PORT OF SEATTLE 
MEMORANDUM 
COMMISSION AGENDA               Item No.      4d 
ACTION ITEM 
Date of Meeting    September 13, 2016 
DATE:    September 6, 2016 
TO:      Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
FROM:   Melinda Miller, Director, Portfolio & Asset Management 
Economic Development Division 
Lily Ninburg, Property Manager 
Rod Jackson, Capital Project Manager, Seaport Project Management 
SUBJECT:  Terminal 91 - Building C-173 Roof Overlay (CIP #C800829) 
Amount of This Request:         $185,000   Source of Funds:         Tax Levy 
Est. Total Project Cost:          $1,561,000 
ACTION REQUESTED 
Request Commission authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to complete  design
documents for the Terminal 91 Building C-173 Roof Overlay Project for an estimated cost of
$185,000, bringing the current authorization to $250,000 for an estimated project cost of
$1,561,000. 
SYNOPSIS 
The Terminal 91 C-173 Building's roof is at the end of its service life and needs a new roofing
system.  This memo requests authorization to proceed with the final design phase of the
development process. This project  team will also analyze the feasibility of adding a roof
downspout storm water treatment system and evaluate the possibility of packaging construction
work together with the Fishermen's Terminal Net Sheds 3, 4, 5, and 6 Roof Replacement Project
in a single bid package to increase small business opportunities.  Combining construction
projects may allow the Port to achieve higher small business requirements, for example at 30-
40%, than if the construction projects are separate with single digit small business percentages. 
The building is 100% occupied, primarily as warehouse and storage space leased to maritimerelated
customers American Seafood, Kami Steel, and Marel Seafood Seattle. In accordance
with the terms of the leases, the Port has responsibility for the replacement of the 50,000 square
foot roof. 
Waterproof Storage at Terminal 91 is one of the amenities that helps retain tenants and is part of
the critical service infrastructure that will be required to double the economic value of the
maritime sectors, as envisioned by the Century Agenda.  This project was included in the 2016 
Plan of Finance.

Template revised May 30, 2013.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
September 6, 2016 
Page 2 of 8 
BACKGROUND 
Construction of the Terminal 91 C-173 Buildings took place in 1987.  A roof inspection was 
performed on the building in November 2015 recommending replacement or overlaying. The
consultant report indicated the building is currently at structural capacity and the roof is showing
signs of deterioration with rusted construction scratches, kinks in the metal roof panels, rust
spots, deficient sheet metal repairs, roosting birds, and uplift during strong winds. The condition
report was updated in March 2016 to verify the findings. The updated report states a roof
replacement or overlay should occur soon. The project will install a new roofing overlay system 
over the existing corrugated roof that will provide a 30-year life with good maintenance.
Preliminary design is complete. The feasibility of adding solar panels to C-173 was considered
and rejected as the extra structural upgrade costs needed to support the panels on the roof were
deemed prohibitive. Approximately $5.53 million (structural upgrades of $3 million, solar panel
costs of $2 million, and approximately $530,000 in infrastructure upgrades) would be required to
incorporate solar power. 
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND DETAILS 
The proposed project would preserve important building assets and revenues associated with the
leased warehouse space, extend the life of the building structure, and minimize the Port's 
liability.  Deferring or foregoing this work will result in continued deterioration of the roof
system components.  Proactive asset stewardship is the key to reducing the total cost of
ownership to the Port over time.
In addition to the design to replace the roofing system, the project provides an opportunity to
investigate and implement environmentally sustainable practices and processes as part of the new
roof overlay. As the design develops, environmentally sustainable options will be evaluated
utilizing criteria identified in EX-15, that include total cost of ownership, environmentallysustainable
development and conservation of resources as a method of determining which
sustainable elements will be included in the final project. Potential sustainable elements may
include rainwater harvesting and reduction in roof heat absorption. 
The Port is also assessing opportunities to increase small business participation in the
construction contract.  We will update the Commission on this analysis when we return to
Commission for authority to advertise and execute a construction contract. 
Project Objectives 
Provide a new Roofing System that will extend the useful life of Terminal 91 C-173
Building. 
Complete the project safely on schedule and on budget. 
Minimize impacts on the environment. 
Minimize disruptions to the Port tenants, operations, and the facility. 
Include environmentally sustainable components and construction methods as
appropriate. 

Revised March 28, 2016  pjw

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
September 6, 2016 
Page 3 of 8 
Preserve the structural integrity of the building. 
Preserve future revenues from the building. 
Increase safety with the installation of fall protection. 
Evaluate the possibility of combining construction with other nearby roofing projects to
save project costs and increase small business opportunities. 
Scope of Work 
The scope of work for the Terminal 91 Building C-173 Roof includes the evaluation and design
for the: 
New durable roofing membrane overlay system for the building; 
Overlay the building with approximately 50,000 square feet of roof membrane and associated
roof appurtenances. 
Install a bird deterrent system; 
Installation of security access ladders to the roof; 
Fall protection and attachments to the roof; 
Determine the feasibility of a bio-filtration and stormwater treatment system for rooftop
runoff. 
Utilizing environmentally sustainable components and construction methods as appropriate. 
Schedule 
The design and permitting phase is expected to be completed by December, 2016 and the
construction phase expected to begin in 2017 and be fully complete by November 2017. 
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 
Budget/Authorization Summary              Capital     Expense   Total Project 
Original Budget                            $0          $0          $0 
Previous Authorizations                   $65,000          $0      $65,000 
Current request for authorization              $185,000          $0      $185,000 
Total Authorizations, including this request      $250,000          $0      $250,000 
Remaining budget to be authorized         $1,311,000          $0    $1,311,000 
Total Estimated Project Cost              $1,561,000          $0    $1,561,000 
Project Cost Breakdown                     This Request       Total Project 
Construction                                     $0         $1,056,000 
Construction Management                      $40,000         $148,000 
Design                                    $90,000          $156,000 
Project Management                          $34,000          $84,000
Permitting                                   $16,000           $16,000 
State & Local Taxes (estimated)                        $0          $101,000 
Total                                       $185,000         $1,561,000* 

Revised March 28, 2016  pjw

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
September 6, 2016 
Page 4 of 8 
* The current C-173 Roof Overlay's total estimated project cost of $1,561,000 is an increase from the
$1,309,000 total estimated project costs shown in the 2016 plan of finance. The increase is because the
requested delay which has created minor increases in labor and material costs to complete the work. 
Budget Status and Source of Funds 
This project was included in the 2016 plan of finance combined under CIP #C800829, Terminal
91 Building C-173 Roof Overlay in the amount of $1,561,000.
This project will be funded by the Tax Levy. 
Financial Analysis and Summary 
CIP Category             Renewal/Enhancement 
Project Type              Renewal & Replacement 
Risk adjusted discount rate     N/A 
Key risk factors              Actual costs could exceed the current estimates. 
Future revenues from the building could be less than
currently expected. 
Project cost for analysis        $1,561,000 
Business Unit (BU)          Maritime Portfolio Management 
Effect on business performance  This project is a renewal & replacement project and
preserves current annual net operating income (NOI) of
approximately $580,000 excluding major
maintenance/compliance expenses. This project will retain
key fishing industry tenants. 
This project will increase depreciation expense by
$62,440 per year. 
IRR/NPV             The NPV of this project is the present value of the project
cost. 
CPE Impact             N/A 
Lifecycle Cost and Savings 
Preliminary lifecycle cost analyses have been developed for the project and will continue to
identify the lowest total cost of ownership to determine which of the roof design options will be
appropriate for the new roofing system and the facility.  Annual Operating and Maintenance
costs for the roof system are forecasted to decrease for the C-173 Building Roof because of the
Overlay and installation of this new roof system. The design for Building C-173 Roof Overlay
will use the desired analysis design option as the project design is developed. 
STRATEGIES AND OBJECTIVES 
This project enhances Seaport vitality by maintaining the building integrity and storage
infrastructure which serves the tenant and is utilized by the Port's seafood and container
industries. This project also supports the Port's Century Agenda strategy to "position the Puget

Revised March 28, 2016  pjw

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
September 6, 2016 
Page 5 of 8 
Sound region as a premier international logistics hub" by doubling the economic value of the
fishing and maritime cluster and be the greenest and most energy efficient port in North America
by: 
Investing in and preserving a valuable Port asset. 
Continuing to provide storage space, in close proximity to their vessels and business, for their
gear/materials. 
Maintaining the long-term revenue generating capability of C-173. 
Fulfilling lease commitments and obligations to the Port's tenants. 
Create opportunities for small business participation. 
. 
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED 
Alternative 1)  Maintain Status Quo and delay replacement of the C-173 Roof Overlay. 
Maintenance costs of $9,814.10 annually (averaged over nine months) will continue. 
Cost Implications: $1,561,000 of project funding will not be needed.
Pros: 
No additional major capital funding would be required. 
Allows port to reallocate capital investment dollars to other high priority needs with
potentially higher rates of return or to other maritime cost recovery type projects. 
Cons: 
Increases the chances that the interior of the facility will be damaged due to water
infiltration. 
Foregoes opportunity to remove the dilapidated roofing systems and to alleviate the
potential for failure while progressing toward the port century agenda goal to double
the economic value of the fishing and maritime cluster industries. 
Increase of probable construction costs in the future while emergency repair costs
continue to increase.
The cost of a future roofing project in the event of roof failure would be the full cost
of replacement ($1.56 million) plus escalation and the cumulative on going expense
costs. Risk cost of lost tenant space due to emergency repairs  unknown but high. 
Safety of the tenant could be compromised due to the slip hazard from leaks to tenant
and employees. 
The risk of significant or catastrophic failure increases over time with the further
breakdown of roof system materials. 
Increased maintenance cost will continue. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 2)  Coat the entire existing roof with a 10 year life roof roll-on coating system 
while installing a new security ladder, gutter and fall protection system. 

Revised March 28, 2016  pjw

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
September 6, 2016 
Page 6 of 8 

Cost Implications: Total project costs would be more than the anticipated budget with the
installation of the 10 year coating system because the roof will require recoating after 10 years.
This cost differential is for the coating material and labor. $2,349,000 in project funding w ould 
be needed. 
Pros: 
An entirely new 10 year roof roll-on coating and gutter system investment will protect
our assets and have a 10 year life span. 
In Increase safety with the installation of fall protection. 
This alternative furthers the port century agenda to double the economic value of the
fishing and maritime cluster industries. 
Helps to assure a stronger positive tenant experience and avoids potential safety hazards. 
Provides protection of port assets. 
Cons: 
Additional cost for the Roof Coating is higher than the PVC roofing system (Alternative
3). Due to the added material and handling cost, this is the most expensive alternative. 
This alternative uses $2.35 million of capital that might otherwise be made available for
other uses on other projects. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 3)  Replace the entire existing roofing system with a PVC Membrane Overlay that
has a 30 year life while installing a new security ladder, gutter and fall protection system
including solar and structural upgrades to 100% of the building. 
Cost Implications: An additional $5.53 million (which will consist of Structural upgrades of $3 
million, solar panel costs of $2 million, and approximately $530,000 in infrastructure upgrades)
is required to complete structural upgrades and include solar panels. This cost is above and
beyond the base cost of $1.56 million for Alternative 4's investment. 
Pros: 
This Photovoltaic (PV) installation could potentially provide and generate approximately
300,000 kWh of power per year with the current usage being 291,800 kWh per year. 
This PV installation could potentially save approximately $23,008.00 per year. 
This PV installation could potentially provide the ability for grant reimbursement and
possible incentives. 
Replacing grid produced electrical energy with a renewable energy reduces Greenhouse
Gas Emissions by ~ 7,680 lbs. of CO2/year. 
Providing renewable power systems meet three Century Agenda goals: Reduces
Greenhouse gas emissions, increases renewable energy use, and conserves energy use to

Revised March 28, 2016  pjw

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
September 6, 2016 
Page 7 of 8 
meet overall energy demand.  Plays a role in building clean infrastructure and
demonstrates Port's leadership in competing globally to produce clean energy using
Washington-based industries. 
Matching installation of a new PVC Roofing and gutter system with the solar PV system
will harmonize life cycle of both systems. 
To be eligible for grants, solar panels are manufactured in Washington and provide
support for a growing industry. 
Replacing the roof, security ladder, gutters and fall protection systems during
construction will provide the lowest Life Cycle Cost.
This project would provide for a warranted roof that will minimize the cost of roof
repairs going forward. 
Cons: 
This alternative uses an additional $5.53 million to include Solar and Structural upgrade
or $7.09 million of capital in aggregate that might otherwise be made available for other
uses on other projects. 
The increased cost of this solar installation does not meet normally accepted project
financial criteria for new capital projects.
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 4)  Replace the entire existing roofing system with a PVC Membrane Overlay that
has a 30 year life while installing a new security ladder, gutter, and fall protection system. 
Cost Implications: A cost of $1,561,000 of project funding is needed to implement the project. 
Pros: 
Install entirely new PVC Membrane Overlay Roofing and gutter system that will protect
our assets and have a 30 year life span and serve the Port and the tenants well. 
Overlaying the roof, and replacing the security ladder, gutters, and fall protection System
including all required penetrations during construction will provide the largest return on
investment.
This alternative furthers the port century agenda to double the economic value of the
fishing and maritime cluster industries. 
Helps to assure a stronger positive tenant experience and avoids potential safety hazards. 
Provides protection of port assets. 
Increase safety with the installation of fall protection. 
Provides for the viability of the facility for the foreseeable future. 
This project would provide for a warranted roof that will minimize the cost of roof
repairs going forward for the foreseeable life of the roof. 
Provides protection of port assets. This option does the best job of supporting the goal of
managing Port assets to minimize the long term total cost of ownership. 

Revised March 28, 2016  pjw

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
September 6, 2016 
Page 8 of 8 
Cons: 
This alternative uses $1.56 million of capital that might otherwise be made available for
other uses on other projects. 
This is the recommended alternative 
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST 
Slide presentation. 
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS 
None 













Revised March 28, 2016  pjw