
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. __8c__ Page 3 of 5
Meeting Date: July 10, 2018
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
Alternative 1 – Under this alternative no major maintenance improvements are completed for
the CRCF
Cost Implications: $0.00
Pros:
(1) Capital investment is not required by the Port.
Cons:
(1) The Port does not meet its obligations under the terms of the CRCF Lease Agreement.
(2) Further damage could occur to the CRCF that could make portions of the facility
unusable by the Operators and significantly reduce the asset life of the facility.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 – Under this alternative only a portion of the major maintenance work is
completed for the CRCF. The work on the helix decks and beams, and the replacement of the
weatherproofing membrane in the fuel and car wash areas on two floors are not included and
would be addressed as part of separate project and constructed at a later date.
Cost Implications: $12,434,000
Pros:
(1) Reduces the Port’s initial capital investment (total cost of $8,939,000) by only
addressing the most critical items.
(2) The Port meets its obligations under the terms of the CRCF Lease Agreement.
(3) The improvements which are addressed will help with prolonging service life of that
asset of the facility.
(4) Supports the expedited completion of critical work.
Cons:
(1) Requires the greatest overall capital investment by the Port funded by CFC revenues.
The deferred work, if completed five years after this project, would have an estimated
cost of $3,495,000. The overall capital investment of both efforts would be
$12,434,000.
(2) Significant impacts to facility operations during construction.
(3) The helices and fuel and car wash areas not included in the scope would experience
further wear and tear and a loss in durability that shortens the expected life of each
asset. Additional improvements would eventually be required in the near-term at
these locations at greater cost and impact to facility operations.
This is not the recommended alternative.