PORT OF SEATTLE 
MEMORANDUM 

COMMISSION AGENDA             Item No.      8b 
Date of Meeting       March 5, 2009 
DATE:    February 18, 2009 
TO:      Tay Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
FROM:    Dave Soike, Deputy Director, Aviation Division 
Mike Ehl, Director, Aviation Operations 
SUBJECT:  Replacement of Perimeter Fence around south end of runway 34R. 
ACTION REQUESTED: 
Request Port Commission authorization to procure and execute service agreements with
consultants to perform design; to prepare contract documents; and perform construction contract
administration for the replacement of perimeter fence around south end of runway 34R at
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Airport) in the amount of $375,000. 
SYNOPSIS 
This memorandum requests authorization for all costs for replacing fencing around south end of
runway 34R. This project will improve airport safety by both providing taller fencing to meet
airport standards and by providing an underground barrier below the fence to prevent the ability
to tunnel under the fence. The height of the new fence will be 12 feet high with barbed wire 
along the top. The underground barrier is designed as a deterrent to prevent wildlife, in
particular coyotes, from entering the airfield and endangering operations. The new fence will
encompass the portion of the runway south of 188th that lies in undeveloped areas with dense
vegetation where wildlife has often been found to enter the airfield. The approximate length of
the fence is 4,800 lineal feet and will partially utilize materials that the airport has in stock to
minimize costs.
BACKGROUND 
Coyote numbers continue to increase in the urban areas of Washington State for a number of
reasons, including residential encroachment on coyote habitat, a lack of competition for food, 
trapping restrictions, and a lack of predators. As their numbers have increased, so has their
ability to coexist with humans in highly urbanized areas. 
The existing airfield fence line is older and does not meet current Airport standards. Coyotes
have dug under the existing fence, particularly in areas with nearby vegetation, and gained access
to the airfield because the fence does not have a buried barrier. Once on the airfield, the coyotes

COMMISSION AGENDA 
T. Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
February 18, 2009 
Page 2 of 4 

become a safety concern for operating aircraft, since strikes can cause significant aircraft damage
and result in unsafe foreign object debris. The new fence will be located closer to roads and
farther from vegetation to enable easier visual checks from periodic patrols.
To minimize costs, the fence fabric will come from available airport stock that originated from
recycled temporary operational security fences that were necessary while the third runway was
being constructed. Reusing this fence material results in a substantial savings to the project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/SCOPE OF WORK 
Project Statement: 
Provide new security fencing around the south end of runway 34R that lies south of 188th street.
Project Objectives: 
Meet current standards for airfield security fence. 
Gain more positive control over daily airport operations functions. 
Reduce the number of coyotes on the airfield to enhance aviation safety. 
Reduce the need to use wildlife deterrent measures by staff in the aircraft operations areas
which are necessary when coyotes are discovered on the airfield. 
Scope of Work: 
Design, provide, and install fencing to meet current airport standards. 
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES 
This project supports the Aeronautical goal to provide a safe environment to do business.
This project will also support the CEO's goal of having the "cleanest and greenest port in
America" by reusing existing fencing materials.
ALTERNATIVES 
Alternative 1: Do Nothing: Leaving the fence as it currently exists today continues to 
compromise airport safety and is not in compliance with current Airport security fence
standards. Airfield personnel require large shot pellets to remove coyotes. Such shot can
travel greater distances than the smaller shot normally used for typical bird control. 
Alternative 2: Install Only the Underground Barrier: The barrier could be installed
without updating the fence to current security standards. While this alternative increases
airport safety by deterring wildlife, it would disrupt the existing fence and require repair

COMMISSION AGENDA 
T. Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
February 18, 2009 
Page 3 of 4 

without either bringing the fence up to current standards or moving portions of the
fenceline to better locations. This alternative is estimated to cost nearly the same amount
as a new taller fence.
Alternative 3: Electrification of the Fence: This is not a feasible possibility. Excessive
vegetation at ground level and the wet conditions normally experienced in the Pacific
Northwest would quickly cause this fence to become inoperable. Dry summer conditions
may also cause any electrified wire near ground level to start fires. In addition
electrification would require ongoing maintenance costs that are unnecessary with the
new taller fence standard.
Alternative 4: Replace the Fence while using Recycled Materials: This option meets
current security standards while also providing both a taller fence and an underground
barrier. Recycling via using previously purchased materials provides a substantial
savings to the project. This is the recommended alternative. 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 
Budget/Authorization Summary 
Original Budget                                           $375,000 
Budget Increase                                               $0 
Revised Budget                                         $375,000 
Previous Authorizations this CIP                                     $0 
Current request for authorization                                  $375,000 
Total Authorizations, including this request                           $375,000 
Remaining budget to be authorized                                   $0 
Project Cost Breakdown 
Construction costs                                           $266,000 
Sales tax                                                     $24,000 
Outside professional services                                     $35,000 
Aviation PMG and other soft costs                                $50,000 
Total                                                     $375,000 

Source of Funds 
This project was included in the 2009  2013 capital budget and plan of finance as a business
plan prospective project (CIP C800286). The funding source will be the Airport Development
Fund.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
T. Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
February 18, 2009 
Page 4 of 4 

Financial Analysis Summary 
CIP Category                Renewal/enhancement 
Project Type                 Renewal and replacement 
Risk adjusted Discount rate        N/A 
Key risk factors                N/A 
Project cost for analysis           375,000 
Business Unit (BU)             Airfield  capital costs will be fully recovered in landing
fees over the life of the asset 
Effect on business performance     NOI after depreciation will increase as amortized capital
cost incorporated into airfield rate base will exceed
depreciation. 
IRR/NPV                N/A 
CPE Impact                Less than $.01 in 2010, but no impact on business plan
forecast as this project was included. 
ECONOMIC IMPACTS 
Airfield safety will be enhanced which assures continuation of the economic generation aspects
associated with the Airport. 
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY/COMMUNITY BENEFITS 
This project will use vinyl-coated, rather than galvanized fence material, over impervious
surfaces to prevent zinc leaching from potentially contaminated surface water. The project will
re-use fencing materials recycled from other temporary fencing. Fuel consumption will decrease
due to the reduced need to patrol the area for coyote presence.
TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE 
Airfield safety will promote the economic vitality of the air carriers, while the community will
benefit from steadfast air carrier performance. And, the environment will benefit from
utilization of the recycled fencing material. 
PROJECT SCHEDULE 
The project will be completed in 2009. 
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS 
There have been no previous Commission actions related to this item.