Template revised April 12, 2018.
COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
Item No.
6h
ACTION ITEM
Date of Meeting
January 22, 2019
DATE: January 15, 2019
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Kenneth R. Lyles, Director, Maritime Operations and Security
Rod Jackson, Capital Project Manager, Seaport Project Management
SUBJECT: Fishermen’s Terminal Docks 3, 4, and 5 Fixed Pier Improvements (CIP #C800531)
Amount of this request:
$3,000,000
Total estimated project cost:
$3,800,000
ACTION REQUESTED
Request Commission authorization for the Executive Director to: (1) proceed with the
construction phase of the Fishermen’s Terminal Docks 3, 4, and 5 Fixed Pier Improvements; and
(2) advertise and execute a major public works contract for the Fixed Pier Improvements, for a
total estimated project cost of $3,800,000.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fishermen’s Terminal is the home of the North Pacific fishing fleet. This project maintains the
region’s vital connection to the fleet by preserving the existing structural steel piling supporting
Fishermen’s Terminal Docks 3, 4, and 5 and preventing future corrosion. The total estimated
project cost is $3,800,000, which is less than the $6,400,000 amount shared with the
Commission at the design phase funding request on October 10, 2017.
JUSTIFICATION
The steel piles supporting Docks 3, 4, and 5 were installed in the early 1980s. The piling consists
of thin steel hollow pipes filled with unreinforced concrete. The pile system provided reliable
service for the past 35 years, but corrosion is manifesting within the splash zones and near the
mud line of some piling, compromising the integrity of the system and requiring the prevention
of future corrosion.
The steel piles on Docks 3, 4, and 5 will be wrapped in the splash zone of each of the 294 piling,
with some requiring additional wraps at the mudline. Additionally, cathodic protection will be
installed on each piling below the waterline.
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 6h Page 2 of 5
Meeting Date: January 22, 2019
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
DETAILS
Docks 3 and 4 have moderate-to-major corrosion on a majority of their piling. This corrosion
within the water line/ splash zone has resulted in material loss ranging from 12 to 36 percent of
the steel pile that is needed for the structural integrity of the pile. Dock 5 is showing corrosion
only at the water line/splash zone with a material loss ranging from 3 to 4 percent. All piling
were coated when new, but all have corrosion deterioration within the water line / splash zone.
The material loss on Docks 3 and 4 piling will require preservation to prevent future corrosion.
All piling at Docks 3, 4, and 5 will be repaired by wrapping each pile within a protective outer
wrap barrier to isolate the steel from the elements causing the corrosion within the splash
zone, including the installation of a passive cathodic protection system by welding a sacrificial
anode to each pile. Cathodic protection is an electrochemical means of corrosion control, the
benefits of this system include minimum disruption to terminal operations and maintaining
economic vitality of the terminal as the wrap system is installed on the existing piles. The pile
wraps will be installed by divers who will clean and attach the wrap system in sections. This is
far less disruptive and more cost effective than the other options explored which would
generate a significant amount of construction demolition waste and emissions.
Scope of Work
Prevent future corrosion of the steel piling supporting Docks 3, 4, and 5 and provide corrosion
protection in the splash zone. The work includes:
1) Cleaning and preparing the existing 294 piling within the water line / splash zone.
2) Installing Outer Wraps on 294 piles at Docks 3, 4, and 5 within the splash zone with
additional wraps for various piling at the mud line.
3) Install and weld 294 cathodic protection anodes at Docks 3, 4, and 5 just below the wraps
and waterline.
Diversity in Contracting
Per the scope of work within the construction phase, WMBE firms within this field are limited.
0% is the goal for this work. With the support of project staff and the central procurement
office (CPO), the Diversity in Contracting Department is continuing to promote and outreach
this opportunity.
Schedule
Design was completed during the fourth quarter of 2018. Construction is anticipated to start in
the second quarter of 2019 with construction completed by Q4 2019/ Q1 2020. In-water work
will not be disrupted by the fish window making this decision the preferred design remedy as
this work can be installed at any time throughout the life of the project.
Commission design authorization
Q4 2017
Design start
Q4 2017
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 6h Page 3 of 5
Meeting Date: January 22, 2019
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
Design complete
Q4 2018
Commission construction authorization
Q1 2019
Construction start
Q2 2019
In-use date
Q1 2020
Cost Breakdown
This Request
Total Project
Design
$0
$240,000
Construction
$3,000,000
$3,560,000
Total
$3,000,000
$3,800,000
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative 1 – Status Quo
Cost Implications: $0
Pros:
(1) Does not require capital Investment
(2) Does not involve shutdown of current facilities
Cons:
(1) The facility will continue to deteriorate until failures occur.
(2) This would only “kick the can down the road” to a future date when significant pile
repairs or replacement will be more expensive and more disruptive to day-to-day
operations
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 – Strengthen the piling using PileMedic® for repair of deteriorated steel in Splash
Zones w/ Cathodic Protection
Cost Implications: $5.5M
Pros:
(1) Reduced cost as compared to a full pier replacement
(2) Redundancy with cathodic protection system
(3) Reduces risk during a seismic event
(4) Possible reduced risk during a seismic upgrade
Cons:
(1) No case history for this system used on round pile underwater in the marine
environment; however, this system has been used for concrete piles and H-piles in the
marine environment above water.
(2) Building permit requirements, including structural calculations are likely with no data
to support this system.
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 6h Page 4 of 5
Meeting Date: January 22, 2019
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
(3) Fish Window installation will reduce the work window (In water work is allowed only
from Oct 15 ~ Apr 15).
(4) Requires periodic maintenance.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 3 – Pile Wraps in the splash zone w/ Cathodic Protection
Cost Implications: $3.8M
Pros:
(1) Costs less than the system described in Alternative 2
(2) No Building Permit requirements
(3) Slows corrosion, offers corrosion protection including some abrasion protection
(4) Case history for round piles in Puget Sound, including Port of Seattle
(5) Work can be performed year round with no fish window restrictions
Cons:
(1) Moderate cost
(2) Requires periodic maintenance
This is the recommended alternative.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Cost Estimate/Authorization Summary
Capital
Expense
Total
COST ESTIMATE
Original estimate
$6,400,000
$0
$6,400,000
Revised estimate
$3,800,000
0
$3,800,000
AUTHORIZATION
Previous authorizations
$800,000
0
$800,000
Current request for authorization
$3,000,000
0
$3,000,000
Total authorizations, including this request
$3,800,000
0
$3,800,000
Remaining amount to be authorized
$0
$0
$0
Annual Budget Status and Source of Funds
The Fishermen’s Terminal Docks 3, 4, and 5 Fixed Pier Improvement project was included in the
2019 Plan of Finance under CIP #C800531 FT Dock 3, 4 and 5 Fixed Pier Improvements for a
total amount of $7,536,000. The total estimated project cost is now $3,800,000, which is less
than the $6,400,000 amount shared with the Commission at the design phase funding request
on October 10, 2017. The design cost turned out to be less than originally anticipated due to
the lower cost of the wrap system used.
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 6h Page 5 of 5
Meeting Date: January 22, 2019
Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
This project will be funded by the Tax Levy.
Financial Analysis and Summary
Project cost for analysis
$3,800,000
Business Unit (BU)
Ship Canal Fishing and Operations
Effect on business performance
(NOI after depreciation)
This project will support/maintain current moorage
revenue at Fishermen’s Terminal. Incremental
depreciation expense from this project is estimated at
$190,000 per year, based on a 20-year asset life. NOI
after Depreciation will decrease by the associated
depreciation from this project.
IRR/NPV (if relevant)
No incremental revenue will result from this project.
CPE Impact
N/A
Future Revenues and Expenses (Total cost of ownership)
Extending the useful service life of our existing assets defers eventual replacement costs for a
longer period, supporting the economic vitality of our operations. Other economic benefits
include cost effectiveness and minimum disruption to the terminal operations.
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST
(1) Presentation slides
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS
October 10, 2017– The Commission authorized $720,000 for Design
