COMMISSION 
AGENDA MEMORANDUM                        Item No.          4a 
ACTION ITEM                            Date of Meeting      October 24, 2017 
DATE:     October 5, 2017 
TO:        Dave Soike, Interim Executive Director 
FROM:    Wendy Reiter, Director Aviation Security 
Wayne Grotheer, Director Aviation Project Management 
SUBJECT:  Airport Terminal Safety Enhancements and Security Improvements: (CIP #C800862) 
Amount of this request:               $6,218,000 
Total estimated project cost:         $10,568,000 
ACTION REQUESTED 
Request Commission authorization to (1) complete design and prepare construction documents
for Airport Terminal Safety Enhancements and Security Improvements project and (2) advertise,
award, and execute construction contract(s) for only Phase I of the project for an additional 
$6,218,000 for a total authorization of $6,288,000. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
The Terminal Safety Enhancements  and Security Improvements  project  (TSE)  is being
implemented in two phases and as separate projects given the value in protecting any person
within the terminal and using the sky bridges. 
Phase 1 will shatterproof vulnerable landside windows of the Main Terminal and sky bridges 
from the Parking Garage to the Terminal to reduce potential injuries from flying glass to all
occupants (passengers, public, tenant workers and Port employees) within the Terminal in the
event of a catastrophic window breaking event. Staff is only requesting authorization for this 
phase of the project. 
Phase 2, to be authorized in early 2018, will enhance security by installing bollards on the
Arrivals and Departure drives' sidewalks and in the garage at the entrance to each sky bridge. In
an effort to effectively and more efficiently utilize capital funds, phase 2 will investigate adding
necessary Americans with Disability Act (ADA) access ramp improvements along both drives
concurrent with the bollard installation. If the ADA scope is added to this project, it will advance 
scope currently planned for a future project. 
JUSTIFICATION 
Shatter-proofing the windows determined to be vulnerable on the landside of the terminal and
sky bridges has been identified as a key element and action to improve safety and to reduce

Template revised September 22, 2016.

COMMISSION AGENDA  Action Item No. 4a                                  Page 2 of 5 
Meeting Date: October 24, 2017 
potential injuries in the event of a catastrophic event that projects glass into the terminal or sky 
bridges at the airport. Staff is requesting the single authorization for design and construction to
expedite providing safer facilities that require minimal design effort prior to advertising for
construction. 
DETAILS 
The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) has classification guidelines that provide several
levels for enhancing the performance of existing non-shatterproof glazing or window systems
to reduce the hazard of glass projecting into the terminal and sky bridges in the event of a
catastrophic event. This guideline takes into account the breakage mode of the glazing unit and
the distance of fragment penetration into the interior space. The shatter-proofing system
meets classification Level 2 or better (which is considered no hazard for occupants). Glazing
must also meet UL752Bullet Resistant Glazing and UL972-Burglary Resistant standards. 
A requirement of installing the window safety film is installing an impact protection adhesive
applied to the existing window gasket to help bond the film with the glass/frame. For aesthetics
this adhesive is covered with a metal cap profile. Similar window treatment systems are
currently in use or are being considered at a number of other major U.S. Airports. 
Scope of Work 
Phase 1 work will install a shatter-proofing system to vulnerable landside windows of the Main
Terminal and sky bridges along the upper and lower airport drives to achieve a Level 2 Security
Glazing Standard. 
Phase 1 scope 
(1)   Clean and prepare windows for Plastic Safety Film 
(2)   Install window film and anchor to window frame 
Small Business 
In partnership with the Port's small business group, project team staff is coordinating efforts
through PortGen outreach activities to promote the TSE project to small and historically
underutilized businesses.
Schedule for Phase 1 of TSE Project 
Activity for Phase 1 of TSE 
Design start                                       2017 Quarter 4 
Construction start                                2018 Quarter 1 
In-use date                                       2018 Quarter 2 
Cost Breakdown for Phase 1 of TSE                      This Request   Total Project Phase 1 
Design                                                    $914,000               $984,000 

Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.

COMMISSION AGENDA  Action Item No. 4a                                  Page 3 of 5 
Meeting Date: October 24, 2017 
Construction                                             $5,304,000             $5,304,000 
Total                                                         $6,218,000              $6,288,000 
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED 
Three options were considered as follows: 
Alternative 1 Leave All Windows Untreated 
Cost Implications: $ 0 
Pros: 
(1)   No capital investment and available funds could be spent on other projects. 
Cons: 
(1)   Main  Terminal  and  sky  bridge  windows  remain  untreated  and  vulnerable  to  a
projecting-glass-window-shattering event that could result in significant injuries. 
(2)   Does not achieve objective of improving the safety of passengers or occupants of the 
terminal and could be perceived as not valuing people's safety. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 2  Replace vulnerable landside windows of the Main Terminal and sky bridges with
tempered/laminated (Shatterproof) glass. 
Cost Implications: $30,547,000 
Pros: 
(1)   Increases safety of travelers by replacing existing windows with tempered/laminated
glass that provides the best protection in a blast, high wind, or earthquake. The
tempered glass would just crack and be retained within the window frame. 
(2)   Would not require windows be retreated when shatter-proofing system reaches its
service life of 10-15 years. 
Cons: 
(1)   Would require significant capital investment and would take well over a year to
replace. 
(2)   Would likely require that the Main Terminal building envelope be updated to the most
current building and energy codes (Note: The cost associated with updating to code is
not captured in cost implications and would likely greatly exceed the cost of just
replacing windows), upgrading Main Terminal to current building energy code is
outside project scope. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 



Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.

COMMISSION AGENDA  Action Item No. 4a                                  Page 4 of 5 
Meeting Date: October 24, 2017 
Alternative 3  Install Shatter-Proofing System to vulnerable landside windows of the Main
Terminal and sky bridges from Parking Garage to the Terminal. 
Cost Implications: $6,288,000 
Pros: 
(1)   Installing a window shatter-proofing system that is clear and chemically adhered to
the interior of each window, then restrained along window frame to ensure the
damaged glass is retained with the frame. 
(2)   Immediately addresses safety concern of glass projecting into terminal during a blast,
high-wind, or earthquake event. 
(3)   Terminal windows can be upgraded to tempered glass when impacted by other
projects or when replacement is required. 
Cons: 
(1)   The window treatment has an average service life of 10-15 years; the lower limit of
the service life is for windows exposed to direct sun. Once service life is reached the
existing treatment would need to be removed and a replacement system installed. 
This is the recommended alternative. 
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 
Cost Estimate/Authorization Summary              Capital        Expense           Total 
COST ESTIMATE 
Original estimate                                 $9,854,000               $0      $9,854,000 
Cost increase                                       $714,000               $0        $714,000 
Revised estimate                               $10,568,000              $0     $10,568,000 
AUTHORIZATION 
Previous authorizations                             $70,000               $0         $70,000 
Current request for authorization                $6,218,000               $0      $6,218,000 
Total authorizations, including this request       $6,288,000               $0      $6,288,000 
Remaining amount to be authorized            $4,280,000             $0     $4,280,000 
Annual Budget Status and Source of Funds 
This project was included in the 2017  2021 capital budget and plan of finance with a budget
of $9.854 million.  The cost increase is due to adding scope for the sky bridges.  The budget
increase will be transferred from the Aeronautical Allowance CIP (C800753) resulting in no net
change to the Aviation capital budget.  The funding source will be the Airport Development
Fund and future short-term revenue bonds.  This project will be subject to airline review
through a Majority-in-Interest vote, scheduled for November, 2017. 


Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.

COMMISSION AGENDA  Action Item No. 4a                                  Page 5 of 5 
Meeting Date: October 24, 2017 
Financial Analysis and Summary 
Project cost for analysis              $6,218,000 Phase I 
Business Unit (BU)                  Terminal Building 
Effect on business performance     NOI after depreciation will increase 
(NOI after depreciation) 
IRR/NPV (if relevant)                N/A 
CPE Impact                       $0.03 in 2018 
Future Revenues and Expenses (Total cost of ownership) 
The preferred alternative of installing a shatter-proofing window system has a lower initial
capital cost and expected service life (10-15 years) than replacing all Main Terminal and sky
bridge windows with tempered/laminated (Shatterproof) glass. 
When windows are damaged and replaced they will be replaced with tempered/laminated
glass. Future glass replacements will be more costly than current practice, with the addition of
the laminated component. 
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST 
(1)   Presentation slides 
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS 
None 









Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.