PORT OF SEATTLE 
MEMORANDUM 
COMMISSION AGENDA               Item No.      4d 
ACTION ITEM 
Date of Meeting    February 23, 2016 
DATE:    February 17, 2016 
TO:      Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
FROM:   Dave Soike, Director Aviation Facilities and Capital Programs 
Peter Garlock, Chief Information Officer 
SUBJECT:  Airport Telecommunications Network Capacity Increase (CIP #C800827) 
Amount of This Request:        $565,000   Source of      Airport Development
Funds:                 Fund 
Est. Total Project Cost:          $565,000 
Est. State and Local Taxes:        $24,000 
ACTION REQUESTED 
Request Commission authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to (1) proceed with the
Telecommunication Infrastructure Capacity Increase project at Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport; (2) procure required hardware, software, and vendor services; and (3) use Port staff for
implementation, for a total project cost not to exceed $565,000. 
SYNOPSIS 
The telecommunications cable infrastructure at Sea-Tac Airport was originally installed fifteen
years ago to provide shared voice and data connectivity for airport operations and airline
communications needs. Prior to this Port provided cabling and circuit infrastructure, airlines and
tenants  installed their own dedicated telecommunications networks,  causing considerable
disruption and inefficiencies, because cabling and circuits could not be reused if an airline
relocate within the terminal. While much more efficient since its implementation, the Port
provided shared network infrastructure has now reached its capacity in Concourses B and D. In
order to accommodate new airline, tenant, and airport operational needs, additional fiber and
copper cabling must be installed. 
The purpose of this project is to install much needed additional fiber optic and copper cabling in
Sea-Tac Concourses B and D. Information & Communication Technology (ICT) and Port
Construction Services (PCS) resources will complete the project. Total project costs are
estimated to be $565,000. Funding for this project was not included in the 2016-2020 capital
budget and plan of finance. The budget for this project (C800827) will be transferred from the
aeronautical allowance CIP (C800404) resulting in no net change to the Aviation Division
capital budget.

Template revised May 30, 2013.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
February 17, 2016 
Page 2 of 5 
BACKGROUND 
The telecommunications cable network is utilized by the Port of Seattle, Airlines, Transportation
Security Administration (TSA), and airport tenants. It consists of a fiber optic and copper
backbone cable system and a wiring cross-connect and distribution system covering all of the
airport's twenty six communications rooms. This cabling system is designed with diverse routes
to the communications rooms from separate main distribution rooms. 

PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND DETAILS 
The telecommunication cable infrastructure for Sea-Tac Concourses B and D are currently at
99% capacity. To fulfill new requests, ICT Network Engineers are patching together lengthy
alternative routes through a number of communication rooms, instead of direct routes to the
nearest connection point. In addition to inefficiently using up valuable and scarce capacity to
other locations, these alternative routes often exceed the network manufacturer's maximum
recommended distance limitations, thus reducing performance and increasing interference. This
"band aided" approach is inefficient and no longer viable. 
Project Objectives 
Increase the capacity of the airport telecommunications infrastructure supporting the B
and D concourses in order to efficiently fulfill new requests for data connectivity and
telecommunications services for the next several years. 
Scope of Work 
Install additional fiber optic and copper cabling from the main distribution room to
Concourse B and D. 
Schedule 
Commission Approval                                February 2016 
Design Complete                                       May 2016 
Installation Complete                                     December 2016 
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 
Budget/Authorization Summary              Capital     Expense   Total Project 
Original Budget                       $565,000          $0     $565,000 
Previous Authorizations                       $0          $0          $0 
Current request for authorization              $565,000          $0      $565,000 
Total Authorizations, including this request      $565,000          $0      $565,000 
Remaining budget to be authorized               $0          $0          $0 
Total Estimated Project Cost               $565,000          $0     $565,000 
Project Cost Breakdown                     This Request       Total Project 
Hardware                               $250,000          $250,000

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
February 17, 2016 
Page 3 of 5 
Port Labor                                 $158,500          $158,500 
Contracted Labor                            $132,500          $132,500 
State & Local Taxes (estimated)                    $24,000           $24,000 
Total                                       $565,000           $565,000 
Budget Status and Source of Funds 
Funding for this project was not included in the 2016-2020 capital budget and plan of finance.
The budget for this project (C800827) will be transferred from the aeronautical allowance CIP
(C800404) resulting in no net change to the Aviation Division capital budget. The source of
funds is the Airport Development Fund. 
Financial Analysis and Summary 
CIP Category             Renewal/Enhancement 
Project Type              Technology 
Risk adjusted discount rate     N/A 
Key risk factors             N/A 
Project cost for analysis        $565,000 
Business Unit (BU)          Terminal Building 
Effect on business performance  N/A 
IRR/NPV             N/A 
CPE Impact             $.01 
Lifecycle Cost and Savings 
There is no estimated change in support costs as a result of this project. 
STRATEGIES AND OBJECTIVES 
This project will support the following Century Agenda and Aviation Strategic Goals. 
Advance this region as a leading tourism destination and business getaway 
Meet the region's air transportation needs at Sea-Tac Airport for the next 25 years 
Position the Puget Sound region as a premier international logistics hub 
Port and tenant operations rely on the availability of data connectivity and telecommunication
services to operate efficiently. This project ensures the availability of the infrastructure to meet
critical needs.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
February 17, 2016 
Page 4 of 5 
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED 
Alternative 1)  Allow tenants to procure and install their own communications infrastructure.
Pros: 
Capital costs are avoided. 
Cons: 
If dedicated, point to point communication infrastructure is installed separately by
individual tenants and airlines, every gate move, relocation, or new tenant connectivity
would be significantly more costly ($50k to $100k per connection, vs. the shared,
reusable infrastructure of alternative 3). 
Aside from being significantly more expensive, independently installed, dedicated point
to point cabling is almost impossible to manage, or ensure adherence to quality and
documentation standards. It can also easily cause unexpected disruptions in service to
other tenants and critical Port operations. 
The physical footprint of communication infrastructure for multiple individual
organizations would be much larger, plus it would add significant complexity and delays 
to construction and relocation projects. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 2)  An airport-wide, full capacity build out to accommodate growth over the next
5-10 years.
Pros: 
An airport-wide, full capacity build out to accommodate growth for the next 5-10 years
will eliminate the need for additional capacity projects in the near future. 
This approach might provide some economies of scale, depending upon the amount of
cable acquired to support the longer future. 
Cons: 
This alternative will require extensive design, planning, and review to project the
requirements and related costs, and it cannot be accomplished in the timeframe required
to support our current capacity needs in the B and D concourses. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 3)  Add communication infrastructure capacity to Concourse B and D only. 
Pros: 
This alternative allows us to quickly deliver relief to the immediate capacity problems 
and only pay for what is needed. 
Cons: 
Quickly addressing only the needs in the B and C concourses may require us to
address other potential capacity issues as they occur in the future.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
February 17, 2016 
Page 5 of 5 
This is the recommended alternative. 
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST 
None 
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS 
None