PORT OF SEATTLE 
MEMORANDUM 
COMMISSION AGENDA               Item No.      6a 
ACTION ITEM 
Date of Meeting      June 14, 2016 
DATE:    May 17, 2016 
TO:      Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
FROM:   David McFadden, Managing Director, Economic Development Division 
SUBJECT:  Establish Port Economic Development Partnership Program 
Amount of This Request:         $962,435 
Est. Total Project Cost:           $962,435 
ACTION REQUESTED 
Request Commission authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to: (1) establish a new
economic development grant fund that advances the Century Agenda, promotes a dramatic
growth agenda, and supports middle class jobs; (2) authorize up to $1,000,000 for 2016 grants to
King County cities; and (3) perform necessary project management and contractadministration 
to support the new grant program. 
SYNOPSIS 
The Port would create a new economic development grant fund that provides thirty eight King
County cities per capita funding to advance local economic development throughout the region.
Annual grant funding would be provided on a $1 per capita formula with a maximum of $65,000
while ensuring each city receives at least $5,000 (see allocation table on next page) 
The new grant fund would be structured to drive meaningful outcomes: 
Provide some flexibility to define local economic development projects 
Tie to economic development (ideally the Century Agenda although not required) 
Require a 50 percent local match to ensure cities are also committed to project success 




Template revised May 30, 2013.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
May 17, 2016 
Page 2 of 7 

Proposed Century Grant Allocations 
grant formula:
$1 per capita
$60k maximum
City       2015 Population  - 10k minimum
Seattle                 662,400
Bellevue              135,000 $ 65,000 
Kent               122,900 $ 65,000 
Renton              98,470 $ 65,000 
Federal Way            90,760 $ 65,000 
Kirkland                83,460 $ 65,000 
Auburn              65,950 $ 65,000 
Redmond           59,180 $ 59,180 
Shoreline               54,500 $ 54,500 
Sammamish          49,980 $ 49,980 
Burien                48,810 $ 48,810 
Issaquah               33,330 $ 33,330 
Des Moines            30,100 $ 30,100 
SeaTac               27,650 $ 27,650 
Bothell                 25,410 $ 25,410 
Maple Valley            24,700 $ 24,700 
Mercer Island            23,480 $ 23,480 
Kenmore            21,500 $ 21,500 
Tukwila               19,300 $ 19,300 
Covington             18,520 $ 18,520 
Snoqualmie            12,850 $ 12,850 
Lake Forest Park           12,810 $ 12,810 
Woodinville             11,240 $ 11,240 
Enumclaw            11,140 $ 11,140 
Newcastle             10,940 $ 10,940 
Duvall                  7,345 $ 7,345 
Pacific                    6,770 $ 6,770 
North Bend             6,460 $ 6,460 
Normandy Park           6,420 $ 6,420 
Black Diamond           4,200 $ 5,000 
Algona                3,105 $ 5,000 
Medina              3,095 $ 5,000 
Clyde Hill                 3,020 $ 5,000 
Carnation               1,790 $ 5,000 
Yarrow Point             1,020 $ 5,000 
Milton                 1,010 $ 5,000 
Hunts Point               410 $ 5,000 
Beaux Arts Village            300 $ 5,000 
Skykomish              195 $ 5,000 
$ 962,435 

The Port will create an application for cities and hold application workshops for interested
partners. The grant application will be straightforward and relatively easy to fill out.

Revised March 28, 2016  pjw

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
May 17, 2016 
Page 3 of 7 

BACKGROUND 
Economic Development Division staff evaluated economic development grant models across the
country. We found that grant funding is very limited for cities that want to pursue economic
development projects or initiatives.
State and federal government agencies and private foundations are the biggest grant funding
sources. The U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA), for example, has long
administered funding programs for public works projects as well as economic development
initiatives. Philanthropy plays a role too - the Ewing Kaufman Foundation invests millions in
entrepreneurship education and training.
For regional, city, or neighborhood development organizations it is difficult to secure grants for
special projects that can lead to new jobs and economic impacts. EDA does help but their funds
are terribly limited and typically it takes months or even years to secure their funds (their
application is also not for the feint at heart). Private foundations are typically more laser focused
in particular areas  application processes are very competitive and typically screened at the
national level. 
Washington State has not had an economic development grant program for over 20 years. The
former Local Development Match Fund supported a variety of economic development projects
and studies until the mid-1990s.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND DETAIL 
The Port's new Port Economic Development Partnership Program grant program will help
address the lack of economic development funding for local projects. The Port can also use this
new program to accomplish Century Agenda goals through purposeful economic development
partnerships with local cities. 
In its analysis of grant funding resources the Port also looked at how it supports economic
development within the region through sponsorships, memberships and contracts. Staff found
the Port contributes $100,000 to $200,000 annually to Seattle-based economic development
organizations.  Conversely, the Port contributes very little to economic development groups
within the metropolitan area outside of Seattle. As a result of this imbalance the Port is focus its
grant resources on the 38 King County cities outside of Seattle. However, the Port will continue
to make investments in Seattle-based economic development programs.
Project Objectives 
The Port Economic Development Partnership Program will help the Port advance regional
economic vitality through focused partnerships with King County cities. Grants will be made to
each city to pursue programs and projects that stimulate business development, job creation and
community revitalization. Each participating city may in turn contract with local nonprofits (ex.

Revised March 28, 2016  pjw

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
May 17, 2016 
Page 4 of 7 
Chamber of Commerce, Visitor Bureau, etc.) to carry out specific initiatives. Port Economic
Development Partnership Programs can be used to support the following economic development
activities: 
Business recruitment initiatives designed to attract new companies to a region or city 
Small business development (including incubator/accelerator projects) 
Industry retention and expansion assistance (ex. Maritime, Aerospace, etc.) 
Tourism development 
Downtown revitalization 
Commercial or industrial property development 
Other community or economic development projects that support new investment and
job creation 
The Revised Code of Washington article 53.08.245 authorizes the port to engage in economic
development programs. While RCW 53.08.245 specifically permits ports to engage with nonprofit
corporations in furtherance of such programs, it does not address port engagement with
other governmental agencies. 
Another port district statute, RCW 53.08.240 (2) permits the Port to enter into contracts with
other municipal corporations (as well as counties, US government and State). The Interlocal
Cooperation Act, Chapter 39.34 RCW, and specifically RCW 39.34.080, also permit such joint
activity. The general requirement is that in all the joint activities, the two agencies must be able
to exercise the same power separately as they intend to exercise jointly. RCW 35.21.703
authorizes cities to enter into economic development programs. 
These statutes allow the Port to make funds available to King County cities for the purpose of
advancing programs that are consistent with Port related/authorized activities. Contracts or
interlocal agreements will identify the specific obligations of each party (and the specific use of
the Port funds) to ensure that partnerships and initiatives pursued are appropriate.

Scope of Work 
Upon Commission authorization Port staff will need to take several steps to implement the new
Port Economic Development Partnership Program grant program: 
Publicize grant fund development and purpose 
Develop a grant application (almost complete) 
Publicize and conduct application workshops for cities and their partners 
Work with Strategic Initiatives and Legal Department to develop agreements with each
city around use of Port Economic Development Partnership Programs 
Develop methodology to evaluate Century Grant outcomes 
Complete evaluation of grant outcomes (2nd Quarter 2017) 


Revised March 28, 2016  pjw

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
May 17, 2016 
Page 5 of 7 

Schedule 
June (TBD)  Announcement about new grant program made at Sound Cities Alliance meeting 
June 14  Commission Authorization 
June 14  Public information (including web content) about Port Economic Development
Partnership Program available 
June/July  Application workshops 
June to October 2016  Agreements negotiated and approved with King County Cities 
June 2016 to May 2017  Project implementation 
May 2017  Project evaluation 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 
Budget Status and Source of Funds 
The Port Economic Development Partnership Program is a new initiative that will cost $962,435
to implement in 2016.  There is not a budgeted source of funds for this program so staff
recommends using the property tax levy to support the initial 2016 grant program.
Lifecycle Cost and Savings 
The Port Economic Development Partnership Program is anticipated to operate annually. It will
likely cost between $950,000 and $1,000,000 per year unless the Commission changes or
eliminates the program.
STRATEGIES AND OBJECTIVES 
This project supports the Century Agenda vision of adding 100,000 jobs through economic
growth led by the Port of Seattle. Grant funds will be distributed to 39 city partners in King
County so a larger team is working to create middle class jobs within the region. Through
purposeful contracts with local governments, the Port can extend its economic development
reach to all parts of King County.
Creating a Port Economic Development Partnership Program also honors the Port's commitment
to create economic opportunity for all, partner with surrounding communities, and promote
social responsibility. The new grant program also can help: 
Position the Puget Sound region as a premier international logistics hub; 
Advance this region as a leading tourism destination and business gateway; 
Promote small business growth; and 
Anchor Puget Sound urban-industrial land use to prevent sprawl in less developed areas. 


Revised March 28, 2016  pjw

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
May 17, 2016 
Page 6 of 7 
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED 
Alternative 1  Do Nothing 
Cost Implications: Alternative 1 would cost nothing. 
Pros: 
(1)  Given the future demands on the Port levy there are higher funding priorities for the
Port 
(2)  There are already ample grant funds, corporate sponsorships, and philanthropic
resources to support key economic development projects. Good projects will find
the funding and the current environment favors those proposals and organizations
that can deliver the best impact. 
Cons: 
(1)  Many cities in King County do not have resources to pursue impactful local
economic development projects.  As a result economic development is uneven
across King County and generally favors larger cities with more resources. Good
projects or initiatives may be wholly missed or not implemented without additional
economic development funding available. 
(2) The Century Agenda's success depends in part on teamwork.  Without active
economic development partnerships with King County cities the Port may not
realize Century Agenda aspirations and goals. 
This is not the recommended alternative. 
Alternative 2  Set up a competitive grant program for King County cities. The Port would take
applications from cities periodically and award funds to jurisdictions with the most impactful
projects. 
Cost Implications: The cost would still be approximately $962,000 annually, but the Economic
Development Division would also need an additional FTE to administer the grant cycles and
selection process. 
Pros: 
(1)  A competitive process helps ensure the Port picks projects that create jobs and
closely match our own interests 
(2)  A good program design can ensure that cities of all sizes compete fairly for Port
grant dollars (ex. Set aside funds for smaller cities) 
Cons: 
(1)  The grant program would be more complicated and take significant additional time
to administer. Extra steps would need to be taken to help local jurisdictions with
project scoping, funding and grant application development 
(2) Some cities who don't receive funding may be upset and these sentiments could
impact the overall success and sustainability of the grant program 
This is not the recommended alternative. 

Revised March 28, 2016  pjw

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Ted Fick, Chief Executive Officer 
May 17, 2016 
Page 7 of 7 

Alternative 3  Establish a per capita based economic development grant for King County cities 
Cost Implications: The cost would be approximately $962,000 annually (not including staff
time) 
Pros: 
(1)  The program is easy to understand and application/contracting processes are
manageable. 
(2)  The per capita formula ensures that all King County cities benefit.  Program
parameters help ensure that city projects align with the Port's business interests. 
Cons: 
(1)  The program could be seen as an entitlement  Cities may want initial or growing
flexibility to use Port funds for projects that do not tie to economic development or
the Port's interests. 
(2)  Compared to a competitive grant program it may be more difficult to develop
contractual partnerships that produce impacts and outcomes that support the Port's
Century Agenda and economic development aspirations. 
This is the recommended alternative. 
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST 
Computer slide presentation. 
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS 
None 







Revised March 28, 2016  pjw