PORT OF SEATTLE 
MEMORANDUM 
COMMISSION AGENDA               Item No.      6b 
ACTION ITEM 
Date of Meeting    October 11, 2016 
DATE:    October 3, 2016 
TO:      Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
FROM:   Elizabeth Leavitt, Senior Director Environment & Sustainability 
Stan Shepherd, Manager Airport Noise Programs 
SUBJECT:  Single-family sound insulation project authorization 
Amount of This Request:      $14,535,000   Source of           FAA Grants,
Funds:          Passenger Facility
Est. Total Project Cost:        $14,535,000 
Charges and Airport
Development Fund 
ACTION REQUESTED 
Request a single Commission authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to (1) authorize
funding; (2) execute a consulting contract for an estimated value of $ 1,100,000; and  (3)
advertise, bid, award, and execute job order contract(s) for single-family residential sound
insulation. The amount of funding authorization for this request is $14,535,000. 
SYNOPSIS 
As part of the Port's long term commitment to communities surrounding the airport, it is
necessary to offer sound insulation for 123 single-family residences that continue to be within
the newest FAA approved noise contours. Approximately 9,400 single-family homes have
already received sound insulation enhancements. Approximately 60% of the cost to insulate the
123 homes will be funded by FAA grants. In exchange for the sound insulation, homeowners
provide the Port with an avigation easement recorded on the parcel for air rights allowing
passage of aircraft overhead. Each home will require a pre- and post-noise audit to determine
eligibility.  The project has been approved within the Plan of Finance under CIP C200094.
Project funding will include FAA AIP Grants, Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs), noise project
funding reimbursement from the previous sale of noise-acquired land, and the Airport
Development Fund. Sound insulation projects typically employ at least one local small business
for on-site construction.
BACKGROUND 
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 14, Part 150, governs Airport Noise Compatibility
Planning. Part 150 describes the processes by which airports identify and mitigate exposure of
communities to airport noise.

Template revised May 30, 2013.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
October 3, 2016 
Page 2 of 7 
The Airport's noise mitigation program, under Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150, was
established by the Commission in 1985 as one of the first voluntary airport noise mitigation
programs in the country. In 1985, the Part 150 Study recommended an insulation program based
on an estimate of the year 2000 noise impacts. As a result, the Airport identified approximately
10,000 homes as eligible for noise reduction treatment.
In 2014, the FAA approved the most recent Part 150 update, which was a culmination of several
years of land use studies and public involvement. The Part 150 evaluated the current noise
environment on the community and concluded that noise levels had declined based on operation
levels and predominantly newer, quieter aircraft within the fleet mix. Due to the noise reduction,
the FAA required that the Airport re-draw its noise remedy boundary to reflect the smaller noise
footprint. Subsequently, the Airport Noise Office attempted to contact every eligible homeowner
to ensure that they were given the opportunity to participate in the program before the new
smaller boundary became effective at the end of 2015. As a result of that effort, 39 homes have
been completed since 2014. To date, the Port has sound insulated approximately 9,400 singlefamily
homes at an approximate cost of $300 million. 
The homes included in this authorization request have been eligible for noise insulation since
1985. The extent to which the owners will take advantage of this offer to participate is not clear.
The budget is based on 100% participation. 
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND DETAILS 
Resolution No. 3683 was adopted by the Commission on October 22, 2013. This resolution
included all recommendations from the Part 150 Study including sound insulation for singlefamily
homes. 
The goal of this program is to meet the requirements of Resolution No. 3683 to conduct an
ongoing noise remedy program consisting of the insulation of homes. 
Project Objectives 
Reduce the interior noise levels within single-family homes to at least 45 dB with a
minimum 5 dB reduction by installing new sound rated windows, doors,ventilation, 
and other customized treatments approved by the FAA. All work is performed at no
cost to the homeowners. 
Scope of Work 
The Port will provide funding and staff oversight of the program to provide sound insulation to
eligible participants within the Noise Remedy Program Boundary. Airport Noise Programs
estimates that approximately 123 homes may be eligible to participate in the program. 
In order for a home to be eligible, it has to be built prior to the establishment of local building
codes enacted to either meet or exceed the FAA standards for noise reduction. These dates
include December 3, 1986, for the City of Des Moines and September 6, 1987, for all other areas

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
October 3, 2016 
Page 3 of 7 
of King County. The FAA has also implemented a new requirement for all FAA-funded sound
insulation projects for acoustical qualification based on a pre- and post-noise audit. Each home
must be tested to ensure an interior noise level of at least 45 dB can be achieved through
installing sound insulation, while achieving a minimum reduction of 5 dB.
In exchange for participation in the sound insulation program, all homeowners will be required
to sign an avigation easement, which will be recorded on the parcel permanently with King
County. An avigation easement provides the Port with protections for free and unobstructed
passage of aircraft over the parcel.
The consulting contract will provide design, project management and construction management
services to ensure all Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) sound insulation requirements and
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant funding requirements. The construction work will be
performed by a JOC with oversight from a consulting firm. The Airport Noise Office will be 
responsible for overall customer relations with homeowners. Port Construction Services (PCS)
and the Project Management Group (PMG) will provide oversight to ensure high quality
construction services are delivered to the project. 
Schedule 
Project Commencement                               February 2017 
Project Complete (estimate)                                   March 2019 
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 
Budget/Authorization Summary              Capital     Expense   Total Project 
Original Budget                     $12,312,000    $2,223,000   $14,535,000 
Budget adjustments                    $2,223,000    -$2,223,000          $0 
Revised budget                     $14,535,000          $0   $14,535,000 
Previous Authorizations                       $0          $0          $0 
Current request for authorization            $14,535,000          $0    $14,535,000 
Total Authorizations, including this request    $14,535,000          $0    $14,535,000 
Remaining budget to be authorized               $0          $0          $0 
Total Estimated Project Cost             $14,535,000          $0   $14,535,000 
Project Cost Breakdown                     This Request       Total Project 
Construction Costs                          $10,516,000        $10,516,000 
Consulting Services                           $658,000          $658,000 
Regulated Materials Survey                      $308,000          $308,000 
Architectural Design                           $419,000          $419,000 
Administrative Costs                          $875,000          $875,000 
Contingency (5%)                          $671,000          $671,000 
State & Local Taxes (estimated)                  $1,088,000         $1,088,000

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
October 3, 2016 
Page 4 of 7 
Total                                     $14,535,000         $14,535,000 
Budget Status and Source of Funds 
This project was included in the 2016-2020 capital budget and plan of finance within CIP
C200094 with a budget of $12,312,000. Costs originally anticipated to be expense (regulated
materials management) have since been reclassified as capital, resulting in a capital budget
increase but no net change in total project cost. 
Source of funds will be from FAA AIP Grants, Passenger Facility Charges, reinvestment funds
from the sale of previously purchased noise land and the Airport Development Fund. It's
estimated that approximately $8.4 million of the project budget will be from FAA AIP Grant
funding. 
Financial Analysis and Summary 
CIP Category             Environmental/Community Relations 
Project Type              Noise Mitigation 
Risk adjusted discount rate     N/A 
Key risk factors             N/A 
Project cost for analysis        $14,535,000 
Business Unit (BU)          Airfield Movement Area 
Effect on business performance  N/A 
IRR/NPV             N/A 
CPE Impact             Less than $0.01 
Due to the use of grants and PFCs, approximately 95% of the costs are estimated to be excluded
from the airline rate base. 
Lifecycle Cost and Savings 
Once the project is complete and the avigation easement is permanently recorded on the parcel,
there will be no further costs or savings incurred. 
STRATEGIES AND OBJECTIVES 
This project supports the Port's Century Agenda objective of meeting the region's air
transportation needs at the Airport for the next 25 years. Mitigating the impacts of airport noise
within the community ensures that the Airport can continue to serve the growing needs of the
region while minimizing its impacts. 
This project will support the following Aviation Strategic Goals: 
Lead the U.S. airport industry in environmental innovation and minimize the Airport's
environmental impacts. 
Maintain valued community partnerships based on mutual understanding and socially
responsible practices.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
October 3, 2016 
Page 5 of 7 

Economic Development 
This project could create limited duration construction jobs. 
Environmental Responsibility 
Reduces interior noise levels within homes. 
The project will remove any harmful regulated materials that are identified within the 
sound insulation project area of homes. 
As a side benefit, the installation of new sound rated windows and doors may also
provide cooling and heating energy efficiency for homeowners. 
Community Benefits 
This project is a derivative of the 2014 Part 150 study that was approved by the FAA. The
project directly benefits the community by providing close-in communities that are impacted by
aircraft noise some relief by sound insulating homes to reduce the interior noise levels. 
Contracting within this project could provide work to small and disadvantaged business
enterprises. 
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED 
Alternative 1  Contract each home one at a time with separate architectural contracts. This
method was used by the Port approximately eight years ago. 
Cost Implications: $19,517,000 
Pros: 
This alternative would follow conventional procurement practices. 
The process would allow for small business opportunities. 
Allows Port staff to have more control of the construction process. 
Cons: 
This alternative creates extensive internal work for the Noise Office, the Project
Management Group, and Central Procurement Office since each contract would have to
be bid and awarded for each home. 
This alternative would be time consuming. 
This alternative would need additional Port oversight due to stringent FAA contracting
and construction guidelines since the project will be newly funded by FAA grants. 
May encounter high contractor turnover rates and low or limited participation of
contractors based on low bid. 
Highest overall cost with this method. 
This is not the recommended alternative.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
October 3, 2016 
Page 6 of 7 
Alternative 2  Procure a job order contract (JOC) at a specified dollar amount to handle
packages of two to four homes at a time. Procure a separate architectural contract. This method
was used by the Port for the past five years.
Cost Implications: $15,565,000 
Pros: 
The Port has experience managing this type of procurement method. 
The process would allow for small business opportunities. 
A JOC creates efficiencies in being able to assemble packages of two to four homes to
hand off to the prime contractor. 
Cons: 
Requires extensive internal resources from Port staff to manage the contracts and oversee
the work. Additional limited duration staff may be needed if the Port starts multiple
insulation projects at one time. 
This contract method will need additional Port oversight due to stringent FAA
contracting and construction guidelines since the project will be newly funded by FAA
grants. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 3)    Procure a consulting firm to provide  design,  project management and
construction management. Services include managing the process to ensure compliance with all
stringent FAA sound insulation requirements and Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Grant
funding requirements. Procure a job order contract (JOC) for sound insulation construction.
Airport Noise staff will maintain overall responsibility for homeowner satisfaction.
Cost Implications: $14,535,000 
Pros: 
The firm administering the program would have experience implementing these types of
FAA grant-funded projects throughout the U.S. at large airports.
The process would allow for small business opportunities. 
This method would create efficiencies and alleviate Port staff time needed to address 
other programs and projects. 
Would potentially create cost savings by reducing staff time spent on managing projects
from beginning to end. 
The Port would assume less risk with future liabilities of installation and products. 
The Port would remain in its primary role of customer relations to ensure the project is
meeting the goal of creating and maintaining a supportive community. 
This is assumed to be the quickest method to complete the entire project. 
Cons: 
This method may add more direct construction costs onto the program. 
Would add additional contracting with the use of a project administration firm. 
The Port would be one step removed from the day-to-day implementation of the program. 
This is the recommended alternative.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
October 3, 2016 
Page 7 of 7 

ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST 
None 
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS 
October 22, 2013  Second Reading and Final Passage of Resolution No. 3683
concluding the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise and Land Use
Compatibility Study Update for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. 
October 8, 2013  First Reading of Resolution No. 3683 concluding the Federal
Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Study Update
for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.