Template revised January 10, 2019.
COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
Item No.
10d
ACTION ITEM
Date of Meeting
April 13, 2021
DATE: March 25, 2021
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Stephanie Jones Stebbins, Managing Director Maritime
Kyra Lise, Director Real Estate and Economic Development
SUBJECT: Pier 86 Public Fishing Pier restoration, in partnership with Expedia and Department
of Fish and Wildlife
ACTION REQUESTED
Request Commission authorization for (1) the Executive Director to execute a Funding Agreement
with Cruise, LLC (Expedia Group) and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife to spend
up to $83,000 for the Port’s one-sixth contribution towards a Cost and Feasibility Analysis which
seeks to understand the engineering demands and construction costs for the rebuilding of the
Public Fishing Pier at Pier 86 with a ferry float to support commuter ferry service; and (2) to
exempt this opportunity from a competitive process. The total cost of this cost and feasibility
analysis is anticipated to be no more than $500K and will be additionally supported by a
contribution of up to $167,000 by Department of Fish and Wildlife and a contribution of $250,000
and any additional costs of the cost and feasibility analysis to be borne by Cruise, LLC (Expedia
Group).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Cost and Feasibility study will allow the Port and its partners at Pier 86 -- Cruise, LLC (Expedia
Group) and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife – to determine the technical
requirements and potential costs of construction of rebuilding the public fishing pier at Pier 86
with a “ferry float” to support commuter service into the Expedia Campus. This cost and
feasibility analysis will be conducted by Reid Middleton under the supervision of Cruise, LLC, and
will cover general site analysis, structural evaluations, structural design, zoning and regulatory
permitting analysis, and criteria for facility construction. The purpose of the study is to allow the
partners to evaluate the potential costs of construction and the technical requirements of the
project. Only after the study is completed and the partners have reviewed its conclusion that
Port staff will make final recommendations to the Port of Seattle Commission about additional
funds for construction and make such financing requests. The Port recognizes that Cruise, LLC is
Amount of this request:
$83,000
Total estimated project cost:
$1,000,000
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. _10d_ Page 2 of 6
Meeting Date: April 13, 2021
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
uniquely positioned to provide the feasibility study through the Funding Agreement, as they have
already selected a partner, Reid Middleton to perform preliminary work. Staff is recommending
Commission determine that a competitive solicitation process is not appropriate or cost effective
for the specific scope of work included in the attached Funding Agreement.
JUSTIFICATION
The feasibility analysis confirming the costs and technical requirements of rehabilitating Pier 86
for public fishing contributes to the mission of the Port and its Century Agenda by:
Expanding economic, cultural and community benefits of maritime operations and tourism while
preserving industrial lands. Become a model for equity, diversity and inclusion by providing
equitable opportunities for all and delivers on the Port mission requirement to set the standard
for high quality, cost-effective and timely delivery of capital programs.
It is in the port’s best interest to contract with Cruise, LLC (Expedia Group) and Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife, utilizing Reid Middleton, to provide a cost-effective approach to
provide a feasibility analysis for the potential construction of rebuilding the public fishing pier at
Pier 86. Reid Middleton, Engineers of Everett WA has been under contract to Cruise, LLP to
support their work rebuilding and expanding the Expedia Campus over the last 2 years. More
significantly, Reid Middleton performed a conditions analysis of the Pier in 2013 as Expedia was
preparing for the campus project and are therefore uniquely positioned to efficiently do this cost
and feasibility evaluation work as a continuation of their work in 2013. An efficiently performed
analysis is also a preference of Department of Fish and Wildlife as their pledged allocation of
funds towards this project from the State of Washington will expire within this calendar year.
Diversity in Contracting
Seeking waiver language
DETAILS
The public dock structure at Pier 86 was first constructed in 1979 through a combination of state,
federal, and Port of Seattle funding. That facility has provided critical public access to the
waterfront, to neighbors walking through the Port’s Centennial Park and to fishermen casting
lines from the pier. Since that time, the public pier was operated by the Port under an agreement
with WDFD. It was closed in 2017 due to safety concerns. During this time, there was also
confusion of ownership of the fishing pier. During the process to develop the agreement to
proceed with the cost and feasibility study, the Port and Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife worked to clarify ownership and determined that the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife the fishing pier structure. The Port signed a Quit Claim Bill of Sale agreement in favor
of DFW in furtherance of DFW’s ownership of the fishing pier structure. Since then, Expedia
Group has opened its new campus adjoining Pier 86 and has invested substantial funds to-date
in enhancements and improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle trails and shoreline
environment north of Pier 86.
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. _10d_ Page 3 of 6
Meeting Date: April 13, 2021
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
The parties now jointly desire to evaluate the feasibility of the renovation of the Public Pier
through a detailed due diligence exercise, as described below (the “Feasibility Analysis”). The
Feasibility Analysis would precede any determination by the parties to proceed (or not proceed)
with the possible renovation of the Public Pier. Toward this end, the parties are prepared to
provide proportional funding in support of this feasibility analysis, subject to the terms outlined
herein.
Scope of Work
(1) Feasibility Analysis Elements. The Feasibility Analysis may include preparation and
evaluation of the following elements:
o Site Analysis and Design
Survey
Bathymetric survey
Geotechnical studies
Structural condition evaluation
Structural design
Zoning, regulatory and permitting analysis
Preliminary assessment of potential impacts and mitigation
(including microalgae and eelgrass surveys)
Feasibility of Ferry Float operations under King County Ferry
District guidelines
Usage projections for passenger ferry
Measures to implement security consistent with other similar
marine facilities
Lighting plans
Criteria for facility construction (i.e., target for useful life of
renovated Public Pier)
o Project Budget:
Construction pricing estimates
Maintenance and operational cost evaluation
Preparation of project capital budget
Schedule
The timing for the feasibility analysis work will include the following:
• Site Analysis and Design: 3 months
• Project Budget: 2 months
• Permit Documents: 3 months
• Implementing Agreements: 7 months (overlapped with Permit Documents)
• Target Completion: Target would be for Site Analysis and Design and Project Budget work
to be complete by July 2021. If the parties decide to proceed, then Permit Documents
and Implementing Agreements would be completed by January 2022.
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. _10d_ Page 4 of 6
Meeting Date: April 13, 2021
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
Activity
3rd quarter 2021
1
st
Quarter 2022
3
rd
Quarter 2022
1th
Quarter 2023
2
nd
Quarter 2024
Cost Breakdown
This Request
Total Project
Design
$83,000
$1.000,000
Construction
$0
TBD
Total
$83,000
$TBD
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative 1 – Do nothing.
Cost Implications:
Pros:
(1) The Fishing Pier is not a Port-owned asset and is not therefore obligated to repair the
Pier. It is possible, though unlikely, that the other partners could pursue the project
without Port funds.
(2) Port would save both the planning funds of $83,000 but would save a further $1M which
is the extent of funds the Port may consider putting towards the construction project.
Cons:
(1) It is unlikely that without Port support this project will be pursued in the near term.
(2) DWF’s investment of $1.75M for the project may lose its authorization from the State
of Washington as the time to use funds will have expired. Therefore, their funds will
likely be lost to the project.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 – Port pursues the redevelopment of the Pier on its own through a Public Works
project.
Cost Implications:
Pros:
(1) Port would retain control of the project.
(2) Port has a good deal of expertise to bring to such a project.
Cons:
(1) The fishing Pier is not a Port-owned asset. It is unclear by what methods and authority
the Port would have to see the Pier rebuilt.
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. _10d_ Page 5 of 6
Meeting Date: April 13, 2021
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
(2) The reconstruction of the Pier would have to be entirely reconceived as a Public Works
project, with likely higher costs and longer timeframes to completion.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 3 - Partner with DFW and Expedia to complete the Cost and Feasibility Analysis and
if promising continue towards mutually supporting the reconstruction project.
Pros:
(1) Expedia is actively working to complete the Expedia Campus project and can effectively
jump in and complete the evaluation work as an extension of their current adjacent development
project leading to the potential reconstruction of the public fishing Pier.
(2) Pursuing this partnership will allow DFW’s already allocated funds to be used before
their authorization expires.
(3) The public fishing may return to Pier 86 by the Spring of 2023.
Cons:
(1) Port will have to expend $83,000 to support this study at a time where cash is limited.
(2) Coordinating among 3 partners and their requirements is challenging and may cause
inefficiencies.
This is the recommended alternative.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Cost Estimate/Authorization Summary
Capital
Expense
Total
COST ESTIMATE
Original estimate
$0
$83,000
$83,000
Previous changes – net
0
0
0
Current change
0
0
0
Revised estimate
0
83,000
83,000
AUTHORIZATION
Previous authorizations
0
0
0
Current request for authorization
0
0
0
Total authorizations, including this request
0
0
0
Remaining amount to be authorized
$0
$0
$0
Annual Budget Status and Source of Funds
This public expense project was included in the 2021 Plan of Finance with a total estimated
spending of $1,000,000 in 2022.
This project will be funded by the Tax Levy.
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. _10d_ Page 6 of 6
Meeting Date: April 13, 2021
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
Financial Analysis and Summary
Project cost for analysis
$1,000,000
Business Unit (BU)
Maritime General
Effect on business performance
(NOI after depreciation)
This authorization will increase non-operational expenses
by $83K in 2021.
IRR/NPV (if relevant)
N/A
CPE Impact
N/A
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST
(1) Funding Agreement
(2) PowerPoint
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS
None