
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 8g Page 3 of 4
Meeting Date: August 11, 2026
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
This project began as an amalgam of two separately scoped projects that had been placed on
hold earlier. To match the project scope to its budget, the project team investigated other means
of accomplishing its goals, including moving scope to adjacent projects, which did not prove
fruitful.
Alternative 1 – Limit work to locations having existing infrastructure.
Cost Implications: Reduce total project cost by $600,000.
Pros:
(1) Improvement of all areas in North Cargo, but with 19 fewer locations in Bagwell.
(2) Re-use of existing infrastructure would reduce construction costs and extend asset life-
cycle costs.
Cons:
(1) Entrances from Ramp into Bagwell would remain uncovered by cameras.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 – Do not proceed with the project.
Cost Implications: Port would expense approximately $300,000 in project costs and repurpose
$3,256,000 in capital funds for other projects.
Pros:
(1) Capital funds could be used elsewhere
Cons:
(1) Gaps in video camera coverage areas would continue.
(2) Investigations of incidents would remain more difficult without video documentation.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 3 – Proceed with the project as planned.
Cost Implications:
Pros:
(1) Provides tools to monitor and address Bagwell traffic safety and efficiency.
(2) Improves and closes gaps in oversight of North Cargo areas.
(3) Replaces cameras that have exceeded their useful life and are no longer maintainable.
Cons:
(1) Ties up capital funds that could be used elsewhere.
This is the recommended alternative.