treated with chemicals and wrapped in plastic to prevent decay. they do breakdown and lose effectiveness. these two photos were taken at low tide. you can imagine when the water is higher by five or six feet you wouldn't notice the full extent of the damage in the photos. the areas above these two particular photos are red tag and have been barricaded. some of the photos have funded projects to repair, some or all of the damages areas of the pier. in other cases not currently a

funding source identified. in the presentation that you saw described how the port prioritizes which projects get funding. they are successful working with tenants and developers and government agencies to fund repairs to the facilities. a lot of good work has been accomplished in the past two years and we are working hard to continue the trend. there is a lot more workout there to be done. i would look at a bigger picture. you can see from this chart more than 20% of the port itself is built directly over the water. most of our high value uses depend on the connection between water and land that our marine structures provide. this is especially true on the embarcadero where the vast majority of the acknowledges are

over the water. all the dry land in the port's jurisdiction is fill which is retained by sea walls funding the bay. port engineering inspects these to find the issues in the photos and to monitor the deterioration we know about. in conclusion. structure inspections are regular ongoing process critical to eninsuring the safety of the people who use our facilities. with that, i am happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. is there any public comment regarding this item? >> commissioner woo ho. >> thank you for this report. and the picture that speak a thousand word to tell you the situation. i appreciate that.

i guess we just had the discussion on the capital project so i am not sure whether all of the things you mention here. the red tag ones fit in the capital budget somehow. the others may or may not. some we repaired ourselves. what percent of the things you are talking about here are within the operating budget versus the capital? >> i think all of the repairs are funded with capital budget funds. part of what i try to describe in my presentation is that we do these inspections and when there is an unsafe condition, we will red tag and vacate the area. there may not be a project in the next two year cycle to repair every single red tag facility. it is in in the 10 year capital plan, part of the $1.5 billion backlog. >> does your group or the

building engineer departmentra you all part of the panel discussion in the port to derm how reprioritize the projects? >> yes, engineering has the representation on the capital budget committee. >> you are giving input based on your determinations and findings of the various projects? >> there is a lot of factors to be weighed when deciding what project gets funding. >> i guess in the sense what you are doing today is to re-enforce to us the issues we hear described from the financial perspective you give us the physical aspect of what needs to be done? >> yes. >> thank you. >> a picture is worth a thousand words. it is frightening looking at some of the supports or lack thereof. you in terms of some of the red

tagged or yellow restricted use, are there things that can be done that are not as costly to either allow some further access or in the red tag was it just nothing to be done without significant capital outlay to even access any of facilities? >> that is typically the red tag facility. they are not safe to be used unless repairs are under taken or in some cases it has gotten to the point where demolition would be more cost-effective than repair. >> there are portions of it that can be sort of pulled off at the front of some of the sites or anything like that? >> when we do a repair, you know, you can be more cost-effective by repairing it to a lower capacity than it was originally designed but it is still useful for the uses that we typically see.

these used to be very heavy car go loads with loaded railcars. we don't see that too often any more. >> that is my question if there is something that may not be as intense a cost or to bring it up to the prior use might be too significant. if there is any opportunity or do we -- a better way to phrase it is do we look at whether with some lesser infusion of cash and repairs that we could get some use out of it that would be meaningful or is it better and safer and easier? >> when we go to repair projects that is one of the first things is set the loading cryteria that we think are going to occur. we design to that is we don't blindly repair to the old capacity. >> my question is are we looking

to see -- the better way are there opportunities we can look at to get some use out of the regular tagged facilities rather than totally cordoning them off or demolitioning them or is that once they are red tagged there is not much to do? we have to do massive repairs or demolition? >> that's correct. if you are going to mobilize. a lot of the pictures show damage to the piles of vertical support system. if we are going to mobilize the repair that means pile driving crane on a barge. that is typically quite expensive piece of machinery to bring out. it makes sense to repair all of the piles at one-time. the mobilization costs can be quite height.

>> as you go through the yellows, it seems that would potentially be a better use of funding to bring those back if they are not as heavily damaged as the unsafe or is that going to depend upon the potential use in. >> i should let matt talk more about it. i think the red, some of the red tagged areas are still manageable. they are small pieces of the piers. 54 has a couple of discrete areas where there is a red tag because those particular piles have been damaged beyond repair. >> that's correct. lately we have tried to. >> if you could peak in the microphone, please. >> what rod said is correct. >> that was what i was getting at. are there discrete portions? >> typically an entire pier is not red tagged.

you find the worst area first and raise the flag up. >> i think what might help is look at exhibit number 1 which has a description of all of the yellow tag facilities. you will see the portion of the facility that is under that restriction whether or not there is funding available and exhibit 2 is the smallest red tag facilities and if there is funding available to fix the condition or not. you will see it typically is a portion of a facility that is fenced off or barricaded away from public use. that answers that. thank you. >> commissioner adams. >> you guys make a good team, i

have to tell you. matt, you look shy. look up. i appreciate your comments. a little eye contact with commissioners is good. good presentation. this is probably one of my favorite parts of the presentation because this is so important. the structural and the sea wall are billion dollars investments that is for the safety of our community and long-term investments that we have to make. it is not something you talk about that sounds cool. it is so important, it really is. it is an investment. i really enjoy this. i look at our port and know there is money we need for structural damages. if we want more tenants in there, there is work that has to be done. we have to put the priorities what is here and there.

this is a great presentation, and i know it is preparing for the sea wall. the discussions of that, the community has to understand about the investment that we are going to have to put back to the port. this is huge. these piers are very, very old. this port is over 100 years old and the piers have been around a long time. for just safety purposes we have 30 million tourists with people running and walking up and down and people working in the piers, customers and stuff like that. we have to put money into structural stuff. it will last us hopefully another 100 years. these are things to look at. i appreciate the work you are doing, and i understand it is a hard thing to talk about. these are things that are important. when you have a red tag on a facility and that facilities can't make money for the port or

it is unsafe fo for tourists. i appreciate your presentation today. >> thank you for the presentation. this was really good and detailed, and i like the fact we have changed from red to green. that is a great thing. we have a very, very long list. i think for me what would be helpful the, i know it says funding yes or no. what is the cost? we keep saying $1.5 billion. what does that mean? what would be the cost to fix or repair some of these things? i notice under the red tags there are several pier structures that have collapsed that we have been talking about for a long time. it says they are partially funded. i have been told over and over that the pier removals are

funded and will happen. >> i believe most of them are waiting on sequa. i thought we had a pier removal strategy slide. did you not go to that today? there was an optional slide. we are going to present it next time we could. so we have all of that detail about the strategy on the pier removal of collapsed facilities that are orphaned in the bay and when they will actually be taken out of water. we will have that for you next time. >> and that they are funded? >> they are funded. we will include that. we can add to this attachment cost information and provide that to the port commission and where we don't have it we can explain why. we can add that and provide it to the commission as well. >> on the pier removal issue, i

noticed last couple times i was in new york, they have turned some of those abandoned piles into art exhibits. is there any opportunity -- are there any? >> we are taking them out. i am just being silly. we should definitely look at what you are discussing. >> if there are some that might be an opportunity for an artistic project? they do look fabulous at certain times of the day. others warrant being removed. if there is a scenario to turn it into an art installation like in new york, that might free up funding for others to be removed that make more sense. >> i saw in the capital budget funds for painting cranes. is that art?

>> i think we took money away from painting cranes and gave it to another project. we actually have funds for demolishing the grain silos which have beautiful art on the grain silos. the structures are unsafe that is a place where the challenges for taking out art to provide a safer place. we are always looking for art opportunities especially on the southern water front. >> thank you very much. >> item 12p informational information on the community engagement strategy for the san francisco sea wall, earthquake safety and disaster prevention from port staff and civic edge consulting. >> good afternoon commissioner also, brad benson director of special projects. i am subbing today foreign nay

martin leaving this and prepared the staff report for you today. the purpose of this presentation is to give you an update about the strategic community engagement strategy for the sea wall earthquake safety program. you will notice a new name for this effort. really reflecting the fact that this is a program that will be executed over decades. it will require continual funding over time and will have multiple phases rather than being a single project. you will recall that about a year ago last january you authorized an rfp for this communication contract, and there were seven bidders on the contract. in march you selected civic edge

consulting and we have amber shipley here representing civic edge who will give an update about the work we have been doing together over the last year. one thing i will note is about 75% of the funds in this contract are for lbes. we have several of those firms here today as well. amber is going to start and do the first part of the presentation talking about community engagement, road show, presentations that our speaker's borough is conducting and some of the other outreach efforts then dave mets is here representing our research firm. dave is an expert at public opinion polling. he have two good presentation about the sea wall today. amber. >> thank you, brad.

hi directors, amber ship lewith consulting. >> can you grab the microphone please. >> i will give you an overview of the community efforts to date and tell you what we are planning. we have a big team on the civic edge community engagement. we have the fine folks from rdj saying about our work in southeast and f m three is here. we have 10 firms. we are working with the stakeholder folks. this is a really seamless project, and the port logo is on top. that is renee telling us what to do at all times. it is an honor to work with her. our first task was a community engagement plan. it is 80 pages.

we are on page three. it is a living document that including the chapters here. i will give you an overview what we are planning and thinking for each of the pieces. we have three community engagement goals for this year. the first is increase public awareness and support for the embarcadero sea wall and this projected across the city. it is a city wide project. two a sense of city wide urgency for the program to understand where there is -- why there is a risk. three is san francisco a trusting steward. we will introduce you as great managers of this project. we have large and ambitious goals set by our port team. 250,000 residents engaged over the next year is big but

obtainable. many of the nukes have non-- numbers have nonenglish targets. 45% of those in san francisco live in a home without english spoken. we want it appropriate. you will hear from dave an, i will gross over what we know from public research polling. it is a privilege to have that information as we put together our community engagement efforts. most important here is that we know when people hear about the sea wall and program that you guys have under taken they support it, they understand what is going on. as we have seen in the outreach they are making the connections themselves. they get why it is important. when any big projector program, the first step. we worked with renee and the sea wall team at the port to come up with key messages to guide the

work. this seems obvious because you know the sea wall and understand the project. we want to be on the same page so everything from the website to pieces of collateral carry the four key messages with us. key messages are san francisco faces safety risk, the port has a track record of success with large scale projects, we can't afford not to take action, resilient embarcadero seaual is the vision for a safe city. that carries through the work. i put in the messages stations to see how we think about different messages for different rooms. it is more complicated. we are happy to answer questions if you have them. exciting work around the graphic identity. we are almost there. this is the look and feel of project. you will see fun stuff in the next couple of weeks and months.

as we do the planning and moving forward we are at work on the stakeholder involvement strategy. the port has directed us to conduct stakeholder interviews to understand how best do people want to tell us about what they want for the waterfront? we are conducting the interviews and doing a survey to make sure the ideas and the feedback we are getting is going to come to be put into the document so our plans represent what we are hearing. we have started the community presentations road show with 50 or 60 that we are starting to schedule. the staff is burning the 5:00 to 8:00 pm oil doing a road show of presentations about the sea wall. we will start with port tenants, big businesses on the waterfront,