Electronic Packet for Downloading for Regular Meeting held Jul 13, 2021 12:00pm at Remote

Electronic Packet for Downloading

COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
July 13, 2021
To be held in virtually via MS Teams in accordance with Senate Concurrent
Resolution 8402 and in accordance with Governor Inslee's Proclamations 20-05 and
20-28 et seq. You may view the full meeting live at meetings.portseattle.org. To
listen live, call in at +1 (425) 660-9954 and Conference ID 382 304 939#
ORDER OF BUSINESS
10:30 a.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION if necessary, pursuant to RCW 42.30.110 (executive sessions are not open to the
public)
12:00 noon PUBLIC SESSION
Reconvene or Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA (at this time, commissioners may reorder, add, or remove items from the
agenda)
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
5. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
6. COMMITTEE REPORTS
7. PUBLIC COMMENT procedures available online at https://www.portseattle.org/page/public-comment-port-
commission-meetings
DUE TO SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 8402 AND THE GOVERNOR'S
PROCLAMATION 20-28 there will be no physical location for this meeting and the
PORT WILL NOT ACCEPT in-person, verbal comments during the regular meeting of July 13, 2021.
Alternatively, during the regular order of business, those wishing to provide public comment will have the
opportunity to:
1) Deliver public comment via email: All written comments received by email to commission-public-
records@portseattle.org will be distributed to commissioners and attached to the approved minutes.
2) Deliver public comment via phone or Microsoft Teams conference: To take advantage of this option,
please email commission-public-records@portseattle.org with your name and the topic you wish to speak to by
9:00 a.m. PT on Tuesday, July 13, 2021. You will then be provided with instructions and a link to join the Teams
meeting.
This process will be in place until further notice. For additional information, contact commission-public-
records@portseattle.org.

8. CONSENT AGENDA (consent agenda items are adopted by one motion without discussion)

Founded in 1911 by a vote of the people as a special purpose government, the Port of Seattle's mission is to promote economic opportunities
and quality of life in the region by advancing trade, travel, commerce, and job creation
in an equitable, accountable, and environmentally responsible manner.

PRELIMINARY AGENDA Port of Seattle Commission Regular Meeting of July 13, 2021 Page 2 of 3
8a. Approval of the Minutes of the Special Meeting/Study Session of June 8 and the Regular Meeting of
June 22, 2021. (no enclosure)
8b. Approval of the Claims and Obligations for the Period June 1, 2021, through June 30, 2021, Including
Accounts Payable Check Nos. 939948 through 940233 in the Amount of $5,043,370.29; Accounts Payable
ACH Nos. 036048 through 036721 in the Amount of $49,851,576.73; Accounts Payable Wire Transfer Nos.
015620 through 015643 in the Amount of $10,698,463.83, Payroll Check Nos. 198817 through 199023 in the
Amount of $56,512.91; and Payroll ACH Nos. 1028705 through 1032935 in the Amount of $11,662,990.13
for a Fund Total of $77,312,913.89. (memo enclosed) (p. 7)
8c. Authorization for the Executive Director to Execute a Contract for External Audit Services for the Financial
Periods 2022 to 2026 in an Estimated Amount Not-to-Exceed $3,000,000 for the Full Contract Term. The
Base Contract is Three Years with the Option to Extend for Two Additional One-year Terms.
(memo enclosed) (p. 10)
8d. Authorization for the Executive Director to Approve the King County Public Safety Answering Point Interlocal
Agreement 2021-2023. No additional funding is Associated with this Request. (memo and draft agreement
enclosed) (p. 12)
8e. Authorization for the Executive Director to Advertise, Award, and Execute a Construction Contract for the
Construction of the Building 161G AV Facility Upgrade Project at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The
Amount of this Request is $1,993,000 for a Total Estimated Project Cost Not-to-Exceed $2,972,000.
(CIP # C800924) (memo and presentation enclosed) (p. 32)
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
10. NEW BUSINESS
10a. Order No. 2021-06: Directing the Executive Director to Develop and Implement Executive Policies Banning
Port and Private Sector Uses of Public-facing Biometrics for Mass Surveillance, and for Law Enforcement
and Security Functions; Developing and Implementing Port Policies Within the Limitations of State and
Federal Law Related to Port, Federal and Private-sector Uses of Public-facing Biometrics at Port Facilities
for Traveler Functions; and Endorsing Federal Legislation Implementing a Moratorium on Federal Uses of
Biometrics not Explicitly Approved by the United States Congress. (proposed order, letter 1, letter 2,
letter 3, and presentation enclosed) (p. 49)
10b. Authorization for the Executive Director to Acquire Indigenous Art of the Pacific Northwest Region for
Display in the International Arrivals Facility (IAF) at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, in the Amount
of $475,000. (memo and presentation enclosed) (p. 91)
10c. Order No. 2021-07: Supporting the Executive Director's Authority to Negotiate and Execute a Lease
Agreement for the Property Known as Tsubota with the City of Seattle. (proposed order and map
enclosed) (p. 99)

Commissioners: Stephanie Bowman Ryan Calkins Sam Cho Fred Felleman Peter Steinbrueck Executive Director: Stephen P. Metruck
To contact commissioners: 206-787-3034 For meeting records and information: commission-public-records@portseattle.org 206-787-3210
www.portseattle.org

PRELIMINARY AGENDA Port of Seattle Commission Regular Meeting of July 13, 2021 Page 3 of 3
11. PRESENTATIONS AND STAFF REPORTS
11a. Executive Director Performance Review (no enclosure)
11b. Maritime Blue Annual Report (memo and presentation enclosed) (p. 102)
11c. Ocean Acidification Action Plan and Case Study Briefing (memo and presentation enclosed) (p. 135)
12. QUESTIONS on REFERRAL to COMMITTEE and CLOSING COMMENTS
13. ADJOURNMENT

P.O. Box 1209
Seattle, Washington 98111
www.portseattle.org
206.787.3000
APPROVED MINUTES
COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 8, 2021
The Port of Seattle Commission met in a special meeting Tuesday, June 8, 2021. The meeting was
held remotely in accordance with Senate Concurrent Resolution 8402 and the Governor's
Proclamation 20-28. Commissioners Bowman, Calkins, Cho, Felleman, and Steinbrueck were
present.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Pursuant to RCW 42.30 and Article IV, Section 8, of the commission bylaws, the meeting convened
at 9 a.m. to conduct a study session regarding on ground transportation.
2. PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSION
Presenters
Steve Metruck, Executive Director
Lance Lyttle, Managing Director, Aviation
Arlyn Purcell, Director, Aviation Environment & Sustainability
Peter Lindsay, Airport Ops Development Manager, Landside Operations
Adrian Down, Environmental Program Manager, AV Environmental Programs Group
Tom Hooper, Program Manager, Aviation Planning
Keri Pravitz, East King County Community Government Relations Manager,
External Relations
Presentation Materials
Ground Transportation Presentation
Members of the Commission received a presentation from Executive Director Metruck and staff. The
presentation addressed:
Ground transportation framework;
o Guiding principles
o Resolution goals
o Strategies and tactics
Ground transportation accomplishments;
Impacts from Covid-19;
Mode share and program emphasis;
Ground transportation revenue;
Greenhouse gas emissions and program emphasis;
Digital recordings of the meeting proceedings and meeting materials are available online www.portseattle.org.

004

PORT COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES Page 2 of 3
TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2021
Regional transit services to SEA;
Promoting transit;
Status update: 2020 work program;
o evaluate Express Bus service and remote baggage check
o form a Transportation Management Association
o restructure Airport Tenant Employee Parking
o explore and implement Airport Access Fees
o establish incentives for ride share and transit use
express bus and remote baggage check service;
SEA Eastside engagement;
Restructure airport tenant employee parking;
Transportation Management Association;
o key features
o 2020 workplan
o Covid-19 impacts
o progress in 2021
o looking forward
airport access fees
partners;
incentives for rideshare and transit use;
2018 SEA passenger ground transportation emissions;
options to "green-up" ground transportation providers;
options to incentivize behavior change;
options to incentivize long-term parking;
upcoming milestones; and
key takeaways
o there are competing priorities across ground transportation programs
o substantial effects from COVID on program implementation and our partners
o transit and electrification are a key part of our long-term strategy
o seek solutions that balance our needs and minimize unintended consequences
o engage and assess new opportunities to meet ground transportation goals.
Members of the Commission, Executive Director Metruck, and staff discussed:
employee trip reduction (data collected and specific numbers); how often collected?;
the number of employee parking stalls currently provided;
employee parking in the main garage;
promoting transit;
making a difference in greenhouse gas emissions and addressing low barriers to transit for
passengers, lowering passenger single-car trips;
possible incentivization for TNCs, like taxis;
creating a high level, measurable goal for social equity;
improvements needed to bus service to and from the airport;
restarting conversations regarding remote baggage check-in at the convention center;
making it clearer where in the process of SAMP the Port is;
the use of partnerships in ground transportation;
alignment in ranking transportation modes and incentives;
addressing externalized costs access fee;
Minutes of November 17, 2020, submitted for review on December 3, 2020, and proposed for approval on December 8, 2020.
Minutes of October 27, 2020, submitted for review on November 5, 2020, and proposed for approval on November 10, 2020.
005

PORT COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES Page 3 of 3
TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2021
incentivizing tenant employee parking, such as including it as part of a compensation
package;
the number of employers required to produce trip reduction plans at SEA;
moving forward with a budget request in 2022 for a Transportation Management
Association;
attaining consistency in tracking change based on the implementation of different strategies
to lower passenger greenhouse gas emissions; and
coordinating with other for-profit parking lots.
Executive Director Metruck and Members of the Commission appreciated the work of staff in bringing
forward the study session information. Executive Director Metruck also thanked everyone who
participated in relevant focus groups in 2020, keeping the conversations going in spite of the
pandemic.
3. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:01 a.m.

Prepared: Attest:

Michelle M. Hart, Commission Clerk Sam H. Cho, Commission Secretary
Minutes approved: July 13, 2021

Minutes of November 17, 2020, submitted for review on December 3, 2020, and proposed for approval on December 8, 2020.
Minutes of October 27, 2020, submitted for review on November 5, 2020, and proposed for approval on November 10, 2020.
006

COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM Item No. 8b
ACTION ITEM Date of Meeting July 13, 2021
DATE: July 1, 2021
TO: Steve Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Duane Hill, AFR Senior Manager Disbursements
SUBJECT: Claims and Obligations June 2021
ACTION REQUESTED
Request Port Commission approval of the Port Auditor's payment of the salaries and claims of the Port
pursuant to RCW 42.24.180 for payments issued during the period June 1 through 30, 2021 as follows:

Payment Reference Payment Reference
Payment Type Amount
Start Number End Number
Accounts Payable Checks 939948 940233 $ 5,043,370.29
Accounts Payable ACH 036048 036721 $ 49,851,576.73
Accounts Payable Wire Transfers 015620 015643 $ 10,698,463.83
Payroll Checks 198817 199023 $ 56,512.91
Payroll ACH 1028705 1032935 $ 11,662,990.13
Total Payments $ 77,312,913.89
Pursuant to RCW 42.24.180, "the Port's legislative body" (the Commission) is required to approve in a public
meeting, all payments of claims within one month of issuance.
OVERSIGHT
All these payments have been previously authorized either through direct Commission action or delegation of
authority to the Executive Director and through his or her staff. Detailed information on Port expenditures is
provided to the Commission through comprehensive budget presentations as well as the publicly released
Budget Document, which provides an even greater level of detail. The Port's operating and capital budget is
approved by resolution in November for the coming fiscal year, and the Commission also approves the Salary
and Benefit Resolution around the same time to authorize pay and benefit programs. Notwithstanding the
Port's budget approval, individual capital projects and contracts exceeding certain dollar thresholds are also
subsequently brought before the Commission for specific authorization prior to commencement of the project
or contractif they are below the thresholds the Executive Director is delegated authority to approve them.
Expenditures are monitored against budgets monthly by management and reported comprehensively to the
Commission quarterly.

007

COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 8b Page 2 of 3
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
Effective internal controls over all Port procurement, contracting and disbursements are also in place to
ensure proper central oversight, delegation of authority, separation of duties, payment approval and
documentation, and signed perjury statement certifications for all payments. Port disbursements are also
regularly monitored against spending authorizations. All payment transactions and internal controls are
subject to periodic Port internal audits and annual external audits conducted by both the State Auditor's
Office and the Port's independent auditors.
For the month of June 2021, over $65,593,410.85 in payments were made to nearly 606 vendors, comprised of 1,820 invoices
and over 6,279 accounting expense transactions. About 93 percent of the accounts payable payments made in the month
fall into the Construction, Employee Benefits, Payroll Taxes, Contracted Services, Utility Expenses, Janitorial Services,
Environmental Remediation and Sales Tax, expense categories. Net payroll expense for the month of June was
$11,719,503.04
Top 15 Payment Category Summary:
Category Payment Amount
Construction 37,060,676.71
Employee Benefits 8,448,796.81
Payroll Taxes 6,706,020.97
Contracted Services 3,775,996.26
Utility Expenses 1,672,088.58
Janitorial Services 1,439,874.19
Environmental Remediation 1,270,009.03
Sales Taxes 877,307.82
Maintenance Inventory 678,714.02
Software 648,081.51
Bond Fees 637,102.04
Other Liablities 388,679.00
Parking Taxes 375,638.78
Legal 313,462.51
Computers & Telephone 161,147.54
Other Categories Total : 1,139,815.08
Net Payroll 11,719,503.04
Total Payments : $77,312,913.89

008

COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 8b Page 3 of 3
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021

Appropriate and effective internal controls are in place to ensure that the above obligations were processed in
accordance with Port of Seattle procurement/payment policies and delegation of authority.

At a meeting of the Port Commission held on July 13, 2021 it is hereby moved that, pursuant to RCW
42.24.180, the Port Commission approves the Port Auditor's payment of the above salaries and claims of the
Port:

Port Commission

RETURN TO AGENDA

009

COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM Item No. 8c
ACTION ITEM Date of Meeting July 13, 2021
DATE: June 21, 2021
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Lisa Lam, Assistant Director, Accounting & Financial Reporting
Rudy Caluza, Director, Accounting & Financial Reporting
SUBJECT: Solicitation of External Audit Services for the Port's 2022 to 2026 Financial
Periods
Amount of this request: Not-to-Exceed $3,000,000
ACTION REQUESTED
Request Commission authorization for the Executive Director to execute a contract for external
audit services for the financial periods 2022 to 2026 in an estimated amount not-to-exceed
$3,000,000 for the full contract term. The base contract is three years with the option to extend
for two additional one-year terms.
JUSTIFICATION:
Annual independent audits are required for the financial statements of the Port's Enterprise Fund
and the Warehousemen's Pension Trust Fund for purposes of obtaining an independent auditor's
opinion as to the fairness in presentation of the financial results and position. Independent audits
are also required for the Port's administration of Federal grants and Passenger Facility Charge
(PFC) revenues in accordance with applicable regulations. The audits covered under the existing
external audit services contract (P-00318441) are expiring in May 2022 once the audit services
for the Port's 2021 Financial Period are completed.
The annual external audit services include the following deliverables:
Independent Audit and Opinion Financial Statements of the Port's Enterprise Fund
Independent Audit and Opinion Financial Statements of the Port's Fiduciary Fund
Independent Audit and Opinion Net Revenues Available for Revenue Bond Debt Service
"Single Audit"(Federal grants regulatory compliance) and Report of Federal Grants
Awarded
Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Program Audit and Report

010

COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 8c Page 2 of 2
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
Agreed Upon Procedures Report for Washington State Department of Ecology
Agreed Upon Procedures Report for Environmental Protection Agency
Per Port policy, this contract will be openly and competitively procured. The solicitation process
from drafting, advertising, to evaluation will be led by the Central Procurement Office (CPO) with
the guidance from a member of the Internal Audit Department, who will also participate on the
evaluation panel. Diversity in Contracting Program is also incorporated in this solicitation.
The solicitation timeline is scheduled to begin around mid July 2021 and have an external auditor
selected by the end of 2021.
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
The total audit fee estimated for all five years is expected to be under $3,000,000. The audit
services fee for the 2022 financial period, which is conducted during latter 2022 and the first half
of 2023, will be included in the Accounting & Financial Reporting (AFR) department's 2022 and
2023 proposed operating budgets, and in non-operating budgets as appropriate. The funding
sources are approximately split 55% and 45% between operating and non-operating expense,
respectively. For audit services related to each of the financial periods following, 2023 through
2026, the requirements will be similarly split and included in the Port's proposed annual budgets.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:
Be a highly effective public agency: To be transparent and accountable over the stewardship of
public funds/assets, to be in full compliance with prescribed industry accounting & financial
reporting standards and Federal regulations, and to timely and accurately report on the Port's
financial results and position.
ATTACHMENTS:
None

PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFING:
6/17/2021 Audit Committee approved proceeding with the external audit services solicitation
12/10/2020 External audit services contract extension for the Port's 2021 financial period

RETURN TO AGENDA
011

COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM Item No. 8d
ACTION ITEM Date of Meeting July 13, 2021

DATE: June 7, 2021
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Mark Thomas, Deputy Chief of Police
Stacy Wassall, Manager 911 Communications
SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement between the Port of Seattle and the King County Public Safety
Answering Point
Amount of this request: $0
Total estimated project cost: $0
ACTION REQUESTED
Request Commission authorization for the Executive Director to approve the King County Public
Safety Answering Point Interlocal Agreement 2021-2023. The Port of Seattle Police Department
is not seeking additional funding for approval of this ILA.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Entering into this Interlocal Agreement between the Port of Seattle Public Answering Point
(PSAP) and King County will allow the Port of Seattle to continue to participate in the statewide
emergency services communications network including an Enhanced 911 system which provides
rapid public access for coordinated dispatching services for police, fire, and medical emergency
services. The County provides certain communication services to facilitate the E-911 System and
in support of the PSAP and in providing such services, installs, operates and maintains systems at
the PSAP, the costs of which the County is responsible. King County utilizes the 911 excise tax to
fund this program.
JUSTIFICATION
This ILA supports the following Long-Range Plan strategies and objectives for a High-Performance
Organization and the Century Agenda:
1. Improve Customer Service and Public Engagement (Long Range Strategy 1, Objective 1)
2. Improve Process Efficiencies and Effectiveness (Long Range Strategy 1, Objective 2)
The Port of Seattle 911 Center strives to support the mission of the Port of Seattle Police
Department and Port of Seattle to ensure public safety by providing customer service and

Template revised January 10, 2019.
012

COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 8d Page 2 of 2
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
essential communications between our customers, our community, stakeholders and emergency
personnel. This ILA will continue the agreement, equipment, and support from King County
necessary to accomplish this mission.
Diversity in Contracting
King County E911 Office is a public entity and does not adversely or positively impact Diversity in
Contracting goals.
DETAILS
The state of Washington emergency services communication system is a multicounty or countywide
communications network including an enhanced 9-1-1 (911) system, which provides rapid
public access for coordinated dispatching of services, personnel, equipment, and facilities for
police, fire, medical, or other emergency services. WAC 118-66-030 (22). The state of Washington
911 Network is a system of circuits, networks and/or equipment managed and maintained by the
Washington state E-911 office to provide 911 communications from a 911 demarcation point to
the PSAP demarcation point. WAC 118-66-030 (3). The PSAP demarcation point is where the 911
network accesses the PSAP's equipment to receive and process 911 communications. WAC 118-
66-030 (62), (18).
King County E-911 Program Office uses the 911 excise tax revenue funds to pay for system
network, components and equipment related to receipt of 911 calls from the State Emergency
Services IP Network (ESInet) and delivery to the public safety answering points (PSAPs). In
addition, funds are used to support other PSAP 911 costs for the delivery, receipt and processing
of 911 calls at the PSAP.
Schedule
Upon approval of the ILA by the Commission, service utilization will commence immediately.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
No viable alternatives exist within King County and the state of Washington for providing 911
emergency services to include Enhanced 911 systems and services to PSAP.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The department is not requesting any additional funds for this ILA.
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST
(1) Interlocal Agreement Between King County PSAP and Port of Seattle, which includes the
King County funding policy as related to the 911 excise tax disbursement.
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS
None

Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
013

Item No. 8d_attach
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
PUBLIC SAFETY ANSWERING POINT
AND KING COUNTY

E911_ILA-between-PSAPandKC Page 1 of 18
014

Item No. 8d_attach
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
PUBLIC SAFETY ANSWERING POINT (PSAP)
AND KING COUNTY
This Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into between King County ("County"), andPort of Seattle Police
Department, a Public Safety Answering Point ("PSAP"). The County and the PSAP are each a "Party" and
collectively the "Parties" to this Agreement. In consideration of the payments, covenants, and agreements set
forth herein to be made and performed by the County and the PSAP, the Parties agree as follows.
RECITALS
A. The state of Washington emergency services communication system is a multicounty or county-wide
communications network including an enhanced 9-1-1 (911) system, which provides rapid public access for
coordinated dispatching of services, personnel, equipment, and facilities for police, fire, medical, or other
emergency services. WAC 118-66-030 (22). The state of Washington 911 Network is a system of circuits,
networks and/or equipment managed and maintained by the Washington state E-911 office to provide 911
communications from a 911 demarcation point to the PSAP demarcation point. WAC 118-66-030 (3). The
PSAP demarcation point is where the 911 network accesses the PSAP's equipment to receive and process
911 communications. WAC 118-66-030 (62), (18).
B. In accordance with RCW 38.52.510 (Statewide enhanced 911 service Funding by counties), the
County implements the countywide enhanced 911 (E-911) emergency communications system so E-911 is
available throughout the state. King County must provide funding for the E-911 system in an amount equal to
the amount the maximum tax under RCW 82.14B.030(1) would generate in the County less any applicable
administrative fee charged by the Department of Revenue or the amount necessary to provide full funding of
the E-911 system in the County.
C. King County E-911 Program Office uses the 911 excise tax revenue funds to pay for system network,
components and equipment related to receipt of 911 calls from the State Emergency Services IP Network
(ESInet) and delivery to the public safety answering points (PSAPs). In addition, funds are used to support
other PSAP 911 costs for the delivery, receipt and processing of 911 calls at the PSAP.
D. The PSAP, together with other PSAPs, are the public's direct link to the dispatchers of emergency
services, and who thereby directly link police, fire and medical first responders to members of the public
requesting aid, protection or rescue.
E. The County provides certain communication services to facilitate the E-911 System and in support of
the PSAP and in providing such services, installs, operates and maintains systems at the PSAP, the costs of
which the County is responsible.
F. The Parties desire that a portion of the funding described in paragraph B above continues to be
provided to the PSAP for its provision of dispatch services consistent with state law.
G. The purpose of this Agreement is to describe the services to be provided by the County and the PSAP,
and the rights and responsibilities of the Parties to each other.
DEFINITIONS
1.1 Attachment means any software or hardware added to the Call Processing System that is not
provided by the original manufacturer or vendor.
1.2 Call means traditional telephony voice, text or any emerging next generation 911 technology.
E911_ILA-between-PSAPandKC Page 2 of 18
015

Item No. 8d_attach
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
1.3 E-911 Program Office means the section of the Regional Services Division within the King
County Department of Information Technology that administers E-911 service in King County.
1.4 E-911 System means a public communications system consisting of a network, database, and
on-premises equipment that is accessed by dialing or accessing 911 and that enables reporting
police, fire, medical, or other emergency situations to a public safety answering point.
1.5 National Emergency Number Association or NENA is a standard-setting body for 911
related technology and operations.
1.6 Next Generation 911 or NG911 means the transition of the E-911 System from analog to
digital technology.
1.7 Public Safety Answering Point or PSAP as used in this Agreement refers to the Party to this
Agreement that is the call answering location for 911 calls in a given area. The term is intended
to incorporate any different term adopted by NENA and the Parties to describe the PSAP. In
the context of this Agreement PSAP is also intended to include the Association of Public-Safety
Communication Officials (APCO) term for an emergency communications center or ECC.
1.8 Regional Advisory Governing Board or RAGB is the governing board of the King County
regional E-911 System established by Ordinance 18695 to inform and advise the King County
E-911 Program Office, the King County Executive, and the King County Council on the King
County regional E-911 System.
1.9 State means Washington State unless otherwise indicated.
1.10 Virtualize means the process of creating a software-based virtual version of something,
including virtual computer hardware platforms, storage devices, and computer network
resources.
2. CONFLICTS
2.1 Strategic Plan. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and the King County E-911
Strategic Plan as amended ("Strategic Plan"), the Strategic Plan will control.
2.2 Laws and Regulations. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and laws or
regulations including but not limited to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) or the
Washington Administrative Code (WAC), the law(s) or regulation(s) shall take precedence. All
provisions of this Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in a manner that fully complies
with applicable law and regulations as they now exist or are hereafter amended.
3. TERM AND TERMINATION.
3.1 Term. This Agreement shall commence upon execution by the County and the PSAP. The
Agreement shall include an initial term beginning on the effective date and running through
December 31, 2023. The Agreement may be extended upon mutual agreement of the Parties
for consecutive renewal terms of five years each, or as agreed to by the Parties as provided
herein.

E911_ILA-between-PSAPandKC Page 3 of 18
016

Item No. 8d_attach
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
3.2 Termination.
3.2.1 Convenience. This Agreement may be terminated by either Party without cause upon
providing the other with twelve (12) months' notice of the termination. If the Agreement
is terminated pursuant to this section, the PSAP will be eligible for reimbursement of
Eligible Expenditures up to the date of termination.
3.2.2 Default. If either Party fails to materially perform its obligations under this Agreement,
the other Party may terminate the Agreement for default as follows:
3.2.2.1 A "notice to cure" shall be served on the defaulting Party by personal delivery
or certified registered mail, return receipt requested. The defaulting Party shall
have no more than one-hundred eighty (180) business days from the date of
receipt to cure the default or to provide a detailed written plan for review and
acceptance by the other Party. The detailed written plan shall be served by
personal delivery or certified registered mail, return receipt requested.
3.2.2.2 If the defaulting Party has not cured the default or provided a detailed written
plan to cure, or if the written plan to cure is not acceptable to the other Party,
either Party may pursue dispute resolution under Section 8. Provided, however,
that during a period of dispute resolution, the Parties will continue to fulfill their
obligations under this Agreement.
3.2.2.3 If the default is not resolved at the conclusion of the dispute resolution process
under Section 8, either Party may terminate the Agreement with thirty (30)
business days' notice.
4. ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, SERVICES AND STAFFING.
4.1 County. In addition to the County's services required by state law and regulation, the County's
roles, responsibilities and services under this Agreement are as follows:
4.1.1 Unless and until the State provides network and service from telecommunication
providers to the PSAP demarcation point, the County shall fund and provide this
network and the following services:
4.1.1.1 Call and data delivery systems and equipment to connect the State 911 network
to PSAP; Call handling equipment; E-911 telephone maps; aggregated location
and GIS data; network and system security.
4.1.1.2 Operations and maintenance for network security, telephony equipment and
databases; asset tracking; software licensing, updates, upgrades, fixes; vendor
and PSAP coordination.
4.1.1.3 Project and vendor management project planning, budget and management;
vendor delivery oversight and compliance.
4.1.1.4 System access and social marketing strategies; education campaigns, events,
training and materials; language interpretation services.
4.1.1.5 Administration and finance program, vendor, and asset management; policies;
staffing; data analysis; communications; budget; finance; strategic planning.

E911_ILA-between-PSAPandKC Page 4 of 18
017

Item No. 8d_attach
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
4.1.1.6 A standalone Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) system for protection of the
E-911 System in the event the PSAP is unable to provide a building UPS
system.
4.1.2 The County shall adopt policies and procedures following national, state and local
standards and best practices to provide sufficient control and auditing mechanisms for
the ongoing security of mission critical systems and operations necessary to protect
PSAP-owned equipment and systems at or used by the County.
4.1.3 The County shall not allow County personnel to access the PSAP systems without
permission from the PSAP.
4.1.4 The County shall not interact with the PSAP's contractor(s) to request service which
would create a financial obligation for the PSAP.
4.1.5 The County will provide the PSAP with prior notice of any service impacting
maintenance as required by law or contract, or if no law or contract applies, then the
notice shall be reasonable under the circumstances. In the event of emergent or
unplanned outages, the County will provide notice to the PSAP as soon as reasonably
possible.
4.1.6 The County will follow the Strategic Plan providing review and modification of the
Strategic Plan as needed.
4.1.7 In the event the County becomes aware of a cyber-security breach of the call answering
system/s, the County will notify the PSAP as soon as required by law or contract, or if
no law or contract applies, then as soon as reasonably possible.
4.2 PSAP. In addition to the PSAP's services required by state law and regulation, the PSAP's
role, responsibilities and services under this Agreement ("PSAP Services") are as follows:
4.2.1 Process calls for service received at the PSAP on County E-911 equipment.
4.2.2 Adhere to the call answer standards as defined by NENA 56-005. The E-911 Program
Office will provide a common and consistent report for measuring the PSAP call answer
standard on a monthly basis.
4.2.3 Provide such services to County-owned and operated projects, equipment and systems
at the PSAP as may be requested by County and agreed to by the PSAP.
4.2.4 Upon reasonable notice by the County, provide access to its facilities for County
personnel or approved contractor support staff for the purpose of E-911 System
support, maintenance, updates installation or removal of E-911 hardware and software.
The PSAP shall not be responsible for costs incurred by the County should access be
denied due to lack of notice.
4.2.5 Adopt policies and procedures following national, state and local standards and best
practices to provide sufficient control and auditing mechanisms for the ongoing security
of mission critical systems and operations necessary to protect County-owned
equipment and systems at or used by the PSAP.
4.2.6 Provide secure facilities and space for E-911 equipment supporting the receipt and
delivery of 911 calls and data.
E911_ILA-between-PSAPandKC Page 5 of 18
018

Item No. 8d_attach
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
4.2.7 Provide the County with verification and certification of the accuracy and completeness
of street address data within its service areas.
4.2.7.1 PSAP shall be responsible for maintaining an up-to-date definition of its service
area and for verifying the accuracy of street address data and/or responding
agency information when requested by the County.
4.2.7.2 PSAP shall provide the County any and all identified Automatic Location
Identification (ALI) discrepancy reports within 24 hours of creation of the report.
4.2.7.3 Once the PSAP becomes aware of any annexations or incorporations within its
service area, it shall, within ten (10) calendar days, provide the County with
notice to allow sufficient time for the County and the vendor to process the
changes prior to the effective date of the annexation or incorporation.
4.2.8 Be responsible for billable charges the County incurs due to PSAP initiated events for:
4.2.8.1 Unique system configuration requirement changes.
4.2.8.2 E-911 System and/or equipment moves due to facility
remodel/renovation/cleaning.
4.2.8.3 E-911 System power up/down due to PSAP facility or infrastructure test or
changes.
4.2.8.4 E-911 System relocation.
4.2.9 The PSAP shall not:
4.2.9.1 Allow PSAP personnel access to the E-911 System without permission from the
County, which permission may be granted on an ongoing basis.
4.2.9.2 Create a financial obligation with the County's contractor(s) without the
County's agreement and/or authorization.
4.2.9.3 Interact with the County's contractor(s) to request service in which a County
financial obligation is created.
4.2.9.4 Add any Attachments to the E-911 System provided by the County.
4.2.10 In the event the PSAP becomes aware of a cyber-security breach of any system that
could affect the call answering system/s, the PSAP will notify the County as required
by law or contract, or if no law or contract applies, then as soon as reasonably possible.
4.2.11 The PSAP will provide the County with prior notice of any service impacting
maintenance as required by law or contract, or if no law or contract applies, then the
notice shall be reasonable under the circumstances. In the event of emergent or
unplanned outages, the PSAP will provide notice as soon as reasonably possible.
5. FUNDING POLICY
5.1 Funding Policy. The Funding Policy attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A is incorporated
into this Agreement and is directed by the Strategic Plan - 10 Year Sustainable Financial Plan
E911_ILA-between-PSAPandKC Page 6 of 18
019

Item No. 8d_attach
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
section f. The Funding Policy establishes procedures and guidance for the King County E-911
Program Office and the PSAP for the following:
5.1.1 The Program Office disbursement of excise tax revenue through an established escrow
account to reimburse the PSAP for basic service operating expenses, equipment and
staff support expenses identified in RCW 38.52.545, WAC 118-66-050, and WAC 118-
66-060; and
5.1.2 PSAP use of excise tax revenue to support the costs of equipment, operational,
technical, and staffing needs related to answering and handling of 911 calls.
5.2 Funding Policy Review and Amendment. In conjunction with RAGB, the Funding Policy will be
reviewed and/or modified annually following the King County biennial budget calendar timeline.
Amendments to the Funding Policy shall be incorporated into this Agreement by amendment
of Exhibit A as provided in Section 10.
6. LEGAL RELATIONS; INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE.
6.1 Independent Status and No Third-Party Beneficiaries.
6.1.1 In the performance of this Agreement, the County and the PSAP act in their individual,
corporate or governmental capacities and not as agents, employees, partners, joint
ventures, or associates of one another. The PSAP is responsible for all federal and/or
state tax, industrial insurance, wages, benefits, or other compensation by or on behalf
of the PSAP and its employees. The County is responsible for all federal and/or state
tax, industrial insurance, wages, benefits, or other compensation by or on behalf of the
County and its employees.
6.1.2 It is understood and agreed that this Agreement is solely for the benefit of the Parties
and gives no right to any other person or entity.
6.2 Indemnification and Hold Harmless.
6.2.1 To the maximum extent permitted by law and except to the extent caused by the
negligence of the County or the County's employees, agents, or contractors, the PSAP
shall indemnify and hold harmless the County, its officers, officials, agents and
employees, from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, losses, costs, penalties
and damages of whatsoever kind or nature arising out of, in connection with, or incident
to negligent acts or omissions of the PSAP, its employees, agents, or contractors. In
addition, the PSAP shall assume the defense of the County and its officers and
employees in all legal or claim proceedings arising out of, in connection with, or
incidental to this Agreement; shall pay all defense expenses, including reasonable
attorney's fees, expert fees and costs incurred by the County on account of such
litigation or claims. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the
indemnification provided herein constitutes the PSAP's waiver of immunity under
Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This
waiver has been mutually negotiated by the Parties. The provisions of this section shall
survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. In the event the County incurs
any judgment, award and/or cost including attorney's fees arising from the provisions
of this section or to enforce the provisions of this section, any such judgment, award,
fees, expenses and costs shall be recoverable from the PSAP. In the event of litigation
between the County and the PSAP to enforce the rights under this section, reasonable
attorney fees shall be allowed to the substantially prevailing Party.
E911_ILA-between-PSAPandKC Page 7 of 18
020

Item No. 8d_attach
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
6.2.2 To the maximum extent permitted by law and except to the extent caused by the
negligence of the PSAP or the PSAP's employees, agents or contractors, the County
shall indemnify and hold harmless the PSAP, its officers, officials, agents and
employees, from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, losses, costs, penalties
and damages of whatsoever kind or nature arising out of, in connection with, or incident
to negligent acts or omissions of the County, its employees, agents or contractors. In
addition, the County shall assume the defense of the PSAP and its officers and
employees in all legal or claim proceedings arising out of, in connection with, or
incidental to this Agreement; shall pay all defense expenses, including reasonable
attorney's fees, expert fees and costs incurred by the PSAP on account of such
litigation or claims. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the
indemnification provided herein constitutes the County's waiver of immunity under
Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This
waiver has been mutually negotiated by the Parties. The provisions of this section shall
survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. In the event the PSAP incurs
any judgment, award and/or cost including attorney's fees arising from the provisions
of this section, or to enforce the provisions of this section, any such judgment, award,
fees, expenses and costs shall be recoverable from the County. In the event of litigation
between the PSAP and the County to enforce the rights under this section, reasonable
attorney fees shall be allowed to the substantially prevailing party.
6.3 Insurance Requirements.
6.3.1 Each Party shall obtain and maintain the minimum insurance set forth below, either
through contracts of insurance or a fully funded self-insurance program for all of its
liability exposures for this Agreement, including but not limited to injuries to persons
and damage to property. Each Party agrees to provide the other Party with: (i) at least
thirty (30) days prior written notice of any material change in its insurance program; and
(ii) a certificate of insurance and additional insured endorsements, or, if self-insured, a
letter of self-insurance as adequate proof of coverage on or prior to the commencement
of Term and at any time during the Term of this Agreement upon receipt of other Party's
written request.
6.3.2 Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance
Each Party shall maintain the following insurance coverage and limits no less than:
6.3.2.1 General Liability: $10,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily
injury, personal injury and property damage, and for those policies with
aggregate limits, a $10,000,000 aggregate limit. CG 00 01 current edition, or
its substantive equivalent, including coverage for, but not limited to,
Premises/Ongoing Operations, Contractual Liability, Products and Completed
Operations. Such limits may be satisfied with the use of an umbrella or excess
liability policy, which is at least as broad as the underlying policy.
6.3.2.2 Professional Liability, Errors and Omissions Coverage: In the event that
services pursuant to this Agreement either directly or indirectly involve or
require professional services, Professional Liability, Errors and Omissions
coverage shall be Provided with minimum limits of $10,000,000 per claim and
in the aggregate.
6.3.2.3 Workers' Compensation: Workers' Compensation coverage, as required by the
Industrial Insurance Act of the State of Washington, as well as any similar
E911_ILA-between-PSAPandKC Page 8 of 18
021

Item No. 8d_attach
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
coverage required for this Work by applicable federal or "Other States" State
Law.
6.3.2.4 Employers Liability or "Stop Gap": $1,000,000 each occurrence and shall be at
least as broad as the protection provided by the Workers Compensation Policy
Part 2 (Employers Liability) or, in states with monopolistic state funds, the
protection provided by the "Stop Gap" endorsement to the General Liability
policy.

6.3.2.5 Cyber Liability or Technology Errors and Omissions: Coverage with a minimum
limit of $5,000,000 per occurrence or claim and in the aggregate. Coverage
shall include loss resulting from data security/privacy breach, cyber extortion,
unauthorized access, denial of service attacks, introduction of virus and
malicious code, dissemination or destruction of electronic data, business
interruptions, privacy law violations. Coverage shall include notification and
other expenses incurred in remedying a privacy breach as well as costs to
investigate and restore data. If the PSAP is a member of the Washington Cities
Insurance Authority risk pool, the following language shall apply:
Notwithstanding the Cyber Liability insurance requirements described above,
Cyber Liability sub-limits and deductibles required by the Washington Cities
Insurance Authority risk pool shall be acceptable in meeting such limits required
for this coverage.
6.3.2.6 Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies required in this Agreement are to contain, or be endorsed
to contain the following provisions:
a. Liability Policies (except Workers' Compensation and Professional Liability):
i. The County, its officers, officials, employees and agents are to be
covered as additional insureds, for full policy limits, as respects
liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the PSAP
in connection with this Agreement. (CG 20 10 current edition or its
substantive equivalent).
ii. To the extent of the PSAP's negligence, PSAP's insurance coverage
shall be primary insurance as respects the County, its officers,
officials, employees and agents. Any insurance and/or self-insurance
maintained by the County, its officers, officials, employees or agents
shall not contribute with the insurance or benefit PSAP in any way.
iii. PSAP's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against
whom a claim is made and/or lawsuit is brought, except with respect
to the limits of the insurer's liability.
6.3.3 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles and/or self-insured
retentions of a Party shall not limit or apply to a Party's liability to the other Party.
6.3.4 Workers' Compensation and Work Site Safety. Each Party shall provide insurance as
required by the Industrial Insurance Act of the State of Washington. Each Party shall
bear the sole responsibility for its job site conditions and job site safety, and for a Party's
E911_ILA-between-PSAPandKC Page 9 of 18
022

Item No. 8d_attach
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
work at the other Party's job site and locations. Each Party shall comply with all
applicable federal, state and local safety regulations governing a job site, employees
and Subcontractors. Each Party shall be responsible for its Subcontractor's compliance
with these provisions.
7. RECORDS AND AUDITS.
7.1 Retention of Records, Audit Access and Proof of Compliance with Agreement.
7.1.1 Retention of Records. Each Party shall maintain books, records and documents of its
performance under this Agreement in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles and applicable law including RCW 40.14.060 and the relevant records
retention schedules adopted thereunder (Washington State Local Government
Common Records Retention Schedule (CORE) and the Emergency Communications
(911) Records Retention Schedule).
7.1.2 Audit Access. The PSAP shall provide access to its facilities, including those of any
Subcontractors the state and/or federal agencies or officials at all reasonable times to
monitor and evaluate the use of E-911 excise taxes provided under this Agreement. If
the County is required to pay the state for any reimbursements that an audit finds the
PSAP did not spend in compliance with the Funding Policy attached as Exhibit A and
any amendments to the policy, the PSAP shall be responsible for reimbursing the
County for the full amount the County was required to pay the state.
7.1.3 County Audit. Following a state audit of the King County E-911, RAGB members will
be invited to review the auditor's Summary of Findings with the County.
7.2 Public Records Requests.
7.2.1 This Agreement is a public document and will be available for inspection and copying
in accordance with the Public Records Act, chapter 42.56 RCW ("PRA").
7.2.2 Each Party shall be responsible for responding to public disclosure requests addressed
to it in accordance with the PRA. Nothing in this Agreement waives any rights or
privileges of a Party under the PRA, including the withholding of records when
authorized by the PRA or other law.
7.3 Data Management. The County is solely responsible for the security, integrity and
completeness of all call data or other data it receives from the state of Washington 911 Network
or other sources, and for transferring same to the Call Answering Equipment. The PSAP is not
responsible for the security, integrity or accuracy of any data prior to it reaching the PSAP Call
Answering Equipment. The County shall not be responsible for call data and other data not
directly processed, transmitted, or provided by the County.
7.4 Data Ownership. PSAP acknowledges it has no property interest in and may assert no lien on
or right to withhold from the County, any data it receives from, receives addressed to, or stores
on behalf of the County. All records, data and files stored by the PSAP as archives of the
County's data, including the media on which they are stored, are the exclusive property of the
County, and PSAP may assert no lien on or right to any of the same. The PSAP will
conspicuously mark all such archival storage media as King County's property whenever
possible. Once the call record data is delivered from the County's Call Processing Equipment
to the PSAP systems, the ownership and responsibility for said data transfers to the PSAP.

E911_ILA-between-PSAPandKC Page 10 of 18
023

Item No. 8d_attach
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
7.5 Nondisclosure of Data. Data provided by the County either before or after this Agreement is
fully executed shall only be used for its intended purpose.
8. DISPUTES.
8.1 Dispute Resolution. If a dispute arises out of or relates to this Agreement, the Parties shall
endeavor to resolve the dispute through direct negotiations between them. If the Parties are
unable to resolve the dispute within sixty (60) days of its occurrence, either Party may refer the
dispute to the executive director of the PSAP (or equivalent officer if the PSAP does not have
an executive director) and the director of the E-911 Program Office with notice to the other
Party. If the dispute is not resolved by the executive director and the E-911 Program Office
director within sixty (60) days of referral, either Party may refer any dispute within the purview
of the Strategic Plan to the decision making and dispute resolution process under the Strategic
Plan. If the dispute resolution process under the Strategic Plan does not resolve the dispute to
the Parties' satisfaction, and for each dispute outside the purview of the Strategic Plan, either
Party may refer the dispute to non-binding mediation. Referral of the dispute to the executive
officer and E-911 Program Office director, to the decision making and dispute resolution
process under the Strategic Plan (as applicable), and to mediation shall be conditions
precedent to a Party's pursuit of other available legal remedies.
8.2 Continued Performance. At all times during periods of dispute resolution under this Agreement,
the PSAP and the County will proceed diligently with the performance of this Agreement unless
otherwise provided by law or court order.
8.3 Applicable Law and Forum. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed according to
the laws of the State of Washington. Any claim or suit between the County and the PSAP
arising out of this Agreement may only be filed and prosecuted in King County Superior Court.
9. NOTICE. Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, all notices or documentation required or
provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly given when received at the
addresses first set forth below via certified or registered first class mail, return receipt requested, personal
delivery or electronic mail. Either Party may give written notice of another or different person or office to
receive notice under this Agreement.
KING COUNTY PSAP
Department of Information Technology Port of Seattle Police Department
E-911 Program Office 911 Communications Manager
Ben Breier Stacy Wassall
20811 84th Ave South, Suite 105 PO Box 68727
Kent, WA. 98032 Seattle, WA 98168
206.477.4911 206-787-6623
bbreier@kingcounty.gov AND Wassall.S@portseattle.org
kcE911managers@kingcounty.gov

10. AMENDMENT. All changes to this Agreement shall be made in writing through an Amendment, signed
by the King County Executive and the executive director of the PSAP (or equivalent officer if the PSAP does
not have an executive director), or their designees. No oral statement or other conduct by either Party shall
change or modify the Agreement. If laws, regulations, policies or administrative practices established after
E911_ILA-between-PSAPandKC Page 11 of 18
024

Item No. 8d_attach
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
the effective date of this Agreement apply to the Agreement, then the Parties agree to implement those laws,
regulations, policies or administrative practices through an amendment as provided in this Section.
11. FORCE MAJEURE. The term "force majeure" shall include, without limitation by the following
enumeration: acts of nature, acts of civil or military authorities, terrorism, fire, accidents, shut-downs for
purpose of emergency repairs, industrial, civil or public disturbances, causing the inability to perform the
requirements of this Agreement. If any Party is rendered unable, wholly or in part, by a force majeure event
to perform or comply with any obligation or condition of this Agreement, upon giving notice and reasonably
full particulars to the other Party, such obligation or condition shall be suspended only for the time and to the
extent practicable to restore operations. The Parties acknowledge the E-911 System is a significant priority
during periods of force majeure and shall attempt to restore operations as soon as practicable.
12. GENERAL.
12.1 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement is binding on the successors and assignees of the
Parties, including but not limited to such successors and assignees as are necessary for the
PSAP, at its election, to participate in consolidation, regionalization and/or sharing services, or
the adding of fire, police or medical agencies to be served on the PSAP. For purposes of this
Section 12.1, consolidation, regionalization or resource sharing includes two or more PSAPs
combining some or all operations and services to form a new PSAP or one or more PSAPs
merging or sharing some or all operations and services with an existing PSAP including
another PSAP that has entered into an agreement with the County similar to this Agreement.
If the PSAP elects to consolidate, regionalize, Virtualize or share resources or services in
partnership with another PSAP under agreement with the County, the PSAPs' agreements will
be modified to the degree necessary to achieve their overall purpose and terms. The PSAP
shall notify the County in writing of a planned consolidation, regionalization, resource change
or other change in status not less than one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the effective
date of such consolidation or change in status.
12.2 Compliance with Laws. During the term of this Agreement, the Parties agree to comply with all
federal, state, and local laws as necessary to carry out the terms of this Agreement. Further,
to the extent that any services involve the retention, security, confidentiality or other handling
of certain "protected" health information under the federal HealthInsurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") and its implementing regulations thereunder by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services and other applicable laws including chapter 70.02
RCW, the Washington Uniform Health Care Information Act, as amended, the Parties agree
to comply with such laws and execute documents as necessary to implement the requirements
under such laws.
12.3 Severability. Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted to be
effective and valid under applicable law. If any provision is found to be invalid, illegal or
unenforceable, then such provision or portion thereof shall be modified by the Parties to the
extent necessary to render it legal, valid and enforceable and have the intent and economic
effect as close as possible to the invalid, illegal and unenforceable provision.
12.4 Non-Waiver of Breach. No action or failure to act by a Party shall constitute a waiver of any
right or duty afforded to the other Party under the Agreement; nor shall any such action or
failure to act by a Party constitute an approval of, or acquiescence in, any breach hereunder,
except as may be specifically stated by the Party in writing.

E911_ILA-between-PSAPandKC Page 12 of 18
025

Item No. 8d_attach
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
12.5 Complete Agreement. The Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding
between the Parties and supersedes any and all prior agreements and understandings, oral or
written, relating to the subject matter hereof.
13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, EXECUTION AND AUTHORITY.
13.1 Each Party acknowledges that it consulted with its respective attorneys who had the
opportunity to review this Agreement. Therefore, the Parties expressly agree that this
Agreement shall be given full force and effect according to each and all of its express terms
and provisions and the rule of construction that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the
drafting Party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Agreement.
13.2 Each Party's representative executing this Agreement represents and warrants that the
representative has the authority to sign and bind the Party to this Agreement.
PSAP KING COUNTY

Authorized Signature Authorized Signature
Steve Metruck, Executive Director Dow Constantine, King County Executive
Name and Title (Print or Type) Name and Title (Print or Type)
Date Date
5/24/21
Accepted: Accepted:

E911_ILA-between-PSAPandKC Page 13 of 18
026

Item No. 8d_attach
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
Exhibit A to ILA between PSAP and King County
King County E-911 Program Office
PSAP Funding Process Policy
I. Overview
In accordance to RCW 38.52.510 'Statewide enhanced 911 service Funding by counties', King
County is responsible to implement a countywide enhanced 911 (E911) emergency communications
system so enhanced 911 is available throughout the state. King County must provide funding for the
E911 system in the county in an amount equal to the amount of the maximum tax under RCW
82.14B.030(1) would generate in the county less any applicable administrative fee charged by the
Department of Revenue or the amount necessary to provide full funding of the system in the county1.
King County E-911 Program Office uses the 911 excise tax revenue to pay for system network,
components, equipment, and staff support related to the receipt of 911 calls from the State Emergency
Services IP Network (ESInet) and delivery to the PSAP. In addition, excise tax revenue may be used
to support PSAP 911 technical, operational and staffing costs to ensure the delivery, receipt and
processing of 911 calls at the PSAP.
II. Intent
This policy is directed by the King County Regional E-911 Strategic Plan - 10 Year Sustainable
Financial Plan and establishes procedures and guidance for the King County E-911 Program Office
(PO) and King County PSAPs for the following.
1. The Program Office disbursement of excise tax revenue through an established escrow account
to reimburse King County PSAPs for basic service operating expenses, equipment and staff
support expenses identified in RCW 38.52.545, WAC 118-66-050, and WAC 118-66-060. PSAPs
will not be considered eligible for excise tax revenue disbursements of WAC eligible expenses
unless they have entered into a contract with the PO. Disbursements will be made, contingent
upon available E-911 Program Office excise tax revenue.
2. PSAP use of excise tax revenue to support the costs of equipment, operational, technical, and
staffing needs related to answering and handling of 911 calls.
III. Responsibility
A. E-911 Program Office:
1. Use E-911 excise tax revenue to support network, key operational functions, and equipment
purchases and maintenance used in receipt of 911 calls from the State ESInet and delivery to
the PSAP as defined in WAC 118-66-060.
2. Hire and train an appropriate level of staff to manage and maintain the E-911 Program and
equipment.
B. PSAPs:
1. To purchase and maintain equipment for operations after the call is delivered to the PSAPs.

1 RCW 38.52.510, King County Code Title 4A, Sections 4A.200.280, 4A.200.2805, 4A.510.220
E911_ILA-between-PSAPandKC Page 14 of 18
027

Item No. 8d_attach
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
2. To hire and train staff to answer 911 calls and support 911 services in the PSAP. 911 excise
tax revenue may only be used to support the 911 system2 and may not be used for dispatch
costs.
3. Ensure use of excise tax revenue are within current policy guidelines and disbursement
requests do not exceed their escrow account balance.
4. Ensure all records related to purchases are accurate and available for year-end reporting. PO
and PSAPs will work together to reallocate PSAP costs identified as RCW & WAC eligible
items if, through the year-end reporting process, it is determined the PSAP spent excise tax
revenue outside the terms of the policy or guidelines.
5. Submit a year-end spending category report to the Program Office on a form to be provided
by the Program Office.
6. Upon request, provide data to the PO in support of State 911 funding deliverables.
IV. Program Office Available Funds3
Based on available funds, the Program Office will:
1. Fund the 911 system and the Program Office4
2. Maintain a minimum fund balance of 10% of operating expenses
3. Maintain a capital reserve of $1million
4. In cooperation with RAGB, determine annual escrow distribution amount
5. In cooperation with RAGB, review and/or modify this policy following the King County biennial
budget calendar.
V. Escrow Fund Disbursement Procedure
A. Distribution Formula:
1. Each PSAP shall receive a $100,000 baseline disbursement amount per year
2. Following the baseline disbursement, remaining PSAP excise tax revenue will be
distributed using call volume:
a) The distribution formula shall be based on the PSAPs percentage of 9-1-1 calls
answered over a trailing two year rolling average (e.g. for 2021 distribution, the
number of 9-1-1 calls answered in 2018 and 2019 will be averaged; 2022 will use
the average of 2019 and 2020).
b) The PowerMetrics (ECaTS) "Top PSAP Metrics Answer Time" report shall be used
to determine the number of 911 calls answered.
B. Funding disbursement process:
1. Excise tax revenue disbursements to escrow will occur no later than the last business day of
the months of March, June, September, and December.

2 RCW 38.52.540 & WAC 118-66-060 (3)
3 RAGB approved items 2, 3, and 4 on June 10, 2020
4 RCW 38.52.545
E911_ILA-between-PSAPandKC Page 15 of 18
028

Item No. 8d_attach
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
2. Excise tax revenue reimbursement requests will be due to the Program Office no later than the
15th of January, April, July and October. Requests will be processed and distributed by the
end of that same month.
a. Requests may be submitted in any or all of the months listed above and may be for
any amount not less than $500 and up to the full balance.
b. Requests must be submitted using the provided Escrow Reimbursement Request
Form.
C. Year-end review process:
PSAPs will be required to submit an annual report by February 15th, listing all items or staff time
where excise tax revenue was used, including warrant numbers, warrant dates, item description,
purchase date, justification and any related approval documents, including back up materials and
receipts where appropriate.
VI. Escrow Account Rollovers
PSAPs may be asked to provide a plan to spend down their escrow accounts if future laws, codes, or
rules could impact the funds remaining in an escrow account.
VII. Equipment Ownership
Equipment purchased with excise tax revenue will become a PSAP asset. However, King County
reserves the right to audit the equipment usage to ensure the equipment is used in compliance with
established guidelines. In the event a PSAP is decommissioned or the asset is to be sold, the PSAP
must notify the Program Office. King County may want the option to take ownership of the equipment.
All equipment purchased with excise tax revenue must be tracked by PSAPs and information (e.g. an
asset tag number, location, etc.) must be available to the Program Office for audit purposes.
VIII. Equipment Maintenance
Any equipment purchased with excise tax revenue will be the financial and operational responsibility
of the PSAP, including maintenance, support, licenses, repairs and overall operational costs.
IX. PSAP Call Receivers
Call Receivers5 are defined as a person(s) whose primary function (at least 50 percent of their time)
is sitting at a console, hired, trained/in training and prepared or available to answer 911 calls. This can
include part-time employees, as well as supervisor and dispatcher classifications that include call
taking as part of their duties.
X. Unspent or Additional Revenue
A. Unspent/Unencumbered Funds
At the close of a biennium and Program office budget commitments are fulfilled, in conjunction with
evaluation of strategic objectives for future investments, available unspent funds may be shared with
PSAPs if:
1. Fund balance and operational reserves are within policy guidelines

5 State Emergency Coordination Office (SECO) County Contract Policy 07-01-2019
E911_ILA-between-PSAPandKC Page 16 of 18
029

Item No. 8d_attach
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
2. Strategic objectives identified during the strategic planning process have a sufficient
funding plan
Unspent funds will become part of the fund balance after the biennium closes. During the budget
preparation cycle for the next biennium, a portion of the unspent funds may be appropriated to
increase the total PSAP distribution amount.
B. Additional Revenue
When additional revenue becomes available through taxation:
1. Evaluate Program Office needs and future investments
2. Consider adjustment of the distribution amount for PSAPs
XI. PSAP Decommission or Governance Change
A. Definitions
1. Decommission of a PSAP shall mean the closing of the PSAP and Program Office
partnership and the dismantling of the PSAP concluding the PSAPs operation of answering
911 calls.
2. PSAP governance change shall mean the change of authority and/or governance of a
PSAP wherein the PSAP and Program Office partnership remains intact and the PSAP
operation of 911 continues.
3. 911 equipment shall mean items purchased with 911 funds, directly from the Program
Office or indirectly through escrow reimbursements and may include but not limited to items
such as furniture, equipment, and networking.
4. Escrow Distribution shall mean the moving of 911 excise tax revenue to an established
account by the county for PSAP use at the end of the quarter in which revenue was
incurred.
5. PSAP reimbursements shall mean the act of moving funds from the Escrow account to the
PSAP for WAC eligible items.
B. Decommission of PSAP
1. 911 excise tax revenue will continue to be earned, on a prorated basis, until the PSAP
ceases to answer 911 calls, at which time the fund balance will be frozen.
2. A PSAP may request reimbursement of earned escrow funds within 90 days of when the
PSAP ceases to answer 911 calls.
3. Program Office will pay transition costs of 911 networking and equipment for the receiving
PSAP to answer 911 calls. The Program Office will not pay transition costs of non-911
lines and equipment.
4. Program Office will be responsible for removing 911 networking and equipment from the
decommissioned PSAP.
5. The receiving PSAP's capacity to receive and process the additional 911 calls and/or
workload will be reviewed, and funding of corresponding network and equipment additions
and changes will be addressed in the transition planning process.
6. Program Office staff will work with the affected PSAPs, ensuring all financial variables are
addressed and there is a smooth transition and transfer of 911 calls.

E911_ILA-between-PSAPandKC Page 17 of 18
030

Item No. 8d_attach
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
C. Unused Escrow Funds
Upon completion of the decommissioned PSAP's reimbursement process, remaining unused escrow
funds will be transferred to the receiving PSAP's escrow accounts on the next distribution cycle.
Methodology of the distribution for multiple PSAPs will be determined in conjunction with RAGB prior
to the decommission date.
1. Remaining Appropriated Revenue Distributions
The Program office, with advisory guidance from the RAGB, will determine the best method
of distribution given the specific circumstances. Possible options may include, but not
limited to, the following:
Option 1:
Remaining escrow revenue distributions, within the year a Non-Primary Wireless PSAP
is decommissioned, shall be shared with the remaining PSAPs according to their
previously determined call volume percentage.
Remaining revenue distributions for a decommissioned Primary Wireless PSAP will be
decided in conjunction with RAGB prior to decommission date.
Option 2:
Remaining escrow revenue distributions within the year from a decommissioned Non-
Primary Wireless PSAP shall be distributed to the receiving PSAP.
Remaining revenue distributions for a decommissioned Primary Wireless PSAP will be
decided in conjunction with RAGB prior to decommission date.
Option 3: Remaining escrow revenue distributions from a decommissioned PSAP will
return to the Program Office fund balance.
2. Future Revenue Distributions
The Program office, with advisory guidance from the RAGB, will determine the best method
of distribution given the specific circumstances. Consider mirroring the logic based on
options listed above until such time as the decommissioned PSAP's call volume is no
longer included within the '2 year rolling average' period.
3. PSAP Governance Change
The Program Office will provide transitional support to the PSAP and to insure the escrow
account remains intact and follows the PSAP.
During the transition period for a PSAP, either by decommission or governance change, remaining
funds in an escrow account must be used based on current RCW and WAC rules.
XII. Policy Review
This funding policy will be reviewed and/or modified annually.

RETURN TO AGENDA

E911_ILA-between-PSAPandKC Page 18 of 18
031

COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM Item No. 8e
ACTION ITEM Date of Meeting July 13, 2021

DATE: July 2, 2021
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Eileen Francisco, Acting Director, Aviation Facilities and Capital Programs
Wayne Grotheer, Director, Aviation Project Management
SUBJECT: Building 161G AVM Facility Upgrade (CIP# C800924) Construction
Amount of this request: $1,993,000
Total estimated project cost: $2,972,000
ACTION REQUESTED
Request Commission authorization for the Executive Director to (1) advertise, award, and
execute a construction contract for the construction of the Building 161G AVM Facility Upgrade
project at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Airport). The amount of this request is
$1,993,000 for a total estimated project cost not to exceed $2,972,000.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 161G Aviation Maintenance (AVM) Facility (known as Air Cargo 4) at the Airport is a 50-yearold
former mail sorting facility that has had minimal updates and modifications. This project will
replace obsolete and failing Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems, new
energy efficient lighting, and provide essential communication connections to the building and
offices. These upgrades will provide a reliable working space for the approximately 120 Port
maintenance staff that operate from this critical facility.
JUSTIFICATION
The 161G AVM facility is the operational base to approximately 120 Port maintenance staff. The
maintenance groups housed in this facility operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and perform
critical maintenance work to keep the airport and runways operational. This work includes
winter runway and airport drive snow operations; servicing of the Port's fleet vehicles, police
cars, and airport shuttle buses; repairs & maintenance to runways, taxiways, ramps, and airfield
lighting; and carpentry, painting, and striping work throughout the airport's property. For the
last 20+ years this facility has been on the list for potential tear-down and replacement, as a
result, the building improvements have been delayed. This project addresses the facility's most
critical needs.

Template revised January 10, 2019.
032

COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. _8e__ Page 2 of 5
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
Failing HVAC, insufficient communication and connectivity infrastructure, outdated analog phone
line, and inadequate office lighting are contributing factors in making this a deficient and
functionally poor-working facility. This project will install new HVAC equipment in two highly
used areas. The existing phone and data communication connections are still on a copper
network with no digital backbone to support the increased data use. A new fiber backbone will
be installed to the facility and the obsolete copper removed. The lighting in the break rooms and
other areas are fluorescent fixtures, the project will replace these fixtures (approx. 190) with
more energy efficient LED assemblies. Port Construction Services (PCS) support may be required
for relocation and demolition of furniture and equipment as needed.
The project work has been scaled to meet the minimum improvements needed to keep the
facility operational and to improve the working environment given the expected remaining life
of the building. This building has been on the list for eventual demolition and replacement for
many years as a part of the Sustainable Airport Master Plan. During that time some of these
systems have failed or degraded and need to be replaced. Further delay of the work could cause
disruption in the service affecting the maintenance personnel operating out of the facility.
Diversity in Contracting
The project staff, in coordination with the Diversity in Contracting Department, have set a 12%
woman and minority business enterprise (WMBE) aspirational goal for the Building 161G AVM
Facility Upgrade project. The goal is based upon the project's scopes of work and baseline
availability of certified WMBE businesses to perform the work.
DETAILS
Scope of Work
Communication & Connectivity Infrastructure Upgrade:
(1) New/additional fiber optic and copper cabling
(2) Installation of new high-grade Wireless Access Point (WAP) units
(3) Installation of new telephone/data wall units
Facility Upgrade:
(1) Spot abatement
(2) Demolition and removal of obsolete HVAC equipment
(3) Installation of new HVAC equipment in two highly used spaces
(4) New energy efficient LED light fixtures and occupancy sensors
(5) New acoustical ceiling grid panels
(6) Installation of new breakroom exhaust fan

Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
033

COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. _8e__ Page 3 of 5
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021

Schedule
The project schedule reflects that this facility operates 24/7, year-round. Most of the required
work will be performed during the evening shift when there is minimal crew on-site, for a
moderate but manageable impact to the facility and employees during construction. One
potential risk to the schedule is significant weather events that may require the construction
schedule to be adjusted to not impact snow or maintenance operations.
Activity
Commission design authorization 2019 Quarter 4
Design start 2019 Quarter 4
Commission construction authorization 2021 Quarter 3
Construction start 2021 Quarter 4
In-use date 2023 Quarter 1
Cost Breakdown This Request Total Project
Design $ $979,000
Construction $1,993,000 $1,993,000
Total $1,993,000 $2,972,000
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative 1 Do not proceed with construction, and cancel the project
Cost Implications: approximately $450,000 would need to be expensed.
Pros:
(1) No additional capital funding would be required.
Cons:
(1) Failing infrastructure and communication & connectivity limitations will remain a
concern.
(2) The 120+ employees who work here will have to continue to operate in a deficient, lessthan-ideal
work environment.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 Proceed with Construction
Cost Implications: $2,972,000
Pros:
(1) Addresses the most pressing needs of the facility.
(2) Creates a better functioning facility and increased workstation efficiency.

Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
034

COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. _8e__ Page 4 of 5
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
(3) Provides a more comfortable work environment, fostering increased employee
satisfaction.
Cons:
(1) Requires capital investment.
(2) Moderate but manageable impacts to facility operations during construction.
(3) This building could potentially be targeted for tear down (in an estimated 5-10 years) in
support of the Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP.)
This is the recommended alternative.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Cost Estimate/Authorization Summary Capital Expense Total
COST ESTIMATE
Original estimate $4,566,000 $ $4,566,000
Previous changes net ($1,632,000) $66,000 ($1,566,000)
Art (Transfer to Art CIP) ($28,000) 0 ($28,000)
Revised estimate $2,906,000 $66,000 $2,972,000
AUTHORIZATION
Previous authorizations $979,000 0 $979,000
Current request for authorization $1,927,000 $66,000 $1,993,000
Total authorizations, including this request $2,906,000 $66,000 $2,972,000
Remaining amount to be authorized $0 $0 $0
Annual Budget Status and Source of Funds
This project, CIP C800924, was included in the 2021-2025 capital budget and plan of finance with
a budget of $2,931,000. A budget decrease was transferred to the Aeronautical Reserve CIP
(C800753) resulting in zero net change to the Aviation capital budget. The funding source will be
2021 revenue bond.
Financial Analysis and Summary
Project cost for analysis $2,972,000
Business Unit (BU) Administration which allocates to airfield, terminal, and
landside
Effect on business performance NOI after depreciation will increase due to inclusion of
(NOI after depreciation) capital (and operating) costs in airline rate base
IRR/NPV (if relevant) N/A
CPE Impact $.01 in 2024

Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
035

COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. _8e__ Page 5 of 5
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
Future Revenues and Expenses (Total cost of ownership)
This project is a renewal and replacement project, as such, Aviation Maintenance does not
anticipate any increase, and may even realize a slight reduction in long-term maintenance costs.
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST
(1) Presentation slides
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS
November 12, 1999 The Commission authorized Design

Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
036

Item No. 8e_supp_________
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021___
Building 161G AVM Facility Upgrade

037

Project Location

038
2

Building 161G AVM Facility
(aka Air Cargo 4)

039
3

Project Scope
Facility Upgrades:
Installation of new HVAC in two highly used spaces
Replace approximately 190 fluorescent light fixtures with new energy efficient LED fixtures
Installation of new daylight harvesting and occupancy sensors
Replacement of approximately 5,000 sf of acoustical ceiling grid
Installation of new exhaust fan in breakroom.
Communications and Connectivity Infrastructure Upgrades:
New/additional fiber optic and copper cabling
Installation of new high-grade WAP (Wireless Access Point) units.
Installation of approximately 50 new telephone/data wall units
040
4

Facility Upgrades:
New and Replacement HVAC Systems

041
5

Facility Upgrades:
New LED Lighting and Ventilation

042
6

Connectivity & Communication Infrastructure Upgrades:

043
7

Requesting Budget Authorization
Authorizations Project Budget
Original Budget $4,566,000
Previous Budget Reduction ($1,566,000)
Current Authorized Budget $3,000,000
Art (Transfer 1% Art CIP) ($28,000)
Revised Authorized Budget $2,972,000

Requested Authorization $1,993,000

044
8

Project Completion Q1 2023

045
9

Project Risks

046
10

Cone of Certainty

047
11

Questions?
RETURN TO AGENDA

048
12

1
2 ORDER 2021-06:
3 AN ORDER OF THE PORT OF SEATTLE COMMISSION
4
5 to direct the Executive Director to develop and implement
6 executive policies banning Port and private sector uses of
7 public-facing biometrics for mass surveillance, and for law
8 enforcement and security functions; developing and
9 implementing Port policies within the limitations of state
10 and federal law related to Port, federal and private-sector
11 uses of public-facing biometrics at Port facilities for traveler
12 functions; and endorsing federal legislation implementing a
13 moratorium on federal uses of biometrics not explicitly
14 approved by the United States Congress.
15
16 PROPOSED
17 JULY 13, 2021
18
19 INTRODUCTION
20 On December 10, 2019, the Port of Seattle Commission passed Motion 2019-13 instituting
21 guiding principles for the public-facing use of biometric technology at Port facilities and by Port
22 employees; for the purposes of the Motion, "public-facing" was defined as any areas of Port
23 facilities where visitors, travelers and other non-employees might reasonably be.
24
25 This action was both in response to the rapid implementation of biometric technology
26 throughout the country particularly the use of facial recognition technology in aviation and
27 maritime settings as well as because of limited state and federal policy guidance on biometrics
28 to protect individual liberties, equity, and privacy. The Motion directed Port staff to develop
29 tangible, enforceable policy recommendations based on these principles in collaboration with a
30 Biometrics External Advisory Group and with the oversight of a Port of Seattle Commission
31 Biometrics Special Committee.
32
33 Aviation and maritime uses of public-facing biometrics have potential operational, customer
34 service and public health benefits but also create risks and concerns related to privacy, equity
35 and civil liberties. To balance these interests, it is appropriate for the Port to regulate within
36 the bounds of its authority and to the extent permissible under state and federal law the public-
37 facing use of this technology at Port facilities and by Port employees. After more than a year and
38 a half of work and approximately twenty public meetings, Port staff have developed policy
39 recommendations for multiple "use cases" for public-facing biometrics at Port facilities. Already,
40 one set of use case policy recommendations regarding "Biometric Air Exit", which is the
41 federally-prescribed use of facial recognition technology for the boarding of departing
42 international flights was passed by the Port of Seattle Commission in March 2020.
43
44

Order 2021-06 Port Public-Facing Biometric Technology Policies Page 1 of 5
049

45 As part of this policymaking process, the Port recognizes certain limitations on its authority to
46 regulate all public-facing biometrics at Port facilities. For example, the federal government has
47 authority to implement its own systems, particularly in federally controlled areas of Port facilities
48 such as the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) security checkpoints at the airport
49 and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) customs processing areas at airport and cruise
50 facilities. Similarly, the federal Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) prevents the Port from exercising
51 broad control over airlines' implementation of certain customer-facing systems and processes at
52 airports. Regardless, the Port can take significant steps with all Port stakeholders including
53 federal agency partners and airline tenants to pursue alignment with the Commission's
54 biometrics principles.
55
56 In December 2020, the Commission Biometrics Special Committee recommended full
57 Commission consideration of the remaining use case policy recommendations, as well as
58 Commission action on other policies that align with Motion 2019-13. This Order would direct the
59 Executive Director to implement executive policies aligned with the recommendations endorsed
60 by the Special Committee.
61
62 TEXT OF THE ORDER
63
64 The Port Commission hereby directs the Executive Director to develop and implement executive
65 policies to:
66 1) Extend the Port's existing ban on Port and private-sector use of public-facing biometrics
67 for mass surveillance1 at Port facilities, and by Port employees overall.
68
69 2) Extend the Port's existing ban on Port and private-sector use of public-facing biometrics
70 to perform real time or near-real time law enforcement and security functions at Port
71 facilities, and by Port employees overall.
72
73 3) Ensure, to the greatest extent permissible under state and federal law, that all uses of
74 public-facing biometrics at the Port's aviation and maritime facilities for traveler functions
75 are in alignment with the Port's biometric principles and policies.
76
77 In addition, the Executive Director shall include in the Port's Federal Legislative Agenda support
78 for legislation that institutes a moratorium on federal government use of public-facing biometrics
79 except for uses explicitly authorized by the United States Congress, and shall direct staff to
80 advocate for this policy to the Washington Congressional delegation and relevant members of
81 the Biden-Harris Administration.
82
83
84
85
86
1 Defined as "the use of public-facing biometrics without the awareness and active participation of the individual."

Order 2021-06 Port Public-Facing Biometric Technology Policies Page 2 of 5
050

87 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER
88
89 Biometrics is the use of technology to identify an individual through analysis of that person's
90 physical and behavioral characteristics. Examples of physical characteristics include the unique
91 features of an individual's face or their fingerprint, while examples of behavioral characteristics
92 include an individual's voice, signature, or how they walk.
93
94 Due to technological advances, perceived customer benefits and federal requirements, there has
95 been a significant increase in public-facing biometric technology deployment by public and
96 private sector users, including in airport and seaport settings. In fact, public-facing biometrics are
97 already being used at dozens of U.S. airports and cruise terminals by those who see the
98 technology as a major benefit to travelers both because of the potential for a faster and more
99 efficient travel experience, as well as the belief that it offers a more accurate security process
100 than human review of documents. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has increased interest in
101 "touchless technologies" as a way to reduce potential transmission of disease; facial recognition
102 biometrics could potentially reduce direct interactions like handing documents back-and-forth or
103 touching screens.
104
105 Public-facing biometrics are already used in various forms at the Port of Seattle's aviation and
106 maritime facilities, such as 1) CLEAR, a private company providing an option to those customers
107 who want expedited screening at TSA checkpoints to voluntarily supply their biometric data in
108 order to verify their identities, 2) CBP use of biometrics at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
109 (SEA) to validate arriving international traveler identities, and 3) use of biometrics to validate the
110 identities of disembarking passengers from Norwegian Cruise Line ships docked at Pier 66.
111
112 However, many members of the public and various advocacy organizations have expressed
113 concerns about the rapidly expanding use of biometrics. These stakeholders have raised issues
114 around privacy, equity and civil liberties, as well as the potential for unregulated "mass
115 surveillance." To that end, after holding two Study Sessions, conducting stakeholder outreach
116 and doing multiple site visits, the Port Commission passed Motion 2019-13 on December 10,
117 2019 adopting seven "biometrics guiding principles," and directing staff to translate those
118 principles into tangible, enforceable policies.
119
120 Since the start of 2020, a working group of Port staff has collaborated with an external advisory
121 group of key stakeholders to accomplish that task. One of the key findings from this process is
122 that the various use cases of biometrics require separate analysis as to how the Port should
123 (consistent with local, state and federal requirements) apply the biometrics guiding principles to
124 develop policy. One unified set of policies is not practical because of key differences from one
125 use case to another, such as who manages the data, requirements imposed by state or federal
126 law, and the benefits and risks associated with each use.
127
128
129
130

Order 2021-06 Port Public-Facing Biometric Technology Policies Page 3 of 5
051

131 One key limitation on the Port's policymaking process is the federal law and regulations that
132 govern federal agency and airline activities at Port facilities. Regardless, the Port can take
133 significant steps to ensure alignment with the Commission's biometrics principles and believes
134 that all proposed policies are consistent with the preemptive limitations on the Port's authority
135 posed by state and federal law.
136
137 As a result of its process, the Port staff has proposed multiple use case policy recommendations:
138 Policies governing Port actions and rules regarding Biometric Air Exit, which is the use of
139 biometrics (specifically facial recognition technology) to verify the identity of departing
140 international air passengers using CBP's Traveler Verification System (TVS).2
141 Policies governing Port actions in response to CBP's use of biometrics (including facial
142 recognition) to confirm the identities of arriving international passengers as they exit
143 aircraft or cruise ships, as well as future federal government use of biometrics for other
144 traveler functions.3
145 Policies governing Port actions and rules regarding the use of biometrics (including facial
146 recognition) to perform real time or near-real time public-facing law enforcement and
147 security functions at Port facilities.
148 Policies governing Port actions and rules regarding a variety of uses of biometrics for
149 traveler functions by Port staff and/or private-sector entities.
150
151 This Order would direct the Executive Director to implement executive policies aligned with the
152 remaining use cases (in addition to the already-approved Biometric Air Exit policies), and would
153 also direct the creation of an overarching executive policy banning Port and private-sector uses
154 of public-facing biometrics for mass surveillance as defined by Motion 2019-13. That Motion
155 defines mass surveillance as the use of public-facing biometrics without the awareness and active
156 participation of the individual; more concisely, no one at a Port facility should fear that the Port
157 or a private sector tenant is actively tracking them with near time or near real time biometric
158 technology as they traverse a Port facility.
159
160 Almost as important as the proposed public-facing biometrics policies themselves is the process
161 used to achieve these recommendations. The Port Commission has held multiple public meetings
162 and study sessions on this topic, and the Port hired an outside facilitation firm to manage the
163 advisory group process to ensure full and equal participation from all stakeholders. Below is a
164 list of all public and advisory group meetings that helped inform Port staff efforts to develop
165 these recommendations.
166
167 September 10, 2019: First Commission Study Session on Biometric Technology
168 October 29, 2019: Second Commission Study Session on Biometric Technology

2 The policy recommendations for this use case were approved by the Port Commission on March 10, 2020, and
implemented as Executive Policy (EX-23).
3 The Port has no jurisdiction over these activities, but can still play an important transparency and accountability
role.

Order 2021-06 Port Public-Facing Biometric Technology Policies Page 4 of 5
052

169 December 10, 2019: Commission Public Meeting action on Biometrics Principles
170 Motion 2019-13
171 January 17, 2020: External Advisory Group meeting #1
172 February 7, 2020: External Advisory Group meeting #2
173 February 18, 2020: Commission Biometrics Special Committee meeting
174 February 25, 2020: Commission Public Meeting briefing on Biometric Air Exit policy
175 recommendations
176 March 6, 2020: External Advisory Group meeting #3
177 March 10, 2020: Commission Public Meeting action on Biometric Air Exit policy
178 recommendations
179 March 31, 2020: Commission Biometrics Special Committee meeting
180 April 14, 2020: Commission Public Meeting action to extend deadlines for policy
181 recommendations
182 July 10, 2020: External Advisory Group meeting #4
183 July 24, 2020: External Advisory Group meeting #5
184 August 7, 2020: External Advisory Group meeting #6
185 August 21, 2020: External Advisory Group meeting #7
186 September 25, 2020: External Advisory Group meeting #8
187 October 8, 2020: Commission Biometrics Special Committee meeting
188 December 11, 2020: Commission Biometrics Special Committee meeting
189
190 In addition, all meeting materials including External Advisory Group meetings were made
191 publicly available via the Port's Biometrics External Advisory Group webpage at
192 https://www.portseattle.org/page/biometrics-external-advisory-group.
193
194 It is important to note that not all members of the Biometrics External Advisory Group agree with
195 the policy recommendations being submitted, for a wide range of reasons: from some
196 stakeholders who see these recommendations as overly limiting and proscriptive, to other
197 stakeholders believe the current state of facial recognition technology is incompatible with the
198 Commission's Biometric Principles and should be banned for all uses at Port facilities; however,
199 several participants believe the technology has enormous value and promise but requires
200 regulation to protect against bias or infringement on individuals' privacy or civil rights. To that
201 end, all stakeholder concerns are being submitted as part of the Commission materials to provide
202 full transparency outlining changes they think should be made to the specific use case
203 recommendations and/or reasons they think the entire approach should be different.

Order 2021-06 Port Public-Facing Biometric Technology Policies Page 5 of 5
053

Item No. 10a_supp
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021

Governing Public-Facing
Biometrics at Port Facilities
Eric Schinfeld, Sr. Manager, Federal
Government Relations

054

BACKGROUND

055
2

Biometrics Motion 2019-13 (Adopted 12/10/19)
1. Adopted seven (7) guiding principles for public-facing biometrics at Port facilities:
1) Justified, 2) Voluntary, 3) Private, 4) Equitable, 5) Transparent, 6) Lawful, 7)
Ethical
2. Established a Port working group to translate guiding principles into tangible &
enforceable policy recommendations by the end of Q1 2020, for Commission
passage by Q2 2020
3. Established an external advisory group to provide feedback on proposed Port
working group policy recommendations
4. Recommended the creation of an ad hoc, limited term commission committee to
oversee these efforts (Special Biometrics Committee)
5. Put a hold on any new or expanded uses of biometrics at Port facilities until after
Commission approves of policy recommendations and adopts policies

056
3

Focus on Transparency
Commission Engagement:
Two (2) Commission Study Sessions: Sep 10, 2019 and Oct 29, 2019
Commission Action adopting Motion: Dec 10, 2019
Commission Briefing: Feb 25, 2020
Commission Actions: Mar 10, 2020 and Apr 14, 2020
Development/Review of Recommendations:
Port Working Group meetings/review: Dec 2019 Aug 2020
Eight (8) External Advisory Group Meetings facilitated by consultants: Jan 17, 2020 Sep
25, 2020
Biometrics Special Committee:
Four (4) Commission Biometrics Special Committee: Feb 18, 2020; Mar 31, 2020; Oct 8,
2020; and Dec 11, 2020

057
4

Multiple Use Case Recommendations
1. Policy recommendations by "use case" rather than one comprehensive policy
2. Port Working Group identified "use cases" for public-facing biometrics at Port
facilities and drafted policy recommendations for each use case:
Biometric Exit (Submitted and Approved)
Biometrics for Traveler Functions: Port, non-airline tenant, airline and federal
government
Biometrics for Law Enforcement & Security Functions
3. External Advisory Group reviewed policy recommendations and provided
feedback during facilitated meetings
4. Biometrics Special Committee reviewed and recommended policy
recommendations

058
5

Observations
Not "consensus" recommendations
All stakeholder concerns are being submitted along with the staff
recommendations to provide full transparency
Recommendations are not meant to suggest that the Port
should implement public-facing biometrics, but rather how to
do so in alignment with our guiding principles

059
6

Biometrics Special Committee Recommendations
Continue the Commission ban on Port and private sector use
of public facing biometrics for "mass surveillance"
Continue the Commission moratorium on Port and private
sector law enforcement and security uses of public facing
biometrics
Regulate biometrics for traveler functions to the degree
possible: Port, tenant, airline and federal
Recommend the Port share its support for US Representative
Jayapal's federal biometrics moratorium legislation
060
7

EXECUTIVE POLICIES

061
8

Ban on Mass Surveillance
Applies to Port employees AND private sector tenants
Defines "mass surveillance" as any use of biometric technology to identify individuals without both their awareness and active
participation
All Port policies related to the public-facing use of biometric technology will require use of the technology to be fully voluntary
and "opt-in", where legally possible:
The system only includes the biometric data of those individuals who have actively opted-in to the system for that explicit
purpose;
Does not include biometric data purchased from a third-party or public galleries without the individual's explicit consent;
Only scans those individuals who have actively opted-in and only when they are purposefully and actively participating in
that particular moment;
Comprehensive, clear, and accessible notice is provided at the time of enrollment (i.e. "informed consent");
Standards for cancelling a subscription/removing an individual's biometric data from the system;
Standards to avoid unintended image capture;
Immediate deletion of biometric data accidentally collected; and
Does not scan large groups to identify those individuals who have opted in.

062
9

Ban on Law Enforcement & Security Uses
Bans use of biometrics to perform public-facing law enforcement and
security functions by Port personnel or private sector tenants, including:
Direct use of biometric technology at Port facilities
Use of biometrics as part of a collaboration with a federal agency or on a mutual aid assignment
in another local jurisdiction
Not allowed to create or contribute to a biometric database for law enforcement or security
functions unless required
Does not apply to traditional collections of biometrics that are used in
law enforcement, such as the use of fingerprinting or DNA
Port must comply with relevant state and federal laws
063
10

Biometrics for Traveler Functions by Port & Non-Airline Tenants
The Port should not allow public-facing biometrics for traveler functions unless:
Justified: The relevant Managing Director first seeks feedback from the Technology Ethical Advisory Board and
considers set criteria in deciding whether or not to approve the implementation.
Voluntary:
The proposed application is "opt-in" and not "mass surveillance".
The operator agrees to the Port's standards and training protocols regarding avoiding unintended image
capture, how to deal with mismatching issues with sensitivity and discretion, and how to minimize mismatch
likelihood.
Private: The proposed technology meets and/or exceeds the Port's minimum biometric data security and privacy
standards.
Equitable: The technology demonstrates high levels of accuracy both overall and between various characteristics.

064
11

Biometrics for Traveler Functions by Port and Tenants (con't)
If the Port approves such an application, it should:
Transparent:
Develop a comprehensive communications plan that includes rights with regard to the program, how to be removed from
the program, and recourse in case of violations of those rights and/or data breaches.
Work with the Technology Ethical Advisory Board to produce an annual accountability report that includes all approved,
publicly available information.
Ethical:
Conduct performance evaluations to ensure that Port staff and/or private sector operators are following all Port policies,
including those related to privacy, customer service, communication and unintended image capture.
Lawful:
Advocate for state and federal laws and regulations that codify the goals of the Port's biometric principles.
Equitable:
Develop an engagement plan to educate local immigrant and refugee communities about the technology and their rights
in multiple languages and in culturally appropriate ways as well as resources for sharing concerns about any incidents
in which they do not feel they have been afforded their full legal rights and/or their treatment has not been fully
respectful.
065
12

Biometrics by Federal or Airline Partners
Port has no jurisdiction over CBP or TSA activities, and limited control over airline traveler functions due
to Airline Deregulation Act, but can still play an important transparency and accountability role by:
Requesting notification, and information on how systems meet Port's Biometric Principles
Developing a comprehensive communications plan that notifies the general public of the implementation and all related
information;
Producing an annual accountability report that includes all approved, publicly available information on related topics;
Advocating for federal laws and regulations that support the Port's biometric principles;
Developing an engagement plan to educate local immigrant and refugee communities about the technology, their rights, and
resources for sharing concerns
Port will also develop recommendations for suggested implementation:
Guidelines for avoiding unintended image capture;
Guidelines to help cruise line employees educate disembarking passenger about CBP rules regarding opt-out;
Guidelines for how to deal with mismatching issues with sensitivity and discretion

066
13

Related Policies
State of Washington regulation of public sector use of facial
recognition biometrics (March 2020)
King County ban on facial recognition use by King County
employees (June 2020)
Biometrics for traveler functions in use at dozens of port
authorities (airports, cruise terminals) by Ports, tenants and
federal agencies
Port of Seattle would be the only port authority to-date to regulate this
technology
067
14

Questions?

068
15

Public-Facing Biometrics Guiding Principles
Justified Should be used only for a clear and intended purpose and not for surveillance
on large groups without a lawful purpose
Voluntary Should be voluntary and reasonable alternatives should be provided for those
who not wish to participate through an opt-in or opt-out process
Private Should be stored for no longer than required by applicable law or regulations,
and should be protected against unauthorized access
Equitable Should be reasonably accurate in identifying people of all backgrounds, and
systems should be in place to treat mismatching issues
Transparent Should be communicated to visitors and travelers
Lawful Should comply with all laws, including privacy laws and laws prohibiting
discrimination
Ethical Should act ethically when deploying technology or handling biometric data
069
16

Biometrics Working Group
Matt Breed, Chief Information Officer
Julie Collins, Director, Customer Experience
Commander Lisa Drake, Port of Seattle Police Department
Laurel Dunphy, Director, Airport Operations
Marie Ellingson, Manager, Cruise Operations
Eric ffitch, Manager of State Government Relations, External Relations
Bookda Gheisar, Senior Director, Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion
James Jennings, Director, Airline Relations
Ron Jimerson, Chief Information Security Officer
John McLaughlin, Senior Port Counsel
Anne Purcell, Senior Port Counsel
Russ Read, Manager, Maritime Security
Wendy Reiter, Director, Aviation Security
Kathy Roeder, Director of Communications, External Relations
Eric Schinfeld, Senior Manager of Federal Government Relations, External Relations
Deputy Chief Mark Thomas, Port of Seattle Police Department
Veronica Valdez, Commission Specialist
Todd VanGerpen, Manager, Aviation Innovation
Dave Wilson, Director, Aviation Innovation
070
17

Biometrics External Advisory Group
Ian Baigent-Scales, Airport Customer Development Manager - Airport Operations, Virgin Atlantic Airways
Sasha Bernhard, Legislative Assistant, Office of US Representative Suzan DelBene
Dana Debel, Managing Director, State and Local Government Affairs, Delta Air Lines
Adele Fasano, Director, Field Operations, Seattle Field Office, US Customs & Border Protection
Eric Holzapfel, Deputy Director, Entre Hermanos
Suzanne Juneau, Executive Director, Puget Sound Business Travel Association
Scott Kennedy, State and Local Government Affairs Manager, Alaska Airlines
Jennifer Lee, Technology & Liberty Project Director, ACLU
Maggie Levay, Director Guest Port Services, Royal Caribbean
McKenna Lux, Policy Manager, CAIR-WA
Yazmin Medhi, Outreach Director, Office of US Representative Pramila Jayapal
Nina Moses, Stakeholder Relations Manager, US Transportation Security Administration
Irene Plenefisch, Government Affairs Director, Microsoft Corporation
Sheri Sawyer, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Washington State Governor Jay Inslee
Victoria Sipe, Director Shore Operations, Holland America Group
Rich Stolz, Executive Director, One America
Elizabeth Tauben, Manager Port Guest Services & Clearance, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings
Jennifer Thibodeau, Public Policy Manager - Western States, Amazon Web Services
Jevin West, Director, Center for an Informed Public, University of Washington
071
18

Biometric Air Exit
Use of biometrics, specifically facial recognition technology, to verify the identity of
departing international air passengers using US Customs & Border Protection's
(CBP) Traveler Verification System (TVS).
First use case reviewed
Policy recommendations were reviewed by the Biometrics Special Committee on
Feb 18, 2020
Policy recommendations were approved by the Commission on Mar 10, 2020
Executive Policy developed EX-23 on Apr 3, 2020
Review by the External Advisory Group was expedited due to Commission Action
in March. Some stakeholders felt they did not have enough time to fully vet the
recommendations

072
19

Biometric Air Exit Communications Plan

073
20

Biometric Air Exit Signage

VS.

074
21

Item No. 10a_attach_1
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021

September 29, 2020

To the Port of Seattle Commission:
Thank you for inviting my office to serve on the Port's Biometrics External Advisory
Group. As the Congresswoman representing Washington's 7th districthome to several Port
facilities, and countless employees and customersI too am committed to ensuring our
constituents' interests are heard and represented. For that reason, I am writing to express deep
concern for the Port's use of facial recognition technology for any discretionary purpose.
Algorithmic bias against people of color, women, children, and seniors presents significant and
consequential justice and equity problems for anyone who uses or works at a Port of Seattle
facility. Further, there are broad civil liberties concerns as Federal law currently provides no
privacy safeguards or standards for the use of facial recognition, or other biometric surveillance
technology. What my staff has learned while serving on the Advisory Group coupled with the
evolution of my own thinking prompt me to suggest that the Port Commission consider a
moratorium on the use of biometrics technology in all Port activities under its purview except for
voluntary programs like CLEAR.
Facial recognition technology is plagued with significant bias, as numerous reports have
found that this technology has difficulty recognizing people of color, transgender individuals,
and people wearing masks.1 Specifically, a December 2019 National Institute of Standards and
Technology report found that false positives are up to 100 times more likely for Asian and Black
faces, with American Indians having the highest rates of being falsely identified.2 This bias has,
at times, grave implications. Earlier this year Robert Julian-Borchak Williams, a Black man in
Detroit, Michigan was wrongfully arrested and imprisoned due to a flawed match from a facial
recognition algorithm.3 This is the first known case of wrongful arrest due to false match, and
exemplifies the danger of law enforcement reliance on a technology that is rife with bias.
1 Rebecca Heilweil, Masks Can Fool Facial Recognition Systems, But the Algorithms Are Learning Fast, Vox (Jul.
28, 2020) https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/7/28/21340674/face-masks-facial-recognition-surveillance-nist
2 NIST, NIST Study Evaluates Effects of Race, Age, Sex on Face Recognition Software (Dec. 19, 2019)
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2019/12/nist-study-evaluates-effects-race-age-sex-face-recognitionsoftware
3 Kashmir Hill, Wrongfully Accused by an Algorithm, New York Times (June 24, 2020)
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/technology/facial-recognition-arrest.html?auth=login-email&login=email

075

The lack of federal regulation on the use of facial recognition technology also presents
civil liberties concerns about the widespread implications of its use and the associated data that is
collected. Private companies have begun to respond to the lack of regulation on government use
of FRT. In 2019, Axon , the country's largest supplier of police body cameras banned face
recognition systems on its technology.4 Recently, Microsoft, IBM and Amazon banned police
use of their facial recognition technology, citing lack of federal law on the matter to ensure
ethical use.5 These concerns about ethical use are compounded when taken in conjunction with
the longstanding concerns regarding a lack of accountability and ineffective planning and
management within Customs and Border Protection.6 Just this month, the Department of
Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found that CBP did not adequately safeguard
sensitive data on an unencrypted device used during its facial recognition technology pilot,
resulting in a massive data breach that allowed hackers to steal approximately 184,000 facial
recognition images and post some on the dark web.7
I recognize that the reason the Port Commission is where it is today, deliberating the use
of this fraught technology, is because of Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) federal
mandate to expedite biometric entry-exit in the wake of 9/11. I further recognize that the
Commission is having to do this despite its visible and concerted efforts to make Port facilities
welcoming and open to people of all colors and ethnicities and statuses. However, under this
administration particularly, CBP has less interest in these same considerations. In fact, under
current law, CBP could use an opt-in framework for the technology, but it has instead chosen to
make it opt-out.
Because of these concerns, I introduced the Facial Recognition and Biometric
Technology Moratorium Act in the House. This bill would:
Place a prohibition on the domestic use of facial recognition technology by federal
entities, which can only be lifted with an act of Congress;
Place a prohibition on the use of other biometric technologies, including voice
recognition, gait recognition, and recognition of other immutable physical characteristics,
by federal entities, which can only be lifted with an act of Congress;

4 Charlie Warzel, A Major Police Body Cam Company Just Banned Facial Recognition, New York Times (June 27,
2019) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/opinion/police-cam-facial-recognition.html
5 Jay Greene, Microsoft Won't Sell Police It's Facial Recognition Technology, Following Similar Moves by Amazon
and IBM, The Washington Post (June 11, 2020)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/11/microsoft-facial-recognition/
6 Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, CBP Needs a Comprehensive Process for
Conducting Covert Testing and Resolving Vulnerabilities (July 28, 2020)
https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2020-07/OIG-20-55-Jul20.pdf
Daniel E. Martnez, Ph.D., Guillermo Cantor, Ph.D. and Walter Ewing, Ph.D., No Action Taken: Lack of CBP
Accountability in Responding to Complaints of Abuse, American Immigration Council (May 4, 2014)
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/no-action-taken-lack-cbp-accountability-respondingcomplaints-abuse
7 Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, Review of CBP's Major Cybersecurity Incident
During a 2019 Biometric Pilot (Sept. 21, 2020) https://subscriber.politicopro.com/f/?id=00000174-bc62-dc18-a57d-
be63f54f0000&source=email

076

Condition federal grant funding to state and local entities, including law enforcement, on
those entities enacting their own moratoria on the use of facial recognition and biometric
technology;
Prohibit the use of federal dollars for biometric surveillance systems;
Prohibit the use of information collected via biometric technology in violation of the Act
in any judicial proceedings;
Includes a private right of action for individuals whose biometric data is used in violation
of the Act and allows for enforcement by state Attorneys General; and
Allow states and localities to enact their own laws regarding the use of facial recognition
and biometric technologies.

Given the current landscape, without the guidance of a federal moratoria or even
regulations on basic civil liberties protections, I understand that the Port must move forward with
setting its own guidance. I commend your efforts to focus on civil liberties concerns, and I
applaud your own moratorium on the use of biometrics by Port of Seattle Police. I also support
the intention to retain some level of control over CBP's actions by managing use of facial
recognition technology for air exit.
With respect to all non-mandated, discretionary uses, I have concerns about any
government or private entity use. For that reason, while I agree the Port's guiding principles
provide strong guidance for evaluating the use of the technology, I believe we must more
seriously consider the fundamental question of if the technology should be used at this time.
Considering the impacts of facial recognition technology on vulnerable communities and the
preserving civil rights and liberties should be the main drivers in the decision-making process
regarding this technology. When we act in the best interest of the most vulnerable, with an eye to
upholding the rights of all, we are acting in the best interest of everyone.
I understand that in those cases where the Port decides to allow facial recognition
technology, the guiding principles are intended to act as safeguards for community members,
travelers, and customers. Protections should stay focused on these populations, rather than
providing pathways to justify business use. The "justified" principle, for instance, should more
critically ask what promise facial recognition technology has in moving us toward a more just
society. Currently, facial recognition technology and its uses do not advance justice for people of
color, women, children, and seniors and I strongly oppose the use of any tool that further
marginalizes vulnerable communities. Each guiding principle should center these communities in
use case consideration. Efficiency or cost to businesses cannot be equal to or more important
than civil liberties.
As a member of the Port's Biometrics External Advisory Group, I urge you to center the
concerns of civil liberties advocates and communities of color in your decisions on the use of
facial recognition at the Port of Seattle. I am hopeful that community input will continue to be
prioritized to ensure the voices of customers, immigrants, and travelers are heard.

077

Once again, I commend you on doing all that you can to elevate civil liberties concerns
through this process.
Sincerely,

PRAMILA JAYAPAL
Member of Congress

078

Item No. 10a_attach_2
September 29, 2020 Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
Port of Seattle Commission
2711 Alaskan Way
Seattle, WA 98121
We, as members of the Biometrics External Advisory Group and organizations dedicated to
protecting people's rights and civil liberties, urge the Port of Seattle Commission to reject the
use of invasive face surveillance technology at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.
On December 10, 2019, the Commission adopted seven principles to guide its decision-making
on if and how biometrics should be used at the Port. These principles are: justified, voluntary,
private, equitable, transparent, legal, and ethical.1
We do not believe that either the current or the proposed uses of biometrics to identify
travelers on Port property can be implemented in a manner consistent with these
principles. Port staff state that its recommendations "are not meant to suggest that the Port
should implement public-facing biometrics, but rather how to do so in alignment with our
guiding principles."2 The only action that would be aligned with those principles would be to
ban the use of facial recognition technology to identify members of the public by the Port, as
well as by the Port's tenants and contractors.
We respectfully but strongly disagree with the Port's interpretation and application of
each of these principles. For example, the Port states that using facial recognition is
"equitable"3 if it is "accurate in identifying people of all backgrounds"4 and is "justified"5 if
doing so fulfills a "specific operational need."6 The undersigned members of the Biometrics
External Advisory Group have repeatedly voiced our concerns with such interpretations, noting
that even if facial recognition tools were accurate (which they are not), accuracy does not create
equity and that increasing efficiencies at the Port does not mean that the use of invasive
surveillance technology is justified.
We urge reevaluation of the principles, which should lead to reconsideration of the
recommendations that justify the procurement and implementation of facial recognition
technology at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. We have shared that the Port should
not collaborate with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and other entities to implement
invasive face surveillance systems.7 We reiterate that by working with government and private
entities to legitimize facial recognition technology, the Port will be facilitating the infrastructural

1 December 10, 2019 Port of Seattle Commission Regular Meeting, PORT OF SEATTLE (Dec. 10, 2019),
2 Biometrics Policy Recommendations Cover Memo, PORT OF SEATTLE, at 1 (Sept. 25, 2020).
3 Motion 2019-13: A Motion of the Port of Seattle Commission, PORT OF SEATTLE, at 1 (Dec. 10, 2019),
https://www.portseattle.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/Motion%202019-13__Biometrics%20Principles.pdf.
4 Id.
5 Id. at 2.
6 Id.
7 Open Letter to Port of Seattle Commission, ACLU OF WASH. (Apr. 8, 2020), https://www.aclu-wa.org/docs/open-letter-port-
seattle-commission.

1
079

expansion of powerful and racially biased face surveillance systems that threaten our
constitutionally protected rights and civil liberties.8
Face surveillance systems should not be used by government agencies such as CBP. In
announcing a recent lawsuit against CBP and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA),
the ACLU stated, "Unlike other forms of identity verification, facial recognition technology can
enable undetectable, persistent, government surveillance on a massive scale. As this technology
becomes increasingly widespread, the government can use it to track individuals' movements
and associations, posing grave risks to privacy and civil liberties. When such a technology is
placed in the hands of agencies like CBP and TSAwhich have been caught tracking and
spying on journalists, subjecting innocent travelers to excessive and humiliating searches, and
targeting and interrogating individuals because of their national origin, religious beliefs, or
political viewswe should all be concerned."9
We emphasize that face surveillance systems power systemic racism and injustice
whether or not these systems operate accurately. There is a long and ugly history of
government use of surveillance tools to target specific communities. To highlight just a few
examples, our government used IBM's Hollerith punched card machines to illegally surveil and
incarcerate Japanese-Americans during WWII.10 More recently, law enforcement used
automated license plate readers (ALPR) to religiously profile the Muslim community in a
decade-long surveillance program that was eventually struck down as illegal.11 Today, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is using ALPR and facial recognition technology
to track and deport immigrants.12 It is clear that facial recognition technology provides
government agencies with unprecedented surveillance power.
An increasing number of cities across the U.S. including Portland,13 Boston,14 and San
Francisco,15 have banned public and private16 uses of facial recognition technology,
8 Jennifer Lee, Tell the Port Commission to Push Back Against Face Surveillance, ACLU OF WASH. (Mar. 9, 2020), https://www.aclu-
wa.org/story/tell-port-commission-push-back-against-face-surveillance.
9 Ashley Gorski, The Government Has a Secret Plan to Track Everyone's Faces at Airports. We're Suing., ACLU (Mar. 12, 2020),
https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/the-government-has-a-secret-plan-to-track-everyones-faces-at-airports-weresuing
/.
10 Matthew Wills, WWII and the First Ethical Hacker, JSTOR DAILY (Feb. 14, 2017), https://daily.jstor.org/wwii-and-the-first-
ethical-hacker/.
11 Dia Kayyali, Third Circuit to the City of New York: Being Muslim is not Reasonable Suspicion for Surveillance, ELEC. FRONTIER FOUND.
(Oct. 15, 2015), https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/third-circuit-city-new-york-being-muslim-not-reasonable-suspicionsurveillance.
12 Catie Edmonson, ICE Used Facial Recognition to Mine State Driver's License Databases, N.Y. TIMES (July 7, 2019),
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/07/us/politics/ice-drivers-licenses-facial-recognition.html.
13 Portland, Oregon Municipal Code 34.10. Available at https://cdn.vox-
cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21868277/704_Sep_9_2TC_TW_Ord_BPS_2__1_.pdf.; Press Release, City of Portland,
City Council approves ordinances banning use of facial recognition technologies by City of Portland bureaus and by private entities in public spaces
(Sept. 9, 2020), https://www.portland.gov/bps/news/2020/9/9/city-council-approves-ordinances-banning-use-facialrecognition-technologies-city.
Note: Setting an example that we believe that the Port of Seattle Commission should follow, the Portland City Council
considered and rejected a request from the Port of Portland for an exception to the ban to allow use of facial recognition for
passenger processing at the Portland International Airport. See The Identity Project., Portland bans facial recognition by city agencies or
in places of public accommodation, PAPERS PLEASE (Sept. 9, 2020), https://papersplease.org/wp/2020/09/09/portland-bans-facialrecognition-by-city-agencies-or-in-places-of-public-accommodation
/.
14 Boston, Massachusetts Municipal Code 16-62. Available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6956465-Boston-
City-Council-face-surveillance-ban.html.
15 San Francisco, California Administrative Code - Acquisition of Surveillance
Technology. Available at https://www.eff.org/document/stop-secret-surveillance-ordinance-05062019

2
0077080

recognizing that face surveillance tools not only fuel discriminatory surveillance but
also threaten everyone's privacy and civil liberties. Recent state17 and federal proposals18 to
ban facial recognition technology have garnered widespread support as legislators and the
public have become increasingly concerned about the harmful impacts of face surveillance.
The Port of Seattle Commission has a choice to:
(1) Reject collaboration with CBP, a sister agency of ICE, and not fund CBP's surveillance
systems.
(2) Prohibit use of facial recognition technology and not facilitate the infrastructural
expansion of powerful and racially biased face surveillance technology.
(3) Reevaluate the Port's interpretation of and compliance with its principles so that they
align with the concerns of marginalized communities.
1. We urge the Port of Seattle Commission to reject participation in, and funding of,
CBP's facial recognition exit and entry programs.
On March 10, 2020, Port Commissioners voted unanimously to collaborate with CBP in
procuring and implementing its facial recognition program for biometric air exit, and did not
take adequate account of the many privacy, civil liberties, and community organizations that
urged the Port to reject participation.19 Instead of listening to serious constituent concerns
about the Port participating in CBP's mass collection of biometric data, Commissioners voted
to authorize a $5.7 million Request for Proposal (RFP)20 to procure and implement a "shareduse"
facial recognition system at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.21
Though Port Commissioners stated that they had no choice but to vote yes to collaborate with
CBP,22 the Commission did have a choice to say no. Airports and airlines are not mandated to
participate in or contribute financially to either CBP's biometric air exit or biometric air entry
programs,23 and furthermore, Congress has never authorized the biometric collection of U.S.
citizen data.24 Without explicit authorization, CBP should not be scanning the faces of
Americans as they depart or arrive on international flights, and the Port should not be
facilitating this unauthorized scanning.
16 Portland, Oregon Municipal Code 34.10, supra note 13.
17 H.B. 2856, 66th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash., 2020). Available at http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-
20/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2856.pdf#page=1
18 Press Release, Ed Markey, Senators Markey And Merkley, And Reps. Jayapal, Pressley To Introduce Legislation To Ban
Government Use Of Facial Recognition, Other Biometric Technology (June 5, 2020),
https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senators-markey-and-merkley-and-reps-jayapal-pressley-to-introducelegislation-to-ban-government-use-of-facial-recognition-other-biometric-technology.
19 March 10, 2020 Port of Seattle Commission Regular Meeting, PORT OF SEATTLE (Mar. 10, 2020),
https://meetings.portseattle.org/index.php?option=com_meetings&view=meeting&Itemid=358&id=1894&active=play.
20 Solicitation Detail: SEA Airport Biometric Air Exit System, PORT OF SEATTLE (Mar. 16, 2020),
https://hosting.portseattle.org/sops/#/Solicitations/Detail/c1451f2a-7544-ea11-8141-005056bd5ab4.
21 March 10, 2020 Port of Seattle Commission Regular Meeting, supra note 19, at Item 8a Biometric Air Exit Memo.
22 Feb 25, 2020 Port of Seattle Commission Regular Meeting, PORT OF SEATTLE (Feb. 25, 2020),
https://meetings.portseattle.org/index.php?option=com_meetings&view=meeting&Itemid=358&id=1892&active=play.
23 Marc Rotenberg et al., Comments of the Electronic Privacy Information Center to the Department of Homeland Security Data Privacy and
Integrity Advisory Committee, EPIC (Dec. 10, 2018), https://www.epic.org/apa/comments/EPIC-Comments-DHS-DPIAC-Face-
Rec-ReportDec-2018.pdf.
24 See Harrison Rudolph et. al, Not Ready for Takeoff: Face Scans at Airport Departure Gates, GEO. L. CTR ON PRIV. & TECH. (Dec. 21,
2017), https://www.airportfacescans.com/.

3
0078081

Additionally, we disagree with the Port's conclusion that the Port's participation in CBP's face
surveillance program will give the Port greater control over the program's implementation.
Commissioners state that by owning and operating the facial recognition systems in use, the
Port will be able to provide the public with clear signage, increasing the opportunity for
informed consent and mitigating harm from CBP's activities.25 Unfortunately, the Port's
decision to work with CBP will have exactly the opposite effect. By voting to authorize the RFP
on March 10, 2020, Commissioners agreed to comply with CBP's "Biometric Air Exit Business
Requirements," which require the Port to install only CBP-approved signage, even if the signage
is misleading or incorrect.26 The Port would have more power to mitigate harm and provide the
public with clear signage by rejecting participation in CBP's facial recognition program.
Our state has sent a clear message against Washington's collaboration with CBP. Over the past
two years, Washington's state legislature has passed the Keep Washington Working Act and the
Courts Open to All Act, which together prohibit state agencies, local law enforcement, and
court stakeholders from collaborating with CBP.27 The Port of Seattle Commission would be
better aligned with statewide work in Washington by rejecting collaboration with CBP in its
procurement and implementation of face surveillance systems.
We urge the Port of Seattle Commission to reverse its decision to participate in CBP's
biometric air exit program. Additionally, we urge the Commission to vote no and reject
participation in CBP's biometric air and cruise entry program.
2. We urge the Port of Seattle Commission to prohibit use of facial recognition
technology by private entities.
The Port of Seattle should prohibit business tenants such as airlines from integrating with
CBP's Traveler Verification Service (TVS)the agency's "Identity as a Service" biometrics
system.28 The Port should not enable private industry to aid the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) and CBP (DHS's largest law enforcement agency) by allowing it to implement
biometrics using CBP's TVS. When Port tenants integrate with CBP's TVS architecture, it is
impossible to separate "private" or non-federal surveillance from federal government
surveillance of travelers. Travelers may think that they are having their photo taken at a selfservice
kiosk solely for use by the airport or airline. But in reality, that photo will also be shared
with DHS and CBP.
The Port, airlines, and contractors should not obscure the role of DHS and CBP by collecting
facial images on their behalf. The Privacy Act,29 as discussed further below, requires that if an
individual's personal information is to be used by a federal agency, it must be collected by that
25 March 10, 2020 Port of Seattle Commission Regular Meeting, supra note 19.
26 Biometric Air Exit Business Requirements Version 2.0, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, at 9, Item 8 (Jan. 2020),
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2020-Jul/Exit%20BRD2__Redacted_0.pdf.
27 See Keep Washington Working, E.2.S.S.B 5497, 66th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash., 2019). Available at
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019- 20/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5497-S2.SL.pdf?q=20200401125832.;
See Courts Open to All, S.H.B. 2567, 66th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash., 2020). Available at
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/2567-S.SL.pdf?q=20200401094053.
28 Biometric Air Exit Business Requirements Version 2.0, supra note 26.
29 5 U.S.C. 552a (2010). Available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2018-title5/pdf/USCODE-2018-
title5-partI-chap5-subchapII-sec552a.pdf.

4
0079082

agency directly from that individual. The best way to provide travelers with clear notice that
facial images are being passed on to DHS is to require that any such images be collected by
identifiable, uniformed DHS staff, using DHS equipment, at DHS's expense.
The Port has significant control over whether and how private companies can implement
biometrics at Port facilities, and it should exercise this control to prohibit private entity
collaboration with DHS and CBP.
Additionally, the Port should prohibit private entities from using private-sector proprietary
facial recognition systems at Port facilities. We are alarmed that the recommendations from
Port staff highlight potential use of facial recognition for purposes including, but not limited to,
targeted advertising using dynamic signage, payment at retail stores or restaurants, access to
rental cars or airline passenger lounges, ticketing and bag check, and boarding of departing
flights and cruise ships.30 The Port should reject the infrastructural expansion of face
surveillancenot invite it in.
We emphasize that use of face surveillance systems will inevitably have disparate impacts on
marginalized groups, whether or not the technology operates accurately. However, it is
important to recognize that inaccurate and biased facial recognition systems have in many cases,
life-or-death consequences. Use of face surveillance has implicated people in crimes they have
not committed, as in the case of Robert Julian-Borchak Williams, a Black man who was wrongly
arrested and jailed due to a false facial recognition match.31 Indeed, multiple expert studies have
found facial recognition technology to be less accurate at identifying women, youth, trans and
gender non-conforming people, and people of color, increasing the risk of false matches. A
December 2019 study from the National Institute of Standards and Technology on Face
Recognition Software found that false positives are up to 100 times more likely for Asian and
African faces when compared to white faces.32 We underscore that facial recognition causes
disparate impacts when it is inaccurate, and it will also lead to harm even if perfectly accurate, as
the technology will continue to be deployed disproportionately to surveil marginalized
communities.
Finally, it is important that the Port prohibit its tenants from using proprietary facial recognition
systems because private surveillance often fuels government surveillance. With companies
frequently building and equipping government agencies with face surveillance tools, as well as
with the information gathered from such tools, it has become increasingly difficult to
distinguish between private and government surveillance. For example, companies such as
Clearview AI have provided facial recognition services to thousands of companies as well as to
government agencies like ICE.33 Allowing private entities to use proprietary facial recognition
systems at Port facilities will bolster both private and government use of invasive face
surveillance technology.
30 Port of Seattle Public-Facing Biometrics Policy: Biometrics For Traveler Functions by Private Sector Entities Using Proprietary Systems
Recommendations, PORT OF SEATTLE, at 6 (July 24, 2020), https://www.portseattle.org/sites/default/files/2020-
08/Public_Facing_Biometrics_for_Traveler_Functions_Using_Private_Propietary_Systems_DRAFT_200724.pdf.
31 Kashmir Hill, Wrongfully Accused by an Algorithm, N.Y. TIMES (Aug. 3, 2020),
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/technology/facial-recognition-arrest.html.
32 Patrick Grother et al., Face Recognition Vendor Test (FRVT) Part 3: Demographic Effects, U.S. DEP'T. OF COM., NAT'L
INST. OF STANDARDS & TECH. (Dec. 2019), https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2019/NIST.IR.8280.pdf.
33 Kim Lyons, ICE just signed a contract with facial recognition company Clearview AI, THE VERGE (Aug. 14, 2020)
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/14/21368930/clearview-ai-ice-contract-privacy-immigration.

5
0080083

Many people are recognizing that private uses of face surveillance are as concerning as
government uses. Recently, Portland became the first jurisdiction to ban private entity use of
facial recognition technologies in places of public accommodationwhich includes airports.34
The Port of Seattle should follow suit and ban private entity use of facial recognition
technologies at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.

3. We urge the Port of Seattle to reevaluate its interpretation of and compliance with its
principles.
The undersigned members of the Biometrics External Advisory Group have repeatedly raised
serious concerns with the Port's interpretation of the seven principles it has adopted to guide its
decision-making on biometrics.
I. Justified
The Port states that facial recognition use is "justified" if the technology is used only for a clear
intended purpose, it furthers a specific operational need or benefit, and it is not used for "mass
surveillance."35
First, use of a surveillance tool is not justified just because it is used for a clear and intended
purpose. Even if the intended purpose is ostensibly innocuous, use of powerful surveillance
technologies can pose risks to people's civil rights and civil liberties. For example, recently in
San Diego, police looked for Black Lives Matter protesters by searching records of smart
streetlights. These streetlights were originally pitched as a way to gather pedestrian and vehicle
data for the purpose of city planning. However, these streetlights have increasingly served the
purpose of law enforcement, as evidenced by San Diego Police Department using this footage
to surveil and prosecute protesters.36
Second, the Port's definition of "justified" conflates operational benefit and operational need.
For some use cases, such as biometric air and cruise entry, the recommendations state that
"justified" means meeting an operational need,37 and in other use cases such as for private
proprietary systems, the recommendations state that "justified" means creating an operational
benefit.38 However, all use cases, including the use of facial recognition for air exit, air and
cruise entry, and targeted advertising are apparently benefit-based rather than operationally
necessary. "Operational need" implies that facial recognition is essential to operations. This is
not the case for any of the use cases proposed.
Third, the Port states that use of facial recognition is justified if it is not used for "mass
surveillance." However, the Port has too narrowly defined "mass surveillance" as "scanning
34 See San Francisco, California Administrative Code - Acquisition of Surveillance
Technology, supra note 15.
35 Motion 2019-13: A Motion of the Port of Seattle Commission, supra note 3, at 1-2.
36 Jesse Marx, Police Used Smart Streetlight Footage to Investigate Protesters., Voice of San Diego (June 29, 2020),
https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/government/police-used-smart-streetlight-footage-to-investigate-protesters/
37 Biometrics Policy Recommendations Cover Memo, supra note 2, at 57.
38 Id. at 15.

6
0081084

large groups of people without lawful purpose, rather than use on one person at a time with
their active participation."39 Logging of individuals' movements and when, where, how and with
whom they travel, whether by air or sea or otherwise, is per se surveillance. "Surveillance," or
"the act of observing persons or groups,"40 does not depend on whether or not it is done
overtly or covertlyboth can constitute an invasion of privacy. The Port's proposed use of
facial recognition for biometric entry/exit and its proposal to allow private entities to use both
government and proprietary facial recognition systems would be considered "mass" or "bulk"
surveillance as defined by academics,41 technical experts,42 and governmental entities.43 Mass
surveillance can in some cases be lawful and overt, but still pose threats to people's privacy and
civil liberties.
II. Voluntary
The Port states that facial recognition use is "voluntary" if an "opt-in or "opt-out" procedure is
provided and unintended image capture is prevented.44
However, as previously noted, the Port's participation in CBP's biometric air exit program
expressly prohibits the Port from having control over signage to notify people of their right to
not have their face surveilled. Even though U.S. citizens technically have the right to opt out of
CBP's face surveillance programs, CBP has frequently failed to provide accurate information to
travelers regarding their opt-out rights.
A recent report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that CBP's privacy
noticeswhich are intended to provide travelers with information on procedures to opt out
"were not always current or complete, provided limited information on how to request to opt

39 Id. at 31.
40 Surveillance: Definition from Nolo's Plain-English Law Dictionary, LEGAL INFO. INST.,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/surveillance (last visited Sept. 24, 2020).
41 Seda Grses, Arun Kundnani, and Joris Van Hoboken, Crypto and Empire: The Contradictions of Counter-surveillance Advocacy, 38
MEDIA, CULTURE & SOC'Y 576 (2016). Available at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0163443716643006.
42 "Based in part on briefings from the IC [Intelligence Community], the committee adopted a definition better suited to
understanding the trade-off between civil liberties and effective intelligence: If a significant portion of the data collected is not
associated with current targets, it is bulk collection; otherwise, it is targeted." From National Research Council, Bulk Collection of
Signals Intelligence: Technical Options 2 (2015). Available at https://www.microsoft.com/en-
us/research/uploads/prod/2019/09/Bulk-Collection-of-Signals-Intelligence.pdf.
43 "On 9 March 2004, the European Parliamen t (2004) declared that any form of mass surveillance was unjustified and that only
targeted measures were justifiable. Targeted surveillance refers to the surveillance of a specific individual (or individuals) on a
case-by-case basis, based on reasonable suspicion (or probable cause). This type of surveillance was only authorized if it
included appropriate safeguards such as the requirement of search warrants or court orders. Any measure that did not meet
these requirements of surveillance is - and in the case of the European Parliament was - considered unjustified." ... "Shortly
after the Madrid bombings (which occurred on 11 March 2004), however, this view changed. The European Council (2004)'s
statement, in the Declaration on Combating Terrorism (adopted on the 25th of March 2004), on the urgency and necessity to
adopt measures of mass surveillance clearly attests to this. In particular, the Declaration on Combating Terrorism called for the
creation of "passenger name record" (PNR) checks on all flights in and out of the European Union (whereby the personal
information of passengers is recorded, stored and transferred to authorities in the United States upon request), IDs, visas, and
passports with biometric identifiers (e.g. digital fingerprints and retinal scans), and the wide retention of communications data.
The mass surveillance of movement (PNR and biometric IDs) and of communications (data retention) were now all said to be
justified." From Marie Helen Maras, The social consequences of a mass surveillance measure: What happens when we become the 'others'?, 40
INT'L JOURNAL OF LAW, CRIME, AND JUSTICE 65 (2012) Available at
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S175606161100070X.
44 Motion 2019-13: A Motion of the Port of Seattle Commission, supra note 3, at 2.

7
0082085

out of facial recognition, and were not always available."45 The GAO also found that some of
CBP's privacy notices were outdated and contained wrong or inconsistent information.46
Moreover, there have been documented cases where individuals have been denied their right to
opt-out. For example, in December 2019, a CBP officer incorrectly told an ACLU attorney
crossing from Mexico into the U.S. that he did not have the right to opt out of biometric air
entry.47
Furthermore, some academics argue that valid consent is not even possible in the context of
face surveillance. Researchers Selinger and Hartzog have stated that "[o]ne reason consent to
facial recognition is highly suspect is that people do not and largely cannot possess an
appropriate level of knowledge about the substantial threats that facial recognition technology
poses to their own autonomy Even if some people withhold consent for face surveillance,
others will inevitably give it. Rules that facilitate this kind of permission will normalize behavior,
entrench organizational practices, and fuel investment in technologies that will result in a net
increase of surveillance. Expanding a surveillance infrastructure will increase the number of
searches that occur which in itself, will have a chilling effect over time as law enforcement and
industry slowly but surely erode our collective and individual obscurity."48
III. Private
The Port states that facial recognition is "private" if data collected by facial recognition
technology are stored only if needed, for no longer than required by law, and protected from
unauthorized access.49
However, abiding by minimum data protection standards does not mean that the Port's use of
facial recognition technology provides people with adequate privacy. In Biometrics External
Advisory Group meetings, the Port has admitted that it has no control over what CBP does
with the data it collects and with whom it shares the data.
CBP claims that airlines will be restricted in their retention and use of facial images by contracts
with CBP. But none of those contracts have been disclosed, even when requested pursuant to
the Freedom Of Information Act.50 According to the aforementioned GOA report, "as of May
2020, CBP had audited only one of its more than 20 commercial airline partners and did not
have a plan to ensure that all partners are audited for compliance with the program's privacy
requirements."51 It does not appear that the Port has audited, or would have any way to audit,
compliance with contracts between airlines and CBP. Additionally, such contracts would be
enforceable only by CBP itself, not by the Port or third parties.
45 Facial Recognition: CBP and TSA are Taking Steps to Implement Programs, but CBP Should Address Privacy and System Performance Issues,
U.S. GOV'T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, at 39 (Sept. 2020), https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/709107.pdf.
46 Id. at 39- 40
47 Shaw Drake, A Border Officer Told Me I Couldn't Opt Out of the Face Recognition Scan. They Were Wrong., ACLU
(Dec. 5, 2019), https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/a-border-officer-told-me-i-couldnt-opt-out-of-the-facerecognition-scan-they-were-wrong
/
48 Evan Selinger and Woodrow Hartzog, The Inconsentability of Facial Surveillance, 66 LOYOLA LAW REVIEW 101 (2020), Available at
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3557508.
49 Motion 2019-13: A Motion of the Port of Seattle Commission, supra note 3, at 2.
50 See Edward Hasbrouck, Unanswered FOIA request to CBP, PAPERS PLEASE (July 16, 2018),
https://papersplease.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/biometric-partnership-FOIA.pdf.
51 Facial recognition: CBP and TSA are Taking Steps to Implement Programs, but CBP Should Address Privacy and System Performance Issues,
supra note 46.

8
0083086

Given all of the above, it cannot be said that the recommendations for the proposed uses of
facial recognition will protect people's privacy.
IV. Equitable
The Port states that facial recognition use is "equitable" if it is "reasonably accurate at
identifying people of all backgrounds," and if systems are in place to treat mismatching issues.52
First, we reiterate that equity cannot be simplified as accuracy. Face surveillance systems fuel
systemic racism and discriminatory policing, whether or not these systems operate accurately.
Second, under the Port's definition of "equitable," it is unclear at what level of accuracy it will
be acceptable to use facial recognition. Relative differences in accuracy rates between different
groups may lead to discrimination, even if the system is "highly accurate," on average.
V. Transparent
The Port states that facial recognition use is "transparent" if use of biometric technology for
passenger processing at Port facilities is communicated to visitors and travelers and if
individuals are notified about any collection of their biometric data and how that data may be
used. The Port also states that reports on the performance and effectiveness of the technology
should be made public.53
However, facial recognition use cannot be truly transparent unless the Port knows and can
share with the public with which entities people's data are being shared and for what purposes
people's data are being used. Unfortunately, because the Port cannot know what CBP does with
people's data and with which third parties the data are shared, the Port cannot guarantee
transparency.
VI. Lawful
The Port states that facial recognition is lawful if use complies with all laws including privacy
laws and laws prohibiting discrimination or illegal search against individuals or groups.54
The Port or the Port's airline tenants collaborating with CBP would likely violate the Privacy
Act, a federal law mandating that data be collected directly from individuals by a federal agency
if the data are used as part of the basis of making decisions about access to federal rights and
privileges (such as federally-licensed air travel).55
The Privacy Act also prohibits collection of information concerning the exercise of rights
protected by the First Amendment without explicit statutory authorization. The First
Amendment protects "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"56 and records of when,
52 Motion 2019-13: A Motion of the Port of Seattle Commission, supra note 3, at 2.
53 Id.
54 Id.
55 5 U.S.C. 552a (2010), supra note 29.
56 U.S. Const. amend. I. Available at https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/.

9
0084087

where, and with whom we travel are records of how we exercise rights protected by the First
Amendment. Neither CBP nor TSA has explicit statutory authority to collect facial images of
U.S. citizens or domestic travelers, and thus, collection of this information is prohibited by the
Privacy Act.
By collecting facial images and sending them to CBP, the Port or airlines operating at the Port
would potentially be complicit in CBP's violation of federal law. The Port should not facilitate
CBP's unlawful outsourcing of personal data collection.
VII. Ethical
The Port states that facial recognition use is "ethical" if actions respect key moral principles that
include honesty, fairness, equality, dignity, diversity, and individual rights.
Respectfully, there are serious ethical questions regarding collaboration with CBP, an agency
with a long history of abuse,57 to build a powerful surveillance system. Face surveillance systems
violate everyone's privacy, and especially violate the dignity and rights of communities that
continue to be targeted by law enforcement. Expanding face surveillance systems will
exacerbate systemic racism. In order to abide by this principle, the Port should refuse to
collaborate with CBP and reject facilitating the growth of both private and government face
surveillance infrastructure.
We urge the Port of Seattle Commission to reject collaboration with CBP, prohibit all
use of facial recognition technology at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, and
reevaluate its interpretation of and compliance with the aforementioned principles
guiding decision-making on if and how biometrics should be used at the Port.

Signed,
ACLU of Washington
Advocacy for Principled Action in Government
Asia Pacific Cultural Center
Asian Counseling and Referral Service (ACRS)
Casa Latina
Church Council of Greater Seattle
Coalition of Seattle Indian-Americans
Council on American Islamic Relations Washington (CAIR-WA)
Densho
Eastside for All
El Centro de la Raza
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Entre Hermanos
Faith Action Network (FAN)
Fight for the Future
57 US: Stop Using Untrained, Abusive Agencies at Protests, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH (June 5, 2020),
https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/06/05/us-stop-using-untrained-abusive-agencies-protests.

10
0085088

Freedom to Read Foundation
Indivisible Eastside
Indivisible Plus Washington
Indivisible Whidbey
InterIm Community Development Association (InterIm CDA)
Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) Seattle Chapter
John T. Williams Organizing Committee
La Resistencia
Latino Community Fund of Washington
Legacy of Equality Leadership & Organizing (LELO)
MAPS-AMEN (American Muslim Empowerment Network)
MediaJustice
Mijente
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project
OneAmerica
Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest and Hawai'i
Puget Sound Sage
Real Change
The Identity Project
Transit Riders Union
Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle
Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (WACDL)
Washington Defender Association (WDA)

11
0086089

Item No. 10a_attach_3
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021

RETURN TO AGENDA 090

COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM Item No. 10b
ACTION ITEM Date of Meeting July 13, 2021
DATE: June 25, 2021
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Jeffrey Brown, Aviation Chief Operating Officer
Tommy Gregory, Sr. Art Program Manager
SUBJECT: International Arrivals Facility Indigenous art procurement (CIP C102066)
Amount of this request: $475,000
Total estimated project cost: $475,000
ACTION REQUESTED
Request authorization for the Executive Director to acquire Indigenous Art of the Pacific
Northwest region for display in the International Arrivals Facility (IAF) at the Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport. This request is in the amount of $475,000.
SUMMARY
The Port of Seattle's Public Art Program is proposing to conduct an invitational call aimed to
acquire Native artwork to be put on exhibit within the Airport's International Arrivals Facility
(IAF). The artwork will focus on Pacific Northwest American Indians/Alaska Natives, exploring
contemporary ideas within the realm of history, craft, landscape, and the future of Tribes. The
work must consider the aesthetic of the facility and proposed artworks must be thoughtful
regarding long term maintenance and conversation.
Other Key Points
This action is in alignment with the Art Program goals and recommended for approval by
the Art Committee
There is enough in the existing budget from the art pool for the costs to cover this
endeavor
The intent is to procure the new artwork before the grand opening of the IAF
Is in support of local and regional artists
Airport customers will benefit in experiencing contemporary art from PNW Native artists
Attachments
PowerPoint Presentation

Template revised April 12, 2018.
091

Item No. 10b supp________
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021___

Indigenous Art in the
International Arrivals
Facility
July 13, 2021

092

Art Program Vision
"To return the Port of Seattle to its position as a national leader among its peers, as
an internationally acclaimed regional arts center. To promote art and culture through
curatorial excellence, modern and contemporary art holdings, and innovative
programming."

093

Request
Approval for the Port of Seattle to acquire Indigenous Art of the Pacific Northwest
region for display in the International Arrivals Facility at the Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport. The total amount of this request is $475,000.

3 094

Purpose
Create a visual representation of a Land Acknowledgement to welcome
international travelers to the region
Support local and regional artists potentially impacted by the pandemic
Meet the 2019 strategic plan goal to build a Portable Permanent Collection

4 095

Potential Locations

5 096

Acknowledgement
The concept of incorporating Indigenous art and culture into SEA originated with the
Fall 2020 class of high school interns, presenting South Satellite Concepts.
Katelyn Forde Priscilla Jansen Simon Kamau
Olivia Korndorfer Jordan Mathias Leila Sam
Kalani Thompson

6 097

Thank
You!

Operated by the
Port of Seattle

FlySEA.org

RETURN TO AGENDA
098

Item Number: 10c_order
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
1 ORDER 2021-07:
2 AN ORDER OF THE PORT OF SEATTLE COMMISSION
3
4 To support the Executive Director's negotiation and execution
5 of a lease agreement for the property known as Tsubota with
6 the City of Seattle.
7
8 PROPOSED
9 JULY 13, 2021
10
11 INTRODUCTION
12
13 Since November 2017 the City of Seattle has leased a portion of the Port's Tsubota site at 1601
14 15th Avenue West for the purposes of housing approximately 60 people in 43 units annually in a
15 tiny house village on slightly more than 17,994 sf of land. The City and Port are considering a
16 new lease to increase the size of the leased lot for the purposes of adding up to 29 new units
17 and a comfort station on a total of approximately 35,000 sf of land. The parties are also
18 considering a three-year term with a subsequent one-year option. The negotiation and
19 execution of this lease is within the authority of the Executive Director under the Port's
20 Delegation of Authority.
21
22
23 TEXT OF THE ORDER
24
25 The Port Commission hereby supports the Executive Director's negotiation and execution of a
26 lease with the City of Seattle, for the property known as the Tsubota site at 1601 15th Avenue
27 West, on terms the Executive Director deems appropriate.
28
29 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER
30
31 As an economic development agency, the Port of Seattle is responsible for spurring our regional
32 economy, sustaining and creating family-wage jobs by supporting small businesses, workforce
33 development, tourism, and leveraging real estate development to create jobs. As part of this
34 responsibility, the Port recognizes two distinct issues with which our entire community has
35 concern: 1) Emergency needs of the current homeless population; and 2) Affordable housing in
36 our communities. The Port is interested in playing a helpful role in addressing homelessness in
37 our community by leasing property for which the Port has no near-term plans.
38
39 The Commission received a briefing from representatives from the City of Seattle (the City) and
40 King County (the County) on August 8, 2017, during which they highlighted that their most
41 pressing need to address homelessness is property for sanctioned homeless encampments.
42
43 In collaboration the Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI), the City has had great success with the
44 tiny house village model, which typically obtains a 37 percent exit rate to permanent overall

Order 2021-07 Supporting Tsubota Lease Agreement Negotiation and Execution Page 1 of 2
099

45 housing (compared to an average 4 percent successful exit rate of traditional shelters.) In 2019
46 the successful exit rate for the Tsubota Village was 46 percent.
47
48 The following data points illustrate the City's results regarding tiny house villages and at the
49 Tsubota Village:
50
51 Number of villages in Seattle: 8
52 Number of total tiny houses in Seattle: approximately 300
53 Successful exit rate of tiny house occupants in Seattle: 37 percent
54 Number of tiny houses at Tsubota Village: 43
55 Successful exit rate of Tsubota Village occupants: 46 percent
56
57 LIHI representatives who manage the numerous villages explain that the maximum optimal size
58 of a village is 70 to 80 units. This range matches well with hygiene equipment and on-site case
59 managers' caseloads. The City of Seattle is considering expanding the Tsubota lot to include up
60 to 29 additional units, which will bring the full count to between approximately 70 to 74 units.
61
62 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ATTACHED
63 Site Plan of Tsubota Village

Order 2021-07 Supporting Tsubota Lease Agreement Negotiation and Execution Page 2 of 2
100

Item Number: 10c_Attach
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021

EXHIBIT B
PREMISES

Approximately 35,594 (?) sf of Lease Area on Port's Tsubota Site on 15th Ave West

RETURN TO AGENDA
POS Term Lease Agreement, Agr#003xxx Exhibit B, p-2
City of Seattle
5/27/2021
101

COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM Item No. 11b
BRIEFING ITEM Date of Meeting July 13, 2021
DATE: July 1, 2021
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: David McFadden, Managing Director, Economic Development Division
SUBJECT: Maritime Blue Annual Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Two years ago, the Port of Seattle executed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with
Washington Maritime Blue (MB), the new nonprofit organization charged with implementing
Washington State's Strategy for the Blue Economy. The Memorandum of Understanding laid out
general areas of cooperation and subsequent service contracts have formalized the Port's
partnership with MB on maritime innovation and workforce initiatives.
The MOU and Port service agreements with MB has yielded an effective partnership that is
advancing development of Washington's Blue Economy. Over the past year we have jointly
launched another successful maritime innovation accelerator, expanded the Youth Maritime
Collaborative workforce development initiative, and initiated other efforts to advance
sustainability within the maritime industry.
The partnership to build a Blue Economy is working. Over the next year our priorities include:
Advancing a third round of the maritime innovation accelerator program
Expanding Youth Maritime Collaborative internship opportunities
Starting Quiet Sound initiative to reduce the impacts to Southern Resident Killer Whales
from large commercial vessels
Collaborate on greenhouse gas reduction initiatives that positively impact Port operations
Diversify funding sources and developing MB Board capacity and expertise
This work will be supported in part by a two-year $300,000 contract Port Commissioners
authorized last year. Separately, we will also be requesting authorization for continued funding
of the Youth Maritime Collaborative as that contract (also currently held by Maritime Blue) ends
this fall.
MARITIME BLUE PROGRESS AND RESULTS
In 2019, the Port of Seattle helped Washington State develop a compelling long-term strategy
for a Blue Economy. It outlined goals to modernize the maritime industry by accelerating its path
towards sustainability. By advancing innovation, growing maritime gateways, reducing

Template revised April 12, 2018.
102

COMMISSION AGENDA Briefing Item No. 11b Page 2 of 5
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
greenhouse gas emissions, and investing in workforce development, Washington's maritime
industries and communities could prosper.
Maritime Blue, a new cluster-based organization was born to implement the Blue Economy
Strategy. The organization reflects a partnership between private industry, government,
education, and community-based organizations. Maritime Blue has grown significantly over the
last two years. It now has 80+ members from nation al research labs to startups to global
technology providers, and community-based workforce partners.
The Port of Seattle has played a pivotal role in the growth and development of Maritime Blue.
The Port and Maritime Blue signed a Memorandum of Understanding in July 2019 that formalized
our support for the organization and its work to advance the Blue Economy. Subsequent service
agreements with Maritime Blue have supported the Maritime Blue Innovation Accelerator and
the Maritime Youth Collaborative workforce development initiative (with a contract pending to
support the new Quiet Sound initiative designed to protect Southern Resident Killer Whales).
Maritime Blue Innovation Accelerator
MB just finished running its second maritime innovation accelerator. The program was
completely virtual, but the cohort nonetheless thrived and connected with one another
effectively. Over 100 startups applied to the program and 11 companies were ultimately chosen
for four-month immersive training program. Seven of these startups were from Washington
state. Three companies featured women founders and two ventures were led by people of color.
Initial results from the accelerator are promising:
Silverback Marine landed large contract with Port of Lopez w/ 1st wave company, Pure
Watercraft;
Allosense secured non-dilutive funding from DoD;
MM-Seas launched their platform during the program; and
Puget Buoy won Alaska Airlines Innovation Challenge.
Maritime Blue's cadre of mentors expanded for the second accelerator and helped guide
participating companies. The second accelerator featured weekly CEO roundtables with industry
experts and hundreds of hours of individual meetings with each company.
With the success of the first two maritime accelerator cohorts, Maritime Blue plans to run a third
accelerator early next year. This accelerator will complement the Port of Tacoma's incubator and
Bellingham's WA Clean Tech/Blue Tech program. Over time Maritime Blue hopes the accelerator
program will serve as a hub for broader innovation programs like Tacoma and Bellingham's
efforts.

Template revised September 22, 2016.
103

COMMISSION AGENDA Briefing Item No. 11b Page 3 of 5
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
Youth Maritime Collaborative
Efforts to orient young women, low-income youth, and youth of color have progressed because
of Maritime Blue's work on the Youth Maritime Collaborative, YMC.
Over the past year, MB implemented its Youth Maritime Accelerator Project (YMAP). Eleven
interns from diverse backgrounds participated in eight-week paid internships and received a
stipend at the end or their experiences. Youth we able to work with six maritime employers and
participate in several experiential learning events as part of the YMAP.
MB supported12 interns from Seattle Public School's Launch 206 project. Participating youth
completed a four-week internship, received high school credit, and a $1000 stipend.
As the YMC's initiatives like the YMAP gain momentum there are expanding opportunities for
youth to experience on-the-water programming and maritime/ocean learning activities. Funding
partners like the City of Seattle and the Workforce Development Council of Seattle and King
County have joined the Port to support broader maritime workforce programming for young
women and people of color. More recently, Maritime Blue received a $350,000 grant from the
Builders Initiative, to further advance its career connected learning initiatives.
Joint Industry Projects/Quiet Sound
MB supports several Joint Innovation Projects (JIP) in partnership with government agencies and
private maritime companies. As an example, MB is working closely with Washington State, Vigor
industries and other partners on electric ferry development. More recently MB launched a joint
industry project to develop a whale report alert system. This "Quiet Sound" initiative is just
getting off the ground and will tackle noise and vessel disturbance issues that impact the survival
of the Southern Resident Killer Whale population.
Public Forums
In addition to advancing maritime innovation, workforce development and key partnerships, MB
typically organizes events, workshops, and public forums on key topics impacting Washington's
maritime industry. The pandemic has put a damper on many of these vents but as Washington
reopens there are good opportunities to gather again and host critical discussions using MB
member expertise and outside thought leaders. Some potential topics could include:
Equity in a 21st Century Maritime Workforce
Offshore Wind Development Opportunities
Smart Ports: Shipping Terminal Digitization
Organization Growth and Development
Maritime Blue has made tremendous strides over the last two years since our Memorandum of
Understanding was executed to help jumpstart this new cluster association. The organization

Template revised September 22, 2016.
104

COMMISSION AGENDA Briefing Item No. 11b Page 4 of 5
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
has secured significant new grants and private funding to supports its key projects and overall
mission. Maritime Blue's annual budget is $1.94 million of which $250,000 comes from the Port
of Seattle.
With more stable funding, the organization has filled several new staff positions and formalized
Joshua Berger's position as MB's President and CEO. New staff include:
Jennifer States, VP of Projects and Strategy
Josh Carter, Program Director, Blue Ventures/Innovation Accelerator
Veasna Hoy, Program Director, Youth Maritime Collaborative
Karina Marija-Harris, Community and Events Coordinator
This continued partnership between the Port and Washington Maritime Blue helps galvanize the
Port's commitment to the values of the State's Strategy for the Blue Economy; A growing
maritime and ocean economy, healthy ocean and marine ecosystems, and equitable and resilient
communities. The original MOU, coupled with committed funding allows Maritime Blue to utilize
its growing network of private industry, public sector, research & academic institutions, and
community & workforce organizations deliver our strategic goals to create herein Washington a:
Thriving Low-Carbon Maritime Industry through Deep Decarbonization
Global Innovation Hub through Joint Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Green Gateway through Working Waterfronts that create safe jobs support climate &
environmental action.
Diverse and Equitable 21st Century Maritime Workforce
World Class Cluster through a Strategic Alliance for Maritime Innovation and
Sustainability
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST
(1) Presentation slides
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS
August 4, 2020 The Commission authorized two-year contract with Maritime Blue to
support innovation accelerator and other key Blue initiatives
July 14, 2020 The Commission was briefed on Maritime Blue's inaugural innovation
accelerator and other Blue initiatives
July 23, 2019 The Commission authorized one-year contract with Maritime Blue to
implement priorities established in Memorandum of Understanding
July 9, 2019 The Commission authorized executive of Memorandum of Understanding with
Washington Maritime Blue to clarify partnership opportunities and responsibilities

Template revised September 22, 2016.
105

COMMISSION AGENDA Briefing Item No. 11b Page 5 of 5
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
May 14, 2019 The Commission authorized design funding for the Maritime Innovation
Center (Historic Ship Supply Building)
January 8, 2019 Commission received a briefing regarding Maritime Blue Plan and the
Maritime Innovation Center.

Template revised September 22, 2016.
106

Item No. 11b_supp
Date of Meeting July 13, 2021
Maritime Blue Annual Report
Advancing Washington State's Maritime Industry

107

Building a Blue
Economy: A
Progress Report
Port of Seattle has strong
partnership with Washington
Maritime Blue:
Maritime innovation
accelerator
Maritime Youth
Collaborative
Joint Industry Projects
Organizational
Development and
Leadership
1082

A Strategic Alliance for Maritime
Innovation and a Sustainable Blue Economy

Washington Maritime Blue is a non-profit, strategic alliance formed to accelerate innovation and sustainability
in support of an inclusive blue economy. With a mission to implement Washington State's Strategy for the
Blue Economy delivered by GovernorJay Inslee's Maritime Innovation Advisory Council, we are a partnership
between industry, public sector, research & training institutions, and community organizations. Maritime Blue
works to create a world-class, thriving, equitable and sustainable maritime and ocean industry through
knowledge sharing, joint innovation, entrepreneurship, commercialization, business and workforce
development.
109

Thriving,
Global
Low 21st World-
Innovation Growing
Carbon Century Class
Hub Gateways
Industry Workforce Cluster

Washington State's Strategy for the Blue Economy
The first, and only, US statewide strategy for the Blue Economy was delivered in
January 2019 by Governor Inslee's Maritime Innovation Advisory Council and
Washington State Dept. of Commerce after 18 months of stakeholder engagement.
110

Industry Members

Organizational Partners Startups Research Institutions

Public Partners

111

Maritime Blue Innovation Programs
4 Month Mentor-based Innovation
Accelerator (no equity)
One Year Innovation Incubator in
Partnership with Port of Tacoma
(focus on Port Operations)
Hub and Spoke Model Creating
Partnership Programs with PNW
Organizations in Newport, OR and
Bellingham, WA
SEA
POTENTIAL
112

Innaugural Cohort Wins, Deals, & Stats
115 Startups applies - 11 Chosen
10 from US, 9 from WA State, 7 from King County
4 Women, 4 POC founders/co-founders
Wins and Deals
$73M in Private Capital Investments
$12M in Business Sales
Several Demonstration Projects & Customer Acquisitions
Combined reports of over %500 increase in revenue
At least 50 jobs created

113

Second Wave Notable Events/Stats
100+ Startups Applied
60% from WA State, 40% from King County
11 startups chosen
9 from US, 7 from WA State, 5 from King County
3 women founders, 2 POC founders
Wins and Deals
Silverback Marine landed large contract with Port
of Lopez w/ 1st wave company, Pure Watercraft
Allosense secured non-dilutive funding from DoD
MM-Seas launched their platform during the program
Puget Buoy won Alaska Airlines Innovation Challenge
Pending results of current funding rounds
114

Mentors Make This Program Special!
Weekly CEO
roundtable with
industry leading
experts
HUNDREDS of
hours of
individual
mentor meetings
Shared
contextual
experiences
115

Where do we go from here?
Third Wave of the Maritime Blue Innovation
Accelerator Q1 of 2022
Rolling Admission into Maritime Blue
Innovation Incubator in Partnership with the
Port of Tacoma
Launch of Bellingham, WA Clean Tech/Blue
Tech program
Building Collaborative Programming with
Alaska and Oregon in 2021/2022
116

Enable an equitable and diverse 21st century workforce of the
Blue future through coordination, funding, and public forums for
Force industry-driven, career connected learning opportunities.
Providing organizational support, resources and an employer -
agency network for the Youth Maritime Collaborative.

117

Youth Maritime Collaborative

A partnership between service providers, educational institutions, and
employers to make maritime an accessible option for young women, lowincome
youth, and youth of color. The YMC creates career pathways through
experiential events, mentorship and internships. 118

Strategic Vision & YMC Partners

We as pire for the Youth Maritime Collaborative to be a partners hip that makes maritime an
appealing career option for low-income youth and youth of color. To achieve this , we propos e a
system that is grounded in career connected learning and equity. By guiding today's youth toward
career pathways , experiential events , interns hips and apprentices hips , the Collaborative works to
connect employers with the next generation of s killed workers . 119

Internships
Youth Maritime Accelerator Project (YMAP)
11 diverse interns, ages 18-24 from South King County
6 Maritime Employers (Fishtail, TOTE Marine, Pacific Marine
Group, MMSEAS, YMC, WA Maritime Blue)
8-week paid internship
$2,000 stipend
Includes curriculum and experiential learning events
Launch206
12 interns from Seattle Public Schools
4 Maritime Employers (Argosy, Western Towboat, Boat Setter,
CETS LLC, Center for Wooden Boats)
4-week paid internship and .5 HS credit
$1,000 stipend
Includes class instruction and experiential learning events 120

Expanded Cohort Model
Increase opportunities for
youth to experience onthe-water
programming
and maritime/ocean
learning activities,
education and training
with YMC program
partners
Expand partnerships with
community-based
organizations
Provide wrap-around
support for both youth
and employers
121

Funding Model Structure

2019 2021
Port of S eattle: $199,999
Port of S eattle, S outh K ing County Fund: $99,995
City of S eattle, Office of Economic Development: $50,000
Workforce Development Council of S eattle & KC: $10,000
2021-2023
P rivate Funding Match: T he Builders Initiative: $350,000
Seeking further match funding for full program planning

122

Members come together through Joint Innovation Projects
Blue (JIPs) and collaboration to implement key demonstration
projects and strategic planning for growth in the Blue Economy
Forward
Washington State Ferry Electrification
Seattle Waterfront Decarbonization Strategy
JIP: Zero-emission Foiling Fast Ferry
JIP: Green Hydrogen for Tacoma Maritime
JIP: Early Covid-19 Detection for Maritime and Fisheries
JIP: Quiet Sound Whale Report Alert System (WRAS)

123

Quiet Sound is a collaborative program to better
understand and reduce the cumulative effects of acoustic
and physical disturbance from large, commercial vessels
on Southern Resident Killer Whales in Washington waters.

124

Creating a world-class cluster through a sustainable
organization rooted in values of equity and resilience.
Blue Growing membership and leadership
Focus International recognition and speaking engagements
Cluster to Cluster relationships

125

Part of a Global Enterprise for the Blue Economy

126

Organizational Development & Leadership
Founded in Oc tober 2018, the organization has taken s ignificant s teps towards
organizational s us tainability by divers ifying revenue, increas ed operational
capacity and Board leaders hip. Current Board of Directors include:
President/CEO - J oshua Berger, Maritime Blue J ason J ordan, Northwest Seaport Alliance
Vice-Chair - Lauren Offenbecher, SSA Marine Cosmo King, ioCurrents
Vice-Chair - Eleanor Kirtley, Green Marine Vesa Koivumaa, Wrtsil
Secretary - Simon Geerlofs, PNNL Dennis McLerran, Cascadia Law Group
Treasurer - Deloit Wolfe, Impact Washington Bob Miyamoto, University of WA - APL
J oe Allen, J amestown S'klallam EDA Barbara "b.g." Nabors Glass, Seattle Goodwill
Ann Avary, NW Center of Excellence for Marine Patty Rubstello, Washington State Ferries
Comm. Fred Felleman, Port of Seattle Andy Stewart, Amazon
127

2019 2020 Sponsors
Catalytic Sponsors

Impact Sponsors Sustaining Sponsors

128

OMembership/Sponsorship 10%
EB Program Revenue (JIPs) 7.7%
LLSHPTE ATA
BEvents 6.4 %
Bfederal 31%
mbSoxtd (i884. POS) 19%
a
'
Annual Budget = $1.94M

Port Funding = $250,000 129 4

Appendix

130

Partners
Joint Innovation Program (JIP)
Zero Emission Fast Foil Ferry
Development of an innovative Hydrofoil craft
CHALLENGE
A zero-emission, clean transit concept for a high-speed hydrofoil craft using
lightweight carbon fiber hull construction. Vision is to help relaunch the
"Mosquito" fleet & reduce vehicle traffic. A collaborative approach is
needed to identify & solve the challenges related to technical, safety,
operational risks & financial feasibility.
SCOPE VALUE
This collaborative JIP will advance through feasibility & demonstration phases with A zero-emission high speed
project tasks that may run in succession/parallel. These include: waterborne transportation
Advance design spiral from concept to preliminary design, to contract design for construction. alternative in the Puget Sound.
Economic & environmental benefits & impacts The foil ferry can offer a safe,
Terminal & shoreside infrastructure requirements reliable & cost-effective option,
Materials & construction while minimizing the
Routing analysis & operations environmental impact on air &
Advance detection & avoidance strategies
water quality as well as marine
Regulatory, testing & permitting
Hybrid funding model for first demonstration life. Washington companies to
develop state of the art
BENEFITS technology & competence to
More efficient vessel, reduced emissions, improved commuter & transit options, support our region as a center
quieting & strike avoidance to reduce marine mammal impacts, platform for WA of excellence for maritime
manufacturing, innovation & economic development. decarbonization.
131

Joint Innovation Project (JIP) - DRAFT
Zero-Carbon Maritime Hydrogen Ecosystem
through Formic Acid Storage Pathways
CHALLENGE PARTNERS
Alternative fuels and energy are needed to reduce emissions from transportation and port
operations. Hydrogen shows great promise, if it can be generated at scale in our region from
renewable energy, as well as stored and transported in a safe manner. Tacoma Power has excess
clean hydropower generation that can be utilized to make Green Hydrogen. They also need to
provide energy for cold-ironing services to berthed vessels, which have large variances in power
demand and timing.
SOLUTION VISION
Build and scale a Maritime hydrogen ecosystem through a project at the Port of Tacoma that Regional collaboration to make Tacoma, WA the
demonstrates the concept of a port-based hydrogen (H2) solution utilizing Formic Acid for production and distribution nerve center for
lower cost and safer storage and movement. scaling up the use of clean hydrogen for port and
This demonstration features a system that creates a liquid H2 carrier, formic acid, directly maritime applications.
from green renewable electricity, water and recycled CO2. This unique technology is provided
by two of the partners: OCO Inc., whose electrolyzer technology creates the formic acid as a BENEFITS
liquid H2 carrier and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, that provides a reformer This approach provides a large-scale local
technology to decompose and release the H2 from formic acid when needed. production and use for Hydrogen in maritime
A Tacoma Power will provide the green electricity, which comes primarily from ports that can be stored as a liquid carrier in the
hydroelectricity and is 97% carbon free. They will also be the end user of the H2, to generate form of Formic Acid, overcoming some of the key
energy on demand for cold-ironing services to berthed vessels. storage and movement challenges. This
DNV GL will provide techno-economic modeling so that this demo can be used to provide the demonstration has the potential to show ports,
anchor application for scaling-out hydrogen use in other maritime applications like hydrogen utilities, and numerous maritime end-users what
fueling for trucks, trains, vessels and a wide variety of cargo handling applications. can be achieved when H2 is used at scale
132

Joint Innovation Project (Proposed)
Support and Scale the Whale Report Alert System for
CHALLENGE Proposed PARTNERS
As a relatively new tool in Washington State, the Whale Report Alert System (WRAS)
requires more robust participation from various user groups to improve the data input for
cetacean sightings. As such, the challenge is to work with various entities to garner data,
facilitate smooth implementation of WRAS, and evaluate WRAS efficacy in Washington
State based on how alerts impact mariner actions on the water.

SOLUTION
Recruit and train users:
Education and outreach
Implementation Planning w/ operators
Develop and deliver trainings
Implement WRAS:
Work with end-users to operationalized
Aggregate visual sittings networks data
Provide ongoing support to users
Monitor data input
Efficacy and Adaptive management:
Plan for and develop usage analysis
Continued implementation support and data monitoring
Integration of Data sources: VISION
Expand coordination of data cross-boarder and sector Support and scale use of Whale Reporting and
Assessment of hydrophone networks Alert System (WRAS) in Washington waters.
Continued improvement and long-term recommendations 133

Joint Innovation Project
COVID-19 Early Detection System for Fisheries & Maritime
CHALLENGE PARTNERS
Every summer 10,000 plus people go to work in the Alaska based fisheries through
Washington State. Most of the fishing and processing companies are based in WA as well
as the workforce. The entire fishery contributes more that $10 Billion dollars to our
economy and is a vital part of our food security supply chain. However - How do we
support and enable this activity and workforce in a way that is safe and not contributing to
the spread of COVID-19, threatening small communities throughout Alaska and hence, the
entire fishery itself? How can we monitor and track the health of the workforce who is VISION
particularly high risk due to the nature of the work? Provide the technology and communications
platform to allow the fishing and maritime sector
to return to work safely and build a pilot that can
SOLUTION be scaled to other sectors and regions.
A partnership between Maritime Blue, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation
(IHME) and Discovery Health MD (DHM) will build, implement and scale an early detection BENEFITS
system to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in this high risk workforce. The overall goal for this Program is prevent the
IHME will build a survey, provide data analysis, and dashboard for early detection spread of COVID-19 as industries are implementing
Survey results will inform and support businesses internal data collection needs back to work initiatives, while maintaining the
DHM will work with the Fishing and Maritime industry to support operationalization health of employees and the communities in which
Engage in further technology partnership to ensure efficient and safe data transfer to they live or operate. Strategic analyses that utilize
and from vessels the survey and testing data will allow us to look for
Scale the solution in concert with other contact tracing efforts to be utilized in other a potential for resurgence, protect jobs and protect
high risk workforce sectors and eventually to whole communities, regions and states. the global food supply chain
RETURN TO AGENDA 134

COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM Item No. 11c
BRIEFING ITEM Date of Meeting July 13, 2021
DATE: June 3, 2021
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Sandy Kilroy, Sr. Director-Environment, Sustainability & Engineering
Kathleen Hurley, Sr. Environmental Program Manager
SUBJECT: Briefing on the Ocean Acidification Action Plan and Case Study

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2020, the Port of Seattle was the first port globally to join the International Alliance to
Combat Ocean Acidification (OA Alliance) and by joining the alliance, the Port recognizes the
many ways in which ocean acidification (OA) impacts the maritime sector. In order to fulfill our
commitment as a member in good standing, the Port was required to develop an Ocean
Acidification Action Plan and a Case Study that demonstrates how the Port is taking action on
OA and how the Port will continue to take action on OA.
OA threatens marine life in the Salish Sea by making it more difficult for organisms with calcium
carbonate shells, like crabs and oysters, to develop these protective structures and by
disrupting the foraging habits of marine wildlife, which impacts mortality and reproduction. OA
threatens key natural resources and associated industries that are core to the Port's mission
and operations. Thus, addressing OA aligns with the Port's mission and Century Agenda goals.
All three Port operating divisions are represented in the initiatives described in this document.
This action plan summarizes current Port initiatives and efforts to combat OA and includes
general recommendations for further action. Each of the current initiatives is connected to at
least one of the six action goals of the OA Alliance, as listed below.
1. Reduce atmospheric emissions of CO2
2. Advance scientific understanding of climate-ocean impacts, locally and globally
3. Reduce local pollutions that exacerbate OA
4. Protect the environment and coastal communities
5. Expand public awareness
6. Sustain international support

Template revised January 10, 2019.
135

COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. __11c__ Page 2 of 2
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021

Initiative Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6
Century Agenda
Sustainable Aviation Fuels
Northwest Port Clean Air Strategy
Maritime Climate & Air Action Plan
Seattle Waterfront Clean Energy Strategic Plan
Sustainable Aviation Fuels
SEA Emissions Reduction Initiatives
Habitat Restoration Program Initiatives
Smith Cove Blue Carbon Pilot Project
Duwamish River Floating Wetlands Projects
Stormwater Initiatives
Exhaust Gas Cleaning Discharge Ban
Alternative Bankline Stabilization Program
Duwamish Valley Community Benefits Commitment
Duwamish River Green Jobs Program

ATTACHMENTS TO THIS BRIEFING
(1) Presentation slides
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS
None.

Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
136

Item No. 11c_supp
Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
Ocean Acidification Action Plan
A Commitment to the International Alliance to Combat Ocean Acidification

Commission Briefing
July 13, 2021

137

Overview
Provide an overview of the
Ocean Acidification (OA) Action
Plan and Case Study
Key elements in the action plan
Summary of Port-wide efforts
on OA
Recommendations
Next steps

138
2

About the Action Plan
Plan summarizes existing Port-wide
initiatives addressing OA
Concludes with voluntary
recommendations to advance OA
work at the Port
First Port to join the International
Alliance to Combat Ocean
Acidification (the Alliance)
Development of an action plan is a
requirement for Alliance
membership
139
3

OA Goals and Associated Port Initiatives

Reduce atmospheric emissions of CO2
Advance scientific understanding of
Century Agenda climate-ocean impacts, locally and
Northwest Ports Clean Air Strategy globally
Charting the Course to Zero: Port of Seattle's Maritime Climate and
Habitat Restoration Program Initiatives
Air Action Plan
Smith Cove Blue Carbon Pilot Project
Seattle Waterfront Clean Energy Strategic Plan
Duwamish River Floating Wetlands
Renewable Natural Gas Agreement
Projects
Use of electric ground support equipment
Options for greener transportation to and from SEA
Ground power for aircrafts
Sustainable aviation fuel (part of Sustainable Airport Master Plan)

140
4

OA Goals and Associated Port Initiatives

Reduce local pollution that Protect the environment and
exacerbates OA coastal communities
Stormwater initiatives Habitat restoration, such as
the Mitigation Bank,
Cruise Exhaust Gas Cleaning
Alternative Bankline
System Discharge Ban at
Stabilization Program
Berth
Salmon Safe Program
Floating wetlands

141
5

OA Goals and Associated Port Initiatives

Sustain international support
Expand public awareness
Commitment to join the OA
Duwamish Valley Community Alliance
Benefits Commitment
Presentations at OA Alliance
Green Jobs Program events
Northwest Ports Clean Air
Strategy

142
6

Existing Port Programs that Support OA Goals
Initiative Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 6
(Reduce (Advance (Reduce (Protect envr) (Public (Int'l support)
CO2) Science) local awareness)
pollutants)
Century Agenda
Northwest Port Clean Air Strategy
Maritime Climate and Air Action Plan
Seattle Waterfront Clean Energy Strategic Plan
Sustainable Aviation Fuels
SEA Emissions Reduction Initiatives
Habitat Restoration Program Initiatives
Smith Cove Blue Carbon Pilot Project
Duwamish River Floating Wetlands Projects
Stormwater Initiatives
Exhaust Gas Cleaning Discharge Ban
Alternative Bankline Stabilization Program
Duwamish Valley Community Benefits Commitment
Duwamish River Green Jobs Program

143
7

Voluntary Recommendations
1. Expand public awareness of OA & Port
actions
2. Integration of OA into relevant community
engagement efforts
3. Continue implementation of existing efforts
to combat OA
4. Continue exploring opportunities for
additional studies on carbon sequestration
and associated OA benefits
5. Initiate an Elliott Bay kelp restoration limiting
factors analysis
6. Incorporate OA metrics into future habitat
restoration monitoring plans

144
8

Next Steps
Submit the OA Action Plan and case study to the OA Alliance for
publication on their website
Public communications aligned with the July 2021 Smith Cove oyster
enhancement event and kelp expedition
Planning for implementation of recommendations
Pursue opportunities to amplify the work the Port and others are
undertaking on OA, for example with the Seattle Aquarium, statelevel
kelp initiatives
RETURN TO AGENDA

145
9

Limitations of Translatable Documents

PDF files are created with text and images are placed at an exact position on a page of a fixed size.

Web pages are fluid in nature, and the exact positioning of PDF text creates presentation problems.

PDFs that are full page graphics, or scanned pages are generally unable to be made accessible, In these cases, viewing whatever plain text could be extracted is the only alternative.